OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Wednesday, 10 July 1996
せるら琍戳
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
とだ穦某秨﹍
MEMBERS PRESENT
畊某
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
畊独Щ祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
腜某C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
㏄辩睶┥某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
琖皇某Q.C., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
ぶ城某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
畕地某
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
糂祇某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
︙┯ぱ某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
甃ㄎ瞶某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
糂胺祸某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
朝岸穨某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
眎ゅ某
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
糕蚌┚某
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
毒浪膀某
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
︙庇古某
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA, M.B.E.
独綺笽某M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
糂紌某
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
ッ笷某
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
產不某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
地某
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
璣某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
襖略ビ某
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., F.Eng., J.P.
独篿某M.B.E., F.Eng., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
独﹜グ某
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
法此某
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
法У地某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
独岸藉某
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
嘲糠某
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
バ玊某O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
朝挪狶某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
朝篴篱某
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
朝胞糭某
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO
綠產碔某
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
綠癡某
THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
綠模磁某
DR THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG
眎▆某
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
眎簙┚某
THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
讲蚌某J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
Χギ棚某
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
︙玊く某
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM
腑瓣辆某
THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
糂ホ某
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
糂簙煌某J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
霉不瓣某
THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG
霉璓某
THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
币某
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
辩模┚某
THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE
郭Θ某
THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
霉睲某
THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
馋莱某
THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
艷祸某
THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
肅繟某
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI
虫ヲ昂某
THE HONOURABLE TSANG KIN-SHING
纯胺Θ某
DR THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSE WING-LING
谅ッ闹某
THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
独窥ㄤ军某C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAWRENCE YUM SIN-LING
ヴ到圭某
MEMBERS ABSENT
畊某
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
瓣腳某O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE EDWARD LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
辩醇翬某O.B.E., J.P.
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
CHIEF SECRETARY
︽現Ы某ガ現纯疆舦ネO.B.E., J.P.
MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
癩現砛くネJ.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
︽現Ы某現皑碔到ネC.M.G., J.P.
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
笲块拷琖ネJ.P.
MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
徖ネ褐繬霉璼O.B.E., J.P.
MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
毙▅参膚ッキネJ.P.
MR KWONG KI-CHI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY
畐叭馣ㄤвネJ.P.
MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
坝玕﹙┥J.P.
MR LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
そ叭ㄆ叭狶坟ネJ.P.
MR KWONG HON-SANG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR WORKS
叭馣簙ネネJ.P.
MR CANICE MAK CHUN-FONG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
砏购吏挂現沉ネJ.P.
MRS RITA LAU NG WAI-LAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR BROADCASTING, CULTURE AND SPORT
ゅ眃約冀糂磃孽J.P.
MRS STELLA HUNG KWOK WAI-CHING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
現叭ふ尝磃睲J.P.
MRS CARRIE YAU TSANG KA-LAI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
玂ぷ纯產腞J.P.
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE
畊
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, SECRETARY GENERAL
毒更不ネ
MR LAW KAM-SANG, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
捌霉繟ネネ
MISS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
瞶ゅ地
MR RAY CHAN YUM-MOU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
瞶朝窜璟ネ
PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2):
Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Mental Health (Amendment) Regulation 1996 298/96
Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 1996 299/96
Prison (Amendment) Rules 1996 300/96
Air Pollution Control (Motor Vehicle Fuel)
(Amendment) Regulation 1996 310/96
Air Pollution Control (Vehicle Design Standards)
(Emission) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 311/96
Copyright (Application to Other Countries,
Territories or Areas) Regulation 312/96
Copyright (Designation of Qualifying Countries,
Territories or Areas) Regulation 313/96
Trade Marks Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule)
Order 1996 314/96
Layout-Design (Topography) of Integrated
Circuits (Designation of Qualifying Countries,
Territories or Areas) Regulation 315/96
Civil Aviation (Aircraft Noise) (Certification)
(Amendment) Regulation 1996 316/96
Medical Laboratory Technologists (Registration
and Disciplinary Procedure) (Amendment)
Regulation 1996 317/96
Occupational Therapists (Registration and
Disciplinary Procedure) (Amendment)
Regulation 1996 318/96
Radiographers (Registration and Disciplinary
Procedure) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 319/96
Optometrists (Registration and Disciplinary
Procedure) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 320/96
Quarantine and Prevention of Disease (Scale of
Charges) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 321/96
Marine Parks (Designation) Order 322/96
Marine Reserve (Designation) Order 323/96
Official Languages (Alteration of Text)
(Shipping and Port Control Ordinance)
Order 1996 324/96
Criminal Jurisdiction (Specification of Time)
Rules 325/96
Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1993
(Nos. 1 and 2) - Ending of the 1995-96 Session
of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong
Notice 1996 326/96
Statutes of the Chinese University of Hong Kong
(Amendment) (No. 2) Statute 1996 327/96
Medical Practitioners (Electoral Provisions)
(Procedure) Regulation (L.N. 227 of 1996)
(Commencement) Notice 1996 328/96
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Shipping and Port Control Ordinance) Order (C) 76/96
ゅン
ゅン沮穦某盽砏材14(2)兵砏﹚τタΑ矗ユ
兜ヘ
妮猭ㄒ 猭そ絪腹
1996弘胺眃璹砏ㄒ 298/96
1996坝夹璹砏玥 299/96
1996菏夯璹砏玥 300/96
1996γ琕恨═ó縐
璹砏ㄒ 310/96
1996γ琕恨ó进砞璸夹非
逼璹砏ㄒ 311/96
舦続ノ戈瓣產烩办┪よ
砏ㄒ 312/96
舦﹚戈瓣產烩办┪よ
砏ㄒ 313/96
1996坝夹兵ㄒ璹 314/96
栋Θ筿隔ガ瓜砞璸┹倦瓜戈瓣產
烩办┪よ﹚砏ㄒ 315/96
1996チ诀靖靡
璹砏ㄒ 316/96
1996洛叭て喷畍爹の矪だ祘
璹砏ㄒ 317/96
1996戮穨獀励畍爹の矪だ祘
璹砏ㄒ 318/96
1996甮м畍爹の矪だ祘
璹砏ㄒ 319/96
1996跌畍爹の矪だ祘
璹砏ㄒ 320/96
1996浪のňΜ禣
璹砏ㄒ 321/96
─そ堕﹚ 322/96
─玂臔跋﹚ 323/96
1996猭﹚粂ゅэゅセ
差岔の翠恨兵ㄒ 324/96
ㄆ猭恨烈舦砏玥 325/96
1917︓1993翠癡
材1の2腹1996翠ミ猭Ы1995︓
96穦戳沧挡そ 326/96
1996翠いゅ厩砏祘璹
材2腹砏祘 327/96
洛ネ匡羭砏﹚祘砏ㄒ
1996材227腹猭そ
1996ネら戳そ 328/96
猭﹚粂ゅいゅ痷絋セ
差岔の翠恨兵ㄒ (C) 76/96
Sessional Papers 1995-96
No. 106 Statement of Accounts for the Customs and
Excise Service Welfare Fund for the year 1995-96
No. 107 Lingnan College President's Report 1994-95 with
Lingnan College Financial Report
for the year ended 30 June 1995
No. 108 Hong Kong Trade Development Council
Annual Report 1995-1996
No. 109 Sir Robert Black Trust Fund
Annual Report for the year 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996
No. 110 Sir David Trench Fund for Recreation
Trustee's Report 1995-96
No. 111 Hong Kong Sports Development Board
Annual Report 1995-1996
No. 112 Report of the Public Accounts Committee on
Report No. 26 of the Director of Audit on the
Results of Value for Money Audits
(June 1996 - PAC Report No. 26)
No. 113 The Eighth Annual Report of the Commissioner for
Administrative Complaints Hong Kong June 1996
No. 114 Enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the
labour disputes involving imported workers under the
Special Labour Importation Scheme for the
Airport Core Programme Projects and related issues
No. 115 Hong Kong Airport Authority
Annual Report 1995-1996
き︓せ穦戳ず矗ユゅン
材106腹 翠闽褐膀
き︓せ眀ヘ挡衡
材107腹 拉玭厩皘︓き厨
硈篒︓きせるらゎ
拉玭厩皘癩叭厨
材108腹 翠禩祇甶Ы厨
1995-1996
材109腹 琭ミ膀里獺癠膀
きるら︓
せるら厨
材110腹 拦棚砶里眃贾膀
獺癠厨
1995-96
材111腹 翠眃砰祇甶Ы厨
1995-1996
材112腹 現┎眀ヘ〆穦碞计竝竝材26腹
颗秖Α计厨矗厨
せせる
現┎眀ヘ〆穦材26腹厨
材113腹 翠︽現ㄆ叭ビ禗盡
材Ω厨
せせる
材114腹 碞穝诀初み璸购
疭块骋璸购块
┮疉の骋戈Τ闽薄猵
のㄤ┮ま癬闽拜肈秈︽癟
材115腹 翠诀初恨瞶Ы
き︓せ厨
PRESIDENT: Honourable Members, Mr Frederick FUNG asked me to rule, at the last sitting whether it was in order for Mr Albert HO Chun-yan to strongly question the "港獺" of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, or rather the "港獺" of Legislative Council Members who are also members of the Association. I said I would make a ruling at this sitting as I needed to listen to the tapes and to reflect on the matter first.
I have checked a number of Chinese dictionaries, dictionaries of Chinese phrases, but have not been able to find the phrase "港獺" in those dictionaries. It is obvious that the expression, though now in circulation in Hong Kong, is not a well-established one. Some might insist that this two-character phrase means "integrity" whilst others believe that the first character stands for "integrity" and the second stands for "credibility". It appears that the phrase might mean different things to different ears.
I am now of the opinion that the expression, when loosely used, should be understood as "sincerity" in general.
That part of Mr Albert HO's speech which is the subject of Mr FUNG's point of order is:
"We, that is the people of the democratic camp, strongly question the sincerity of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, especially their sincerity in the support of a democracy."
I have given the matter much thought. Questioning other Members' sincerity in the support of democracy is, in my opinion, an expression of the opinion of that particular Member and can hardly be regarded as out of place in a debate in a political forum like this legislature. As Mr HO did not use offensive and insulting language in his speech, I rule that he did not breach Standing Orders.
Addresses
Report of the Public Accounts Committee on Report No. 26 of the Director of Audit on the Results of Value for Money Audits (June 1996 - PAC Report No. 26)
MR ERIC LI: Mr President, on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), I have the honour to table our Report No. 26 today.
The Director of Audit's Report No. 26 on the results of value for money audits completed between October 1995 and February 1996 was tabled in this Council on 24 April 1996. Following discussion, the PAC decided to carry out in-depth investigation into 11 subject matters raised therein. The Report tabled today contains the conclusions and recommendations that the PAC have reached on these matters.
Mr President, it is not my intention this afternoon to go over the conclusions and recommendations of our Committee on all the 11 items. However, it is appropriate that I highlight some of our main concerns and recommendations.
First, the Committee feel perturbed that the Administration does not seem to have learnt any lesson from the past. In the PAC Report No. 19 published in January 1993, we expressed concern, after hearing evidence on the audit report on "Reprovisioning of ferry piers in Kwun Tong", that the Administration had failed to include information on the expected length of the future usage of the piers in the submission to the Finance Committee seeking funding approval for the reprovisioning. At that time, the Committee urged the Administration to ensure that, in future, all important and relevant information should be included in the submissions to the Finance Committee when seeking funding approval. The Administration, in the Government Minutes tabled in this Council on 5 May 1993, stated that it would ensure that in future all such information would be included in submissions to the Finance Committee. However, our examination has revealed that the Administration has repeated the same failure when they sought funds on 11 June 1993 for the Northcote College of Education improvement project. The Finance Committee approved funding for the project at an estimated cost of $19 million, without knowing that it would only have a useful life span of two years! I would strongly remind those government officials responsible to take heed of their promises to the PAC so as to avoid the possibility of leading the Finance Committee into ill-informed decisions. The Committee considers it imperative that the Administration should provide the Finance Committee with sufficient and all relevant information, including the useful life span of a short-lived capital project, when seeking funding approval.
We are also concerned to find that the Housing Department's squatter control teams have maintained an excessive level of staff for a long period of time despite the marked decrease in squatting activities in recent years. In sharp contrast, the Department of Health has an acute shortage of Pharmacist Inspectors to monitor the sale and supply of controlled drugs, and the Customs and Excise Department also suffers from a similar problem of having insufficient Assistant Trade Control Officers, to clear the backlog of consignment check cases on textiles licences and notifications. The Committee therefore strongly urges the Administration to keep a vigilant eye on the staffing level in various departments in the light of material changes in the services required to ensure that scarce resources are best utilized in dealing with more prevailing social issues.
A further issue raised in the Director of Audit's Report relates to three capital works projects at the Kai Tak Airport which did not follow the normal funding arrangements for government capital works projects. These projects bypassed the government mechanism for financial control and proper accounting and circumvented the necessary financial control by this Council through the Finance Committee. We appreciate that, according to the Public Finance Ordinance, the Financial Secretary has the power to decide what constitutes a public works project and that, in very exceptional circumstances, Policy Branches and departments may exercise flexibility in fast-tracking the normal procedures for well-defined, urgent and special capital works projects. We nevertheless consider it imperative that the approval of the Finance Committee must still be obtained before the commencement of the works. This is proper in order to uphold the legislative control of public finance and public accountability.
We would also like to express our observation that there is room for improvement in the Government's system in awarding public works project contracts, particularly to those tenderers with significant adverse performance records. We have evidence that delays in the completion of projects have been caused and additional costs incurred because of the tenderers' unsatisfactory performance. We also consider that contracts which stipulate restrictions of works or other requirements should be fully justified in order to avoid incurring unnecessary expenditure. We note from the Director of Audit's Report that in one of the reported contracts placing restrictions of work during the swimming season, whereby the contractor had to concentrate work in certain areas and at certain times of the year, created an uneven workload and added the cost by 15% to 20% (roughly between $6.9 million and $9.2 million). However, value for money was not achieved because the restrictions had not been strictly enforced, and the contractor had, in many instances, been allowed to work during the restricted periods. The Committee are of the view that both the Central Tender Board and the relevant departments have an important role to play in screening out contract terms with unnecessary costly restrictions.
The Committee have worked very hard in the last two and a half months with the full co-operation of the Administration. In particular, I owe my thanks to all members of the PAC for their contributions and the Director of Audit for the assistance that he and his staff have rendered to the Committee. I also wish to express my sincere appreciation of the dedicated support given by the Secretariat staff, and of the wise counsel from our always dependable Legal Advisers.
Thank you, Mr President.
Enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the labour disputes involving imported workers under the Special Labour Importation Scheme for the Airport Core Programme Projects and related issues
糂ホ某璓勉ㄆ叭〆穦る∕﹚碞る︓る丁穝诀初祘絃祇ネ硈﹃疉の块骋骋戈の闽拜肈秈︽癟τミ猭Ыョきるら硄筁∕某甭舦ㄆ叭〆穦秈︽╯︽ㄏミ猭Ы舦の疭舦兵ㄒ舦肚靡のゅン癟瞷ЧΘさぱиㄆ叭〆穦矗ユΤ闽癟厨
ㄆ叭〆穦秈︽硂癟璶皐癸疭块骋璸购块骋筁祘秈︽╯┮癟戳丁и-
肚ぃよ㎝ぃà矗ㄑΤ闽戈靡ㄏㄆ叭〆穦镑芠篈秆旧璓2 500骋把籔絵︽笆㎝碞贺拜肈и-
刚瓜тㄇ秆∕よ猭
ㄆ叭〆穦さる︓せる戳丁肚34︗靡ㄆ叭〆穦靡硂ㄇ靡珹﹛よ诀初恨瞶Ыの纯把籔穝诀初み璸购祘︗羆┯坝のΩ┯坝┷竨筁祘い踞讽"い丁"à︹恨瞶狝叭そのㄓ︑瓣㎝い瓣块骋
ㄆ叭〆穦谋眔現┎崩︽疭块骋璸购ヘ夹璶絋玂穝诀初祘眔非丹Τ闽よゼ荷ㄏセ眔纔莉眔Τ闽祘盿ㄓ碞穨诀穦パΤ闽璸购龟琁よ灿竊伐ぇ肞床砏恨诀ョぃЧ到璓疭块骋璸购称垒ノㄆ叭〆穦谋眔綺佩琌現┎ㄤ龟Ν诡谋︽ずΤぃ讽暗猭玱秸矪瞶挡狦旧璓拜肈ら痲腨
ㄆ叭〆穦粄旧璓瞷ぃ讽暗猭璶琌砏恨诀颗現┎场蹦ノ"が"も猭荡场だビ叫皌肂┯坝常眔-
璶―场皌肂パ┯坝Τ秖皌肂-
獽Τ硚畖稧基よΑ┷竨骋τ礚斗沟ノセ
ㄆ叭〆穦厨い╰皐癸э到糵у诀某珹
盢穝诀初祘参膚竝籔у诀篶だ秨眏赣竝拜砫┦ㄏ俱糵у筁祘腨
浪癚瞷現┎场ぇ丁闽玒﹚毙▅参膚のチ挂ㄆ叭矪矪碞菏恨の龟琁疭块骋璸购戮砫の
盢у皌肂舦ユ倒︽現场琵毙▅参膚ぃ疉の矪瞶皌肂ら盽磅︽菏恨璸购玂芠篈
ㄆ叭〆穦某ご礛踞み現┎场笷荷ΝΘ穝诀初ヘ夹ぃゲ璶块骋τ┛菠痲ㄆ叭〆穦粄莱Θミ縒ミ〆穦碞块骋現郸の块骋璸购磅︽┮疉のㄆ﹜Τ闽∕郸矗ㄑ種ǎ縒ミ〆穦ョ斗∕﹚琌莱赣膥尿块骋の安璝惠璶块ョ斗絋玂セ痲ぃ穦τ穕甡
ㄆ龟靡ㄓ常Τ讽セ穝诀初笷羆骋笆Θ硂陪ボΤ闽よ秨﹍獽筁だ蔼︳┷竨セ眖ㄆ穝诀初み璸购祘螟のゼ磝搐祘秈龟悔薄猵ㄆ叭〆穦某讽Ыぃ莱璹ぃ砞丁皌肂τ莱把σよ種ǎ珹祘龟悔骋笆惠―璹–﹗┪糤┪搭–せる秈︽浪癚
ㄆ叭〆穦粄ョ莱荡︽穨ぃ讽暗猭ㄤい珹"い丁"┯坝矗ㄑ纔玴兵ン痴ㄤ┷竨骋眖τ骋ō眔窥矪硂块骋ぃ眔莱眔羱筍ョ紇臫セ碞穨诀穦
硂よㄆ叭〆穦某眏癸ㄓ翠狝叭兵ン粄醚璶―骋矗ユ靡ㄤ竒喷のм靡ゅン浪癚瞷猭ㄒ癸"い丁"笆恨眏骋服诡ǖ诡ノ㎝眏浪北ㄆ叭〆穦ョ粄現┎莱眖硉σ納ΜΘセビ叫皌肂┯坝Μ︽現禣ノ
и-
辨現┎糤籔块骋瓣產肪硄璹秆∕拜肈惫琁眏菏恨瞶笆㎝Μ禣絋玂┯坝ぃ虑疭块骋璸购块稧基骋紇臫セ碞穨诀穦
羆珹τēㄆ叭〆穦癸現┎讽Ы伐ア辨現┎纯┯空パ块骋干セ翠骋惠―穦倒ぉセ纔碞穨诀穦現┎玱⊿Τ荷糹︽硂┯空癟戳丁ㄆ叭〆穦祇瞷ぃ讽︽τ赣ㄇぃ讽︽現┎讽Ы獶ぃ薄ㄆ叭〆穦癸稰綺佩辨現┎硂Ω毙癡荷е浪癚俱璸购現郸よ皐㎝磅︽よ猭蹦ㄆ叭〆穦厨┮某ㄆ叭〆穦盢穦碞兜某膥尿蛤秈
и疭谅矪ㄆぷㄤ琌ゅ地﹋の猭臮拜の┮Τㄆ叭〆穦秈︽さΩ癟
谅谅畊ネ
Hong Kong Airport Authority Annual Report 1995-1996
癩現璓勉畊ネ沮诀初恨瞶Ы兵ㄒ材325兵砏﹚и瞷盢诀初恨瞶Ы"诀恨Ы"篒︓せるらゎ筁厨の眀ヘ厨㎝计畍厨矗ユセЫ凝硂琌诀恨Ы厨讽いョ更瓃羬诀初恨瞶Ыきるら舱诀恨Ы玡
︗某讽眖厨い眔眡诀恨Ыず眔秈甶穝诀初砍祘タ琂﹚璸购㎝箇衡秈︽诀初恨瞶Ы兵ㄒきるらネ诀恨Ы竒籔現┎帽璹癩叭や某㎝уゅン抖ЧΘ兜羭杜逼肂笷82货翠じ赣Ыу兜璶盡犁舦珹砯笲诀刊㎝诀縐ㄑ莱狝叭单诀蝴狝叭の氨诀￤诀狝叭盡犁舦ョе盢у镑眔硂ㄇ禬Θ碞龟Τ苦诀恨Ы赋ㄆ穦砰Θ恨瞶顶糷の︗ぃ居眡璾и略虑诀穦-
璓谅
讽礛癸セЫ某供や穝诀初璸购иョ瞏谅種︗某程硄筁挤蹿矗ㄑ┮惠現┎砞琁や穿穝诀初材兵禲笵笲
и硂疭稰谅诀恨Ы畊独玂猋ネ独ネきるら羬诀初恨瞶Ы舱诀恨Ы钡ヴ诀恨Ы畊戮踞ヴ诀恨Ы畊琌兜︓羮筪㎝ヴ笵环и略虑诀穦稰谅独玂猋ネ荷持戮疭稰谅翠痲崩笆ㄏ穝诀初材兵禲笵眔Νら币ノ
讽材兵禲笵辅Θ币ノ穝诀初穦秈˙綿㏕翠璶禩磕狝叭の笴いみ禫︗
甶辨ゼㄓи瞏獺诀恨Ы﹚穦钡糉尿承ㄎ罿í濸à穝诀初﹚盢Θ翠兜瞶稱щ戈ョ盢琌翠ま篴砞
谅谅畊ネ
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT: As we are set for a long sitting today, I will keep question time to around one hour. Members should keep their supplementary questions short, avoiding long, argumentative and repetitious preambles and multi-barrelled questions.
Visa-free Stay for Chinese Visitors
1. 法У地某拜畊ネい地チ㎝瓣"い瓣"臔酚ㄓ翠筁挂计ヘ粿ど磃のセ翠笴穨Τǎの現┎セЫ琌砛赣单い瓣臔酚Τぱ帽靡挂戳ず玡┕緿のΩ秈セ翠の讽-
眖緿Ω秈セ翠穦莉眔禬筁ㄓぱ肂帽靡挂戳璝礛Τヴ︙惫琁よ躬纘笴穨よ玥磷ノよ猭ㄓぃゲ璶┑翠氨痙丁
玂氮畊ネパるら癬い地チ㎝瓣"い瓣"瓣チ狦玡┕瓣竒翠筁挂莉ōだセ翠帽靡硆痙程ぱ-
ゲ斗ΤΤ臔酚滦龟诀布のヘΤ帽靡硂兜逼ヘ琌よ獽-
セ翠锣诀玡┕┪瓣玡翠祏既氨痙ぃ筁い瓣瓣チ眖瓣ず玡┕緿玱ぃㄏノ硂兜筁挂惫琁-
眖い瓣钡玡┕緿
い瓣瓣チセ翠筁挂莱赣酚﹚︽祘ぃ莱抖隔玡┕ㄤよ珹緿ずぃ筁挂矪礚舦ゎ┪筁挂玡┕﹚程ヘよ讽-
抖隔玡┕ㄤよ翠-
斗倒ぉ挂矪骸種秆睦弧-
絋Τぃㄌ酚﹚︽祘瞶パ
碞薄猵τ﹚硂ㄇ翠硆痙︓玡莉眔ぱ硆痙戳挡ゎ狦-
Ωノよ猭э︽祘Ω玡┕緿礛翠讽Ы盢穦腨糵琩よ璝筁挂⊿Τだ瞶パ獽ぃ挂
ヘ玡и-
⊿Τ璸购糴瓃帽靡挂現郸琵い瓣瓣チ竒翠玡┕緿狦糴現郸и-
┤穦綝垒ノㄏ恨い瓣瓣チㄓ翠瞷︽璸购癬ぃノ
法У地某拜畊ネㄓ︑い瓣竒セ翠笴材︗и獺-
倒翠秈眀禬筁100货じ籔钡1 000窾ㄤ妓-
ㄓ翠笴计ぱ┕緿ㄢぱ礛翠琌ンタ盽ㄆ叫拜玂穦σ納ぃ璶琌碞薄猵τ﹚τ琌璶-
痷隔筁翠τゼノЧ-
ぱ帽靡戳獽琵-
瞒秨翠琿祏既丁翠膥尿ㄉノ緇帽靡硆痙㎡
玂氮畊ネ狦硂ㄇ瞒秨翠┕緿琌ぱぱτぃ禬筁ぱ硆痙戳杠и-
常穦蹦耕糴肞篈и-
泊翴琌﹚璶糵琩-
琌痷琌筁挂┦借程沧琌瓣ヘ
襖略ビ某拜畊ネㄤ龟玂璶氮滦材琿呸胯琌デ婚狦弧-
眖い瓣钡玡┕緿ㄤ龟-
眖い瓣钡玡┕瓣のぃ﹚璶ㄏノ翠诀杮┮阀├Τ呸胯ベぃ筁и借高琌玂璶氮滦程琿矗狦硂妓暗碞穦綝垒ノ狦-
ê琿戳丁ず琌┕緿ㄢぱ礛翠τ倒ぉ戈靡-
穦い瓣玥玂Τ或種竡璶ぃぉу┪璶腨糵琩ê或腨畊ネи拜琌玂種竡拜肈
玂氮畊ネи-
Τ砫ヴ恨い瓣瓣チㄓ翠秈ㄆ﹜и-
ぃ稱び垒ノ硂-
ノ硂璸购翠孩痙┮璶龟︽┮弧惫琁
PRESIDENT: Mr James TO, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
襖略ビ某拜琌畊ネи稱拜︙硂妓碞穦孩痙叫拜冈灿秆睦硂玂種竡
玂氮и氮法У地某借高矗現郸琌砛硂ㄇ竒翠Τぃ禬筁ぱ氨痙硂妓現郸玡矗狦и-
谋眔Τэ跑︽祘玡┕緿ぱぱ礛翠τぃ禬筁êぱ硆痙戳и-
穦蹦耕糴肞篈硂琌и-
矪瞶よ猭よи-
璶絋玂ぃ穦Τびノ硂贺硚畖-
ぃ琌痷稱玡┕ㄤ瓣產τぃ筁琌竒翠┕緿и-
ぃ辨Τ硂贺垒ノ薄猵瞷
糕蚌┚某拜畊ネ玂璶氮滦眏秸狦Τㄤヘ碞ぱ硆痙戳ず玡┕緿挂矪Τ糵琩舦и-
璶―現┎σ納盢ㄤ現郸て狦镑靡龟-
穦玡┕ㄤ瓣產τぃ筁ぱ硆痙戳ず┕緿ㄢぱ︓ぱぃ穦禬筁ぱê碞ぃノ竒筁挂矪уτ琌︑舦眖τ玃秈翠笴穨
玂氮畊ネи-
贾種碞瞷︽現郸浪癚狦Τ瞶パ粄斗現郸て礚斗硋糵уи-
讽礛穦σ納ヘ玡ㄓ弧и-
谋眔Τㄇ琌垒ノ硂瘤礛ぃ琌и矗ㄑ参璸计倒某把σせる︓せる戳丁и-
祇谋Τ39垒ノ硂τぃ砛-
挂
法У地某拜畊ネ39–200窾い琌计ヘ現┎浪癚現郸σ納癸ㄤ瓣產Τ戳ㄓ翠硆痙笴┪眖ㄆ坝穨笆硂ㄇ┕緿笴ㄢぱ現┎穦常у-
膥尿ㄉΤΤ硆痙戳临琌璶у礛い瓣そチ莱莉眔单癸
玂氮и-
浪癚現郸笲穦ㄖσ納┮ΤΤ闽戈珹法某┮矗種ǎ
PRESIDENT: Are there two million Chinese nationals transiting Hong Kong for foreign destinations per annum? Was that a point made by you, Mr YOUNG?
MR HOWARD YOUNG: No, Mr President, I did not say there were two million transiting. There are two million visiting and transiting.
襖略ビ某拜Τ翠カチ玡┕い穦谋眔竒緿玡┕耕钡パい瓣玡┕е倍妓狦綟瞏い瓣そチ稱玡┕緿-
穦粄竒翠┕緿硂兜現郸琌莱赣俱砰σ納碭矪よチよ獽ヘ玡い瓣⊿Τ挂︑パ狦そチ镑挂ㄤ龟竒筁﹚腨糵уΤ39﹙垒ノ┮現┎浪癚硂兜現郸
玂氮и竒弧и-
浪癚現郸畊ネи某矗ㄑ计㎡法У地某┮矗ㄑ计ぃタ絋ê琌Τ闽筁挂计ヘき沮и-
┮眔计硂摸筁挂计ヘ琌33窾
Five-year Plan for Arts Development
2. MRS ELIZABETH WONG asked: Mr President, will the Government inform this Council whether it has any knowledge of the timing for the implementation of the five-year plan for arts development drawn up by the Arts Development Council?
SECRETARY FOR BROADCASTING, CULTURE AND SPORT: Mr President, the Hong Kong Arts Development Council's Five-Year Strategic Plan, which sets out the blueprint for the development of the arts in Hong Kong for the period from the year 1996-97 to the year 2000-01, was drawn up in December last year.
In the Strategic Plan, the Council has identified 74 key tasks under four broad goals, namely, access, excellence, resources and advocacy. In order to carry out these tasks, the Council has proposed 292 action steps to be implemented during the five-year period ending 2001.
The Council began to implement the Five-Year Strategic Plan on 1 April 1996. To date, the Council has commenced implementing 59 of the 74 key tasks, and 157 of the 292 action steps.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, could the Secretary elucidate or elaborate on which 59 of the 74 key tasks and which 157 of the 292 action steps have in fact commenced implementation? If not today, I would be very happy to wait for a written reply.
SECRETARY FOR BROADCASTING CULTURE AND SPORT: Mr President, I would be very happy to provide Mrs WONG with the details that she has asked for in this question, in writing. (Annex I)
綠產碔某拜畊ネ璶辅龟き璸购現┎Τì镑挤蹿琌璶璶氮滦い矗Τ135兜︽笆よごゼ秨﹍龟琁τせ︓現┎уきせκ窾じ倒美砃祇甶Ы硂计肂ㄓ弧獺禯瞒美砃祇甶Ыせ︓癩現箇衡窾环叫拜現┎硂计肂戈方︙辅龟硂き璸购㎡-
Τ獺みのㄣ砰氮硂璸购丁逼
ゅ眃約冀氮畊ネ沮и-
戈美砃祇甶Ы某せ︓や1.4货じ硂掸蹿兜计パ現┎セ竒盽戈方挤蹿の玡挤倒美砃祇甶Ы贺膀矗ㄑи-
谋眔璸购崩︽丁ぃ莱紇臫︓璸购ㄤ计某и-
瞷タ荷程碝―┮惠戈方ㄏ美砃祇甶Ы崩︽ㄤき郸菠璸购
Emergency Medical Treatment for Non-Hong Kong Residents
3. 眎簙┚某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 瞷獶セ翠﹡チセ翠挂ず琌ㄏノ痝狝叭璝礛︙赣单ΜΤ闽禣ノ讽Τろ煤禣ノ︙赣单發癚の發癚挡狦︙の
(b) Τ㎝ヴ︙瓣產の跋帽璹某ㄢ﹡チ癸よ挂ずㄉ禣痝狝叭璝礛冈薄︙璝︙
徖ネ褐氮畊ネセ翠洛励現郸琌ぃ莱Τ竒蕾τ眔ぃ続讽洛励狝叭砮过硂兜現郸洛皘恨瞶Ы㎝徖ネ竝常カチ禣矗ㄑ痝狝叭Τ丁玡琌干洛皘そ犁洛皘膀菌ㄏノㄤ痝狝叭セ翠﹡チ禜紉ΑΜ34じτㄓ翠玥斗煤175じ讽Ыタ蹦︽笆参┮Τそ犁洛皘Μ禣
ヘ玡籔翠帽璹洛励狝叭が磃某Τ璣瓣硂兜某パ璣瓣籔翠現┎タΑ龟るら癬龟琁沮и-
┮硂兜逼琌璣瓣そガ兜穝猭ㄒτ硂兜穝猭ㄒ砏﹚瓣徖ネ狝叭矪莉眔洛励の狝叭砐璣常斗煤穝Μ禣
沮瞷Τ某セ翠﹡チАΤ戈禣ㄏノ璣瓣瓣徖ネ狝叭珹痝狝叭妓璣瓣そチセ翠﹡チㄉΤ戈瞯セ翠莉眔絛瞅約獂洛励狝叭
"翠﹡チ"ヴ︙硄盽﹡翠Τパ翠チ挂ㄆ叭矪帽祇Τōだ靡臔酚┪ōだ靡┪ㄤ皌案┪18烦ㄑ緄"璣瓣そチ"ヴ︙硄盽﹡璣瓣Τ瓣徖ネ狝叭洛励忘
眎簙┚某拜畊ネ瞷–ぱ常Τ秖翠﹡チ秈い瓣挂ず筁Τぃぶ厨笵琌闽翠﹡チ嘲碝―洛励狝叭┮笿ぃ磖еㄆ薄叫拜徖ネ褐埃璶―翠カチ潦禦玂繧穦籔い瓣現┎絉坝辨笷Θ摸璣瓣㎝翠瞷洛励徖ネ某
徖ネ褐氮畊ネи-
ヘ玡⊿Τゴ衡硂妓暗狦璶笷Θが磃某ゲ斗σ納ㄢよ洛励砰╰璶Τ﹚祘キのㄢ矗ㄑ狝叭璶笷﹚非斗絋玂и-
﹡チêよ眔続讽酚臮パи-
ぃ絋玂Τ硂ㄇ兵ン┮и-
ぃゴ衡笆ㄤ瓣產矗が磃某
郭Θ某拜畊ネ現┎璶氮滦材琿矗瞷洛励現郸琌ぃ莱Τ竒蕾τ眔ぃ続讽洛励狝叭硂珹カチ禣矗ㄑ痝狝叭叫拜硂┮弧"Τ"の"カチ"琌埃翠﹡チ珹┮Τ獶翠﹡チㄒパい瓣嘲ㄓ翠砐洛皘恨瞶Ы烈┮Τ洛皘現郸常ぃ穦┶荡痝璶―笻は硂兜現郸讽Ы穦﹚ぉ發╯㎡
PRESIDENT: I take the two to be two parts of one single supplementary.
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ翠瞷暗猭琌┮Τ礚阶琌翠﹡チ┪翠笴Τ痜惠璶そミ洛皘痝―禘и-
琌ぃ穦Μ禣琌禣矗ㄑ狝叭
眎簙┚某拜畊ネи稱矗干借高叫拜籔璣瓣現┎帽璹洛励某穦舦耴い瓣ア
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ叫某狡借高
PRESIDENT: The reciprocal agreement with the United Kingdom, will it become invalid in July 1997?
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ硂兜某琌パ翠籔璣瓣帽竝и獺ぃ穦ヴ︙丁τア
Remuneration and Benefits of Policy Secretaries
4. 糂紌某拜畊ネ沮厨笵Τ膚称〆穦Θ某碩糤翠疭︽現跋現┎璶﹛羱筍τ瞷翠現┎羱材翴﹛畒︗﹛る羱琌157,250じㄤ龟硂计肂竒э跑琍戳きセЫ癩叭〆穦竒硄筁羱筍秸俱瞷琌169,350じ
PRESIDENT: Miss Emily LAU, you are not supposed to add words to the original question.
糂紌某拜谅畊ネи稱矗ㄑㄇ穝戈
PRESIDENT: Miss LAU, or else the Secretary cannot really answer it. You can bring in the words when you ask your supplementary.
糂紌某拜硈ㄤ褐赣单﹛–る羱筍钡30窾じΤǎの現┎セЫ
(a) 络﹚﹛羱筍褐非玥︙
(b) ﹛羱筍笿蛤╬诀篶戮璝ゑ︙
(c) セ蔼そ叭穦Τ璶―э到﹛羱筍褐の
(d) Τ璸购浪癚﹛羱筍の狝叭兵ン
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネи瞷硋翴氮滦糂某借高
(a) 闽そ叭羱筍現郸㎝ヘ夹琌璶矗ㄑì镑だ秖厨筍絋玂ま痙㎝縀纘続カチ矗ㄑち龟㎝蔼瞯狝叭現┎┮矗ㄑ羱筍莱讽そ叭㎝カチ蛮よ常粄琌そキ瞶硂玥玡矗络﹚そ叭羱筍ㄤい璶σ納琌莱籔╬犁诀篶羱筍玂璓璝
闽羱筍拜肈現┎瘤礛觅璶蝶﹚そ叭羱筍琌瞶и-
莱把σ╬犁诀篶戮璝沟羱筍褐礛τパ狝叭┦借Τぃи-
ぃ箇戳蔼糷羱筍褐ゲ﹚籔琘ㄇ╬犁诀篶蔼糷︽現霍
埃硂贺籔癸ゑ闽玒и-
ョ斗σ納羱のㄤ戮砫の-
戮砫┮络﹚羱筍琌弧и-
璶臮のず场癸ゑ闽玒и-
璹Τㄇだрぃ场㎝场だ摸硂ㄇだ更瓃羱盽穦材Ω厨瞷繦セ氮滦ゅセΤ闽戈ㄑ某把綷赣厨ョ某や羱翴莱蔼ゅ戮场や羱翴玡戮砫絛瞅陪耕約溜砫ヴョ耕ヘ玡ゅ戮场程蔼や羱翴琌材翴τや羱翴材翴
(b) и-
ヘ玡礚笆穓栋程穝戈计沮ㄓゑ耕籔╬犁诀篶蔼糷︽現羱筍褐и-
砮暗猭琌羱筍穦蛤繦蔼糷羱–秸俱τ瞶莱﹚戳浪癚╯羱筍琌环环辅╬犁诀篶羱キи-
Ω琌浪癚
(c) セ蔼そ叭穦礚矗硂妓璶―
(d) ヘ玡顶琿и-
⊿Τ璸购浪癚羱筍褐
ン
だ
璶
A. Τ闽场癸翠璶┦赣场┮∕郸の耞醇籔癸翠竒蕾┪穦┮硑Θ紇臫莱σ納ぇ
B. 癩現よ紇臫┪癸現┎そ┊┮疉の拜肈ぃ璶σ納┮恨瞶そ┊计肂璶╯Τ恨瞶癩現┮穦綝笿螟の场∕郸耞秸俱Μやよ笲ノ舦
C. ∕郸㎝耞羮螟┮惠郸购㎝玡陇ノ戈㎝まの拜肈┦借单А莱ぉσ納
D. 丁糴候疭琌候薄猵∕郸┪だ猂墩
E. 恨獀Τ闽场螟赣场砏家羉狡祘瞶︗竚戮砫贺摸の┦借单А莱ぉσ納
F. ┮惠現獀〓ユ赣场翠┪磅︽現獀穦のそ闽玒よ戮砫莱σ納ぇ
G. ┮惠烩旧疭琌烩旧戮縀纘㎝ㄆ恨瞶よの硂ㄇ癸赣场瞯璶┦
H. 场現┎场カ初基ㄤ戈菌竒喷の癸ㄤ狝叭惠―А莱ぉσ納
I. 场砫ヴ硂琌埃踞讽赣场戮砫砫ヴ
J. 籔ㄤ场が闽玒莱σ納琌現┎璶―Τ闽场ㄤ场矗ㄑ種ǎ狝叭絛瞅
糂紌某拜畊ネ癸ぃ癬иㄇ弧杠ぃ筁и璶弧睲贰瞷﹛羱筍琌169,350じ禬157,250じ会
現┎氮滦┣よ弧蛤╬犁诀篶璓璝よ弧ゼゲ惠璶霍粄弧猭璶―獽匡拒ê贺弧猭畊ネи稱拜Τ闽﹚戳浪癚ㄆㄤ龟そ叭ㄆ叭┮弧э氮滦ゅセ氮滦ゅセ弧"穦"﹚戳浪癚倒禜琌"穦"τΩ琌秈︽そ叭ㄆ叭弧"瞶莱"ㄤ龟и稱拜琌穦﹚戳浪癚璶氮滦ソ琿弧⊿Τ璸购秈︽浪癚狦Ω浪癚秈︽ê或"瞶莱"Ω穦︙秈︽㎡琌﹚戳秈︽㎡狦琌杠ぶ秈︽Ω㎡程璶琌狦╬犁诀篶羱筍耕и-
坝ㄆ穦弧カ笵ぃ璶搭羱筍現┎穦搭羱筍
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネ狦и-
尺舧ê妓獽匡ê妓獺и-
璶程ぶ羱40%
ぃ岿и-
琌弧"瞶莱"浪癚玥莱琌硂妓讽礛龟悔莱︙秈︽浪癚и-
斗跌龟悔吏挂㎝薄猵τ﹚ヘ玡薄猵и-
耞琌既и-
ゼΤ璸购秈︽浪癚
︓糂某材兜借高Τ闽狦╬犁诀篶羱筍耕薄猵穦妓硂琌瞶阶┦安砞┦拜肈瞷龟ㄓ弧и-
筁–Ω浪癚┮眔挡狦常琌и-
环环╬犁诀篶郴羆掉羱筍┮硂拜肈龟悔琌ぃ
バ玊某拜現┎弧蔼そ叭羱筍环耕╬犁诀篶иぃ粄璶氮滦材き琿矗纯秈︽浪癚叫拜琌珹羱筍㎝瑉禟╬犁诀篶穦Τ贺耕摧г薄猵碞琌瞷ぃ穦砆秨埃そ叭Ξ⊿Τ硂贺ㄆ祇ネ琌︑︽勉戮叫拜硂贺"ぃ穦砆秨埃"笿ぶ窥㎡浪癚ずΤσ納硂薄猵
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネΤ闽戮穨玂毁拜肈ㄆ龟羱盽穦厨絋粄硂琌そ叭の╬犁诀篶┦借Τㄤ碞┮秈︽浪癚τē讽陪ボパき︓硂戳丁そ叭羱筍秸俱耕单╬犁诀篶羱筍秸俱糧钡30%畉28.5%瘤礛戳羱盽穦某﹚祘秸俱硂秸俱Τ4.3κだ翴环环蛤ぃ讽畉禯瞷龟ㄓ弧礚種и-
瞷畉禯莱琌耎τ獶罽
︓某拜の"秨埃"ぶ窥セㄓи竒氮ぃ筁игぃ︘畊ネ狦甧砛и杠и-
そ叭Τㄤи-
璶璹現郸恨瞶戈方癸そ渤把籔ミ猭Ы–ぱ常璶玦驹よ渤の磝羘и獺荡ぶΤ╬犁诀篶羆掉斗钩и-
硂妓
谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: As a member of the Senior Non-Expatrial Officers Association, or a member of the administrative service, or as the Government's representative? Or all three rolled into one? (Laughter)
糂紌某拜畊ネぃ種и獺ぃ莱硂妓祇拜莱パи-
拜璶拜獽莱Гㄓ渤
и獺狶坟ネ琌拦そ叭ㄆ叭碪ㄓ氮借高矗そ叭羱筍耕╬犁诀篶30%叫拜êㄇ琌或诀篶㎡琌︙盢êㄇ诀篶蛤﹛ゑ耕㎡ê現郸砫ヴ叫拜穦摸そ籔現郸ゑ谋眔и-
莲ぶ倒-
30%
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネи⊿Τノ"莲"迭讽羱盽穦秸琩タи-
秈︽秸琩匡翠ㄇ▆のΤ砏家沟現┎羱筍秸俱現郸琌硂ㄇ▆のΤ砏家沟羱筍秸俱ㄓゑ耕讽礛иぃ獽弧硂ㄇそ硂ㄇそ翠常琌妮"屡膚"そ
バ玊某拜畊ネ坝羆掉狦デ岿そ寥ぶ窥穦耕ぶ砆秨埃讽礛そ叭ㄆ叭弧-
璶"玦驹よ"и-
ミ猭Ы纯ǎ-
"籏"τ現郸ずΤㄤ︗﹛ぉΤê或ê或莱搭ぶ羱㎡
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネ羭ㄒㄓ弧и瞷矪"玦驹"ミ猭Ы吏挂Τи硂獽⊿Τии琌弧и钩丁诀篶羆掉そ叭ㄆ叭絛氓ぇㄆêㄇ砫ヴ碞穦痙и齘パи璽砫獺砫ヴ祘よㄓ弧硂莱ぃ畓ヴ︙丁诀篶羆掉
糂紌某拜畊ネ叫拜現┎Τ蛤ㄤ現┎ゑи竒盽弧-
羱筍琌程蔼ぇ-
Τㄤ現┎倒ぉ程蔼そ叭羱筍戈琌耕и-
そ叭ㄆ叭氮畊ネи-
⊿Τ沽刚硂妓暗蛤ㄤ現┎ゑ琌ぃ讽–跋–現┎常莱把σ-
︑セ竒蕾祇甶㎝や羱筍倒单薄猵┮莱跋┪瓣產ず场ゑ耕琌程讽и獺畒︗某常ぃ穦沽刚蛤ㄤ跋ミ猭Ы某ゑ
Japanese Apology for War Atrocities
5. 纯胺Θ某拜畊ネ挪璣瓣癸セ翠恨獀舦盢せるら挡現┎セЫ璣瓣現┎穦赣ら玡璶―らセタΑ碞材Ω驹戳丁ら瓁セ翠忌︽タΑセ翠カチ笵簆竭纕
玂氮畊ネи-
Ч瞶秆カチの某癸ㄆ稰и-
笵らセ玡ヴ碔カ纯кら秤├ら祇ēらセら驹︽笵簆闽竭纕拜肈и-
靡龟箂るのるセЫ矗ㄆ竒矗ユ璣瓣現┎╯璣瓣現┎ョ莱ボ沮きらセ每カ籔璣瓣㎝ㄤ幅瓣帽璹㎝キ兵らセ現┎Ч糹︽-
竭纕砫ヴ璣瓣現┎ぃらセ現┎矗ㄆ
纯胺Θ某拜畊ネ讽璣瓣現┎纯翠カチ钡ら瓁щ璣瓣現┎癸璶―らセ碞驹忌︽笵簆竭纕琌璽Τ笵竡砫ヴ㎡穦暗㎡ㄈび跋ㄤよ滇猾㎝玭龙莉眔竭纕或и-
翠眔ぃ㎡璣瓣Τ荷砫ヴ㎡Τ荷竡叭㎡琌ゲ斗荷竡叭㎡安璣瓣さぃ發╯璣瓣篗砫ヴ街璽㎡讽箂る琌璣瓣参獀翠ê砫ヴ街發╯㎡翠カチ┕發╯㎡
PRESIDENT: It is a rhetorical question.
ヴ到圭某拜畊ネセ翠Τ馒粁厨笵さる羛瓣籔らセΤ﹚狦らセ稱Θ盽ヴ瞶ㄆ瓣璶矪瞶ㄇ瓣產ご礛癸ウ璶―竭纕叫拜翠現┎穦ノ诀穦翠莉眔莱Τ竭纕
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, as I have mentioned, the Peace Treaty of San Francisco which also applied to Hong Kong, made provisions for the Allied States to dispose of Japanese assets under their jurisdiction by way of war reparations. The British Government and other Allied Powers agreed that the sums received would be recognized as a full discharge by the Japanese Government of its obligations. In other words, I am afraid, the scope for legal redress in seeking compensation is constrained by the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951.
︙┯ぱ某拜畊ネ玂弧き㎝キ兵らセ現┎糹︽ㄤ竭纕砫ヴ讽-
┮竭纕窥琌场璣瓣Τぶ竭纕倒翠カチ穕ア
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not have the facts and figures here. But I think the important thing is to say that on the question of a legal liability from the Japanese Government, that has been taken care of by the Peace Treaty of San Francisco in 1951.
PRESIDENT: Mr Edward HO, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
︙┯ぱ某拜玂矗ㄑ氮滦
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I shall try to dig up the information which I believe is many years old. So if the information is available, I shall be happy to provide it in writing. (Annex II)
︙玊く某拜畊ネ玂氮滦ず矗每カ兵らセ戈玻砆挡㎝跑芥场だ竭纕иゲ斗ㄤい窥ぶτ埃ぇ璣瓣現┎⊿Τ吭高翠ぇτ翠斌ち竭纕硂琌每カ兵材兵и借高畊ネ碞琌瞷讽璣瓣現┎е璶篗翠玡玂靡ちご現┎もΤ闽らセ恨獀翠忌︽戈ちΤ闽-
瓁ㄆぷㄤ程璶琌紇臫翠戈ㄒ闽瓁布戈单るら玡そ秨┪ユ临倒翠カチ
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I am not sure if the question falls within my ambit of responsibility which looks after security. So I think that this is a question for the British Government which I think I will have to take up with the relevant authorities.
PRESIDENT: Mr Albert HO, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
︙玊く某拜畊ネㄤ龟ヘ玡現┎ごΤ戈玂盞郎ㄆ龟иㄢ玡纯璓ㄧ現┎τ現┎......
PRESIDENT: Mr Albert HO, which part of your question has not been answered?
︙玊く某拜и琌借高現┎琌腀種玂靡盢êㄇ玂盞戈そ秨狦玂ぃ氮滦玥穦滦
PRESIDENT: The Secretary has said that she will take the matter up with Her Majesty's Government.
︙玊く某拜畊ネêㄇ戈琌翠現┎も狦翠現┎ヘ玡临Τㄇ戈杠そ秨讽礛珹璣瓣現┎璣瓣現┎坚睲翠現┎も戈そ秨
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I have said earlier that I will take this up with the relevant authorities. (Annex III)
眎ゅ某拜畊ネ璶氮滦ず矗らセ現┎竒Ч糹︽-
竭纕砫ヴи-
ぃ矗êㄇ驹產瘆い瓣┪砆饥包ㄇ鸡包虫琌к驹Τ讽翠砆传らセ瓁布τ讽らセ驹毖硂ㄇ瓁布Ч紀┮Τ癩玻τて疩Τ璣瓣現┎穦篗玡讽êㄇ砆传瓁布翠盢硂ㄇ瓁布籔らセ現┎穝瞷τ耴临倒-
莱Τ癩玻㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, while the Hong Kong Government fully sympathizes with those who suffered loss and hardship in Hong Kong during the Japanese occupation, the Government cannot press the British Government to further pursue with the Japanese Government on the matter of seeking compensation for those Hong Kong residents who are still holding Japanese wartime currency. Under the Peace Treaty with Japan signed by the United Kingdom and other Allied Powers in San Francisco in 1951, which also applied to Hong Kong, the sums received at the time will be recognized as the full discharge by the Japanese Government of its obligations. I do not think that we can change or rewind history.
纯胺Θ某拜畊ネиセ⊿Τ瞒肈и借高笵竡砫ヴ讽礛猭秆睦и谋眔璣瓣笵竡莱赣翠發癚らセ笵簆竭纕ウ穦暗狦矗ㄑ杠穦ノ贺よΑ
PRESIDENT: Mr TSANG Kin-shing, I did not rule your question out of order for exceeding the scope of the original question. I ruled it to be rhetorical, in other words, argumentative. You were making a point. I now accept your present supplementary.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I would like to reiterate that we are very sympathetic to those who have suffered physically, mentally, emotionally and financially during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. But I think the fact remains that I do not think that we are in the position to render assistance to them for the reasons I have just explained.
As regards the moral obligation or whether Her Majesty's Government is going to pursue, I think it is for Her Majesty's Government to answer.
PRESIDENT: Mr TSANG Kin-shing, are you claiming that your question has not been answered.
纯胺Θ某拜琌畊ネ
PRESIDENT: Which part?
纯胺Θ某拜程ê场だ
PRESIDENT: Secretary, perhaps I will rephrase the question on behalf of Mr TSANG Kin-shing. Is there any moral obligation on the part of the Hong Kong Government to persuade the British Government to do something about it?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: I think that in seeking compensation, we may perhaps explore the moral route. But whether this would lead to anywhere, I do not have a crystal ball, I cannot have the answer.
Lawsuits under New Territories Land (Exemption) Ordinance
6. 独岸藉某拜畊ネ穝僚兵ㄒ材452彻龟琁ㄢ碞現┎セЫ
(a) 筁ㄢ疉の赣兵ㄒ禗砠计ヘ︙
(b) 赣单いΤぶ包Θ穝膥┯舦の
(c) 纯崩︽肚赣兵ㄒ笆絋玂穝包睲贰秆-
赣兵ㄒ┮ㄉΤ舦痲璝Τ赣单笆ず甧崩︽丁の竒禣︙
現叭氮畊ネ穝僚兵ㄒ砏﹚膥┯猭ㄒ続ノ穝眖τ玂毁包膥┯穝キ单舦碞硂よㄓ弧兵ㄒせるら秨﹍ネ
穝僚兵ㄒ⊿Τ闽矗禗砠砏﹚硂兜兵ㄒ箋ガΤ種膥┯穝包斗酚膥┯猭ㄒ快瞶框篷粄靡┪框玻恨瞶ビ叫┮孔膥┯猭ㄒ琌框篷粄靡の框玻恨瞶兵ㄒ材10彻礚框篷框玻兵ㄒ材73彻の癩玻膥┯ㄑ緄框妮の緄兵ㄒ材481彻
框玻瞶斗︑︽沮膥┯猭ㄒ猭皘ビ叫続讽框玻┯快┪笿Τ矗禗砠框玻┯快矪ぃ琌兵ㄒㄓ称Τ闽参璸计τ猭皘祅癘矪玥禗砠┦借ō端甡瘆玻そ睲絃瞒盉ㄆ单ㄓ盢禗砠だ摸瓃快ㄆ矪常⊿Τ跋だㄇ包琌沮穝僚兵ㄒτ莉眔膥┯舦и-
⊿Τ闽硂兵ㄒ箋ガΤぶ包τ莉眔膥┯舦魁
︓肚よ穝僚兵ㄒ莉硄筁現┎繦甶秨約獂肚カチ粄醚硂兵ㄒ兵ゅ現┎籹ㄇ秆睦兵ㄒノ㎝璶翴肚虫眎硓筁跋現叭矪秏ㄆ〆穦㎝┬竝約獂祇讽Ы疭籹甅そチ毙▅竊ヘ筿跌冀ず甧栋い癚阶包赣兵ㄒ┮ㄉΤ舦穝跋現叭矪羛蹈ヴ﹚戳贝砐秏チ秆睦Τ闽兵ゅ瓃琌現叭㎝現叭羆竝ら盽羛蹈のそ渤毙▅狝叭场だи-
⊿Τ称硂ㄇ┮惠竒禣┪秨や眀ヘ魁
独岸藉某拜畊ネ眖現叭氮滦程琿陪現┎ぃ跌硂兵穝猭ㄒ崩︽肚笆暗眔だぶ現叭ㄣ砰翴弧╯澈┮弧肚虫眎琌︙籹籹ぶの羛蹈ヴ贝砐碭兵秏秆睦硂兵兵ㄒ㎡Τ蝶︳硂肚笆┮盿ㄓ狦狦狦ぃ瞶稱穦挤蹿秈︽約獂肚
現叭氮畊ネ独某矗碭拜肈材闽肚虫眎и-
硄筁硂兵猭ㄒぇ獽ミㄨ籹и-
Ω籹11窾いゅ虫眎璣ゅョΤ12 000и-
瞷ㄤ龟非称籹穝セ璶Τ或程穝戈斗τΤㄇ膥┯兵ㄒョΤ┮э︓羛蹈ヴ┕秏贝砐拜肈и稱產常笵穝羛蹈ヴ籔チ琌Τ盞ち羛么瘤礛и-
⊿Τ疭砏﹚–羛蹈ヴ斗贝砐–兵辅ぶΩ琌-
︓ぶ–琍戳ㄢΩ贝砐チ瞷ㄓ弧и獺程钡㎝程Τよ猭碞琌贝砐-
秆睦硂兵兵ㄒよ讽チΤ惠璶-
ョ常穦冈灿秆睦
独岸藉某拜и借高翴琌現┎Τ蝶︳硂ㄢ┮暗肚狦
現叭氮и稱硂兵兵ㄒノ斗カチ癸硂兵兵ㄒ钡祘㎝宽︽薄猵硂兵兵ㄒㄓ弧讽礛癬硄筁硂兵兵ㄒカチ常闽猔Τ癹臫┮ㄓ竒筁肚ぇㄤ龟瞷チ癸ウ常琌闽猔┮-
σ納┯膥硂よョ⊿Τ螟沮и-
┮и-
ㄓ⊿ΤΜヴ︙щ禗и獺и-
肚琌Μ
ッ笷某拜畊ネ現叭氮滦弧現叭矪羛蹈ヴ贝砐秏穦弧の硂ンㄆи-
璶秆贝êㄇ〆穦场常琌╧硂或Ω羛蹈ヴ贝砐ぇいΤ参璸纯竒克碭︗肚闽硂ンㄆ㎝猭ㄒ硄筁
現叭氮ㄤ龟現┎ㄓ崩約秏匡拒辨Τ布莱赣秨﹍Τ秏〆穦い踞ヴ戮叭и璶弧ンㄆ碞琌羛蹈ヴ贝ぃ虫ゎ贝砐〆穦〆ョい籔チ羛么и-
瘤礛⊿Τ龟悔计ョ思螟弧Τ碭琌包よи獺ず包常Μ硂癟
PRESIDENT: Mr LEE Wing-tat, are you claiming that your question has not been answered?
ッ笷某拜畊ネぃ琌и穦矗干借高
︙玊く某拜畊ネ現叭弧Τ计琌-
⊿猭矗ㄑ⊿Τ琘摸禗砠暗参璸и┮闽み碞琌現叭矪竒盽Τ﹛┪羛蹈ヴ贝贝砐ΤΜヴ︙戈┪щ禗闽瘤礛硂猭ㄒ硄筁ご礛Τ琘ㄇк┶硂猭ㄒ龟琁ご礛ノㄇ莱赣パ包┯膥癩玻㎡狦Τ硂妓计矗ㄑ㎡
現叭氮畊ネиョ弧筁и-
⊿ΤΜヴ︙硂よщ禗よи﹚璶弧琌讽羛蹈ヴ贝ぷㄤ琌Τт-
高拜Τ闽┯膥硂よㄆ薄-
﹚穦盢硂兵兵ㄒ睲贰秆睦倒-
笵┮ㄤ龟и-
琌蹦笆秆睦倒-
笵辨チ钡ョ宽眖硂兵兵ㄒΤ或щ禗
独岸藉某拜畊ネ瘤礛現叭氮滦弧框玻┯快矪㎝猭皘⊿Τ硂よ魁現叭硓筁猭穿竝тㄇ计╯澈Τぶ包硓筁猭穿竝碝―硂よ穿狦瞷ぃ氮氮滦и-
現叭氮畊ネи稱и璶籔独某弧癸ぃ癬猭穿竝纗戈ㄤ龟籔猭畑妓-
琌沮禗砠ン┦借ㄓ纗ぃ琌酚兵兵ㄒ┮и-
ョぃ眖-
戈いт硂计
ッ笷某拜畊ネ猭ㄒ竒硄筁ㄢ瞷и-
阶琌êㄇ包琌笵Τ硂兵猭ㄒ絋ち笵-
琌笵硂兵猭ㄒ現叭羆竝穦σ納暗虏虫厩秸琩拜ê碭κ兵包材琌笵硄筁硂兵猭ㄒ材琌笵︑舦
現叭氮ㄤ龟ㄓ硓筁籔-
钡牟и-
常笵包常笵硂ンㄆ猵и-
ョ⊿ΤΜヴ︙щ禗┮и獺產莱赣フ-
ㄤ龟琌粄醚硂兵猭ㄒぷㄤ琌產穦癘眔硂ㄢㄓㄤ龟ぃ常Τ矗硂兵猭ㄒぃ筁狦某痷谋眔惠璶秸琩и-
琌σ納
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Planning Criteria for Hospital Construction
7. 畕地某拜碞そ犁洛皘砞ミのㄤ絪ㄆ﹜現┎セЫ琌眡
(a) –丁そ犁洛皘痜夹非计ヘ籔洛ネの臔も夹非絪の–丁洛皘痜洛ネの臔も瞷龟悔计ヘ︙
(b) ノ购だ跋そ犁洛皘狝叭呼蹈夹非の沮︙贺夹非∕﹚琌琘跋砞ミ┮そ犁洛皘
(c) Τ甅夹非ノ络﹚籔痜计ヘの籔緉皘洛ネ计ヘゑㄒ璝Τ冈薄︙の
(d) "羛呼洛皘"︙絪皌の笲瞷–"羛呼"舱︙
徖ネ褐氮:畊ネ篒︓せる┏そ犁洛皘痜龟悔计ヘの洛皘恨瞶Ы("洛恨Ы")妮洛叭の臔瞶龟悔羆计だ更ンIのII
洛恨Ыぃ穦腨ㄌ碻も絪阀├洛恨Ы蹦ノ沮戮︗璹もキ诀络璹戮籔戮╰も惠―繦洛恨Ыр戮舦–丁洛皘常跌讽笲惠璶эセō皌洛皘常狝叭借の┮惠щ戈方埃癸箇衡恨洛恨Ы璹ミ甅も夹更ンIII洛皘恨瞶矪瞶も絪ㄆ﹜
洛恨Ы羆快ㄆ矪瞷タ籔–丁洛皘坝﹚戮э到–Ω砏购祘硂砏购祘箇戳ゼㄓ计るЧΘら菏诡の恨矗ㄑ芠膀非
Θミ洛皘羛呼琌膀︽現瞶パ眏洛励诀篶ぇ丁秸砏购の羬狝叭恨瞶购﹚羛呼σ納–丁洛皘瞶︗竚肚参祇揣ノの羛闽玒瞷Τ洛皘羛呼冈薄更ンIV
羛呼ず洛皘が锣ざ痜ノ洛励砞称㎝ㄤ羬や穿狝叭祇揣が干徊Θノ硂兜逼琌辨荷ㄤノの磷狝叭狡┪Τ┮ぃì–羛呼Аパ洛恨Ы羆快ㄆ矪盡砫舱璽砫服旧
и-
琌硄筁﹚戳浪癚ㄏノ家Αㄓ挪﹚癸穝洛皘惠―τㄏノ家Α穦紇臫珹计ヘ挡篶洛励м秈˙ら丁洛励臔瞶跋や穿狝叭の╬犁洛励臔瞶狝叭矗ㄑ薄猵洛皘痜羆惠―秖琌酚琂﹚そΑㄓ璸衡
┮惠痜计ヘ=箇代
计ヘ
x箇璸︘皘痜皘瞯
x–痜キА︘皘ら计365らx程続痜︘ノ瞯85%
–丁そ犁洛皘┮惠洛ネ计ぃ虫把酚琘甅琂﹚非玥ㄓ璹﹚τ斗σ納兜珹┮矗ㄑ狝叭┦借の絛瞅痜痝だ摸の痜薄狡馒祘洛恨Ы璹も夹Τ洛皘郸购の秸皌戈方
ンI
篒︓せるら
洛皘恨瞶Ы烈洛皘戮洛臔计
洛皘 洛ネ 臔
懂腞ん︙М闹êゴ洛皘 0 8
フ炊瞶圭緄いみ 2 30
翠︱毙洛皘 15 152
翠块﹀狝叭いみ 2 90
稯ん臔緄皘碴戛à 0 13
稲洛皘 158 888
獵洛皘 40 586
吏紈そ里ひㄠ担洛皘 7 69
拉洛皘 11 77
毒丑穛洛皘 5 75
腐秖瑇洛皘 41 468
艶龟洛皘 12 239
翠泊洛皘 30 50
釜疐洛皘 51 680
纒洛皘 28 724
約地洛皘 210 1 205
狵à洛皘 3 69
沉瞶疎確眃皘 1 34
拦棚砶ひ確眃皘 1 15
玭洛皘 7 70
竧ダ洛皘 35 340
嚎古疨洛皘 265 1 400
痴稲洛皘 32 201
焊吹克洛皘 300 1 632
狥跋ぷ紈ひêゴ洛皘 232 854
レ‵洛皘 421 1 928
嚎腞洛皘 278 1 565
窗獀洛皘 58 330
‵バ稯ん臔緄皘 3 88
瑆洛皘 6 38
芕洛皘 2 68
‵バ洛皘 24 295
狥地狥皘 41 279
べ洛皘 250 1 303
綡籉绊洛皘 18 109
狥地洛皘 34 393
觅▅洛皘 18 159
膀服毙羛洛皘 184 1 136
独λ洛皘 4 44
独洛皘 24 244
く蕾洛皘 109 661
珹戮ず
ン II
篒︓せるらそ犁洛皘矗ㄑ痜计ヘ
痜贺摸だ摸
洛皘嘿羆计
翠狥洛皘羛呼稯ん臔緄皘碴戛à90狥跋ぷ紈ひêゴ洛皘1 363窗獀洛皘597瑆洛皘83綡籉绊洛皘88狥地狥皘303独λ洛皘200璸2 734翠﹁洛皘羛呼紈そ里ひㄠ担洛皘150毒丑穛洛皘296沉瞶疎確眃皘130嚎腞洛皘1 390觅▅洛皘195狥地洛皘787璸2 948纒い洛皘羛呼翠︱毙洛皘353纒洛皘977レ‵洛皘1 846璸3 178纒狥洛皘羛呼艶龟洛皘257拦棚砶ひ確眃皘80膀服毙羛洛皘878璸1 215纒﹁洛皘羛呼約地洛皘1 417竧ダ洛皘252独洛皘1 003璸2 672穝狥洛皘羛呼稯ん臔緄皘‵バ296焊吹克洛皘1 384‵バ洛皘540璸2 320穝洛皘羛呼獵洛皘1 741拉洛皘100痴稲洛皘470芕洛皘300べ洛皘1 417璸4 028穝玭洛皘羛呼稲洛皘1 386釜疐洛皘1 622狵à洛皘424嚎古疨洛皘1 245く蕾洛皘608璸5 285ぃ妮ヴ︙羛呼洛皘フ炊瞶圭緄いみ26腐秖瑇洛皘579翠泊洛皘14玭洛皘180璸799羆计25 177
戈ㄓ方洛皘恨瞶Ы烈洛皘┮砞痜计ヘ㏄参璸き︓せ
ンIII
洛ネの臔も夹
盡摸痝洛皘┑尿臔瞶洛皘
洛ネ1ず350-600400-650ㄠ350-550包玻600-800罛の承端250-400痝26 000-7 500臔3ず16-2110-1315-2010-13ㄠ15-1913-14玻14-1813-14包14-17ぃ続ノ罛14-1710-13ρ痜厩13-1710-13
爹
1. 埃獶爹玥Τ闽洛ネ计场常琌–洛ネ–璽砫瞒皘痜计璸衡虫︗
2. 硂ㄇ计琌–洛ネ–獀励Ω―禘痝痜计
3. 臔痜┬竒瞶埃计琌沮丁夹非洛皘痜┬薄猵τ璹﹚丁夹非洛皘痜┬砞Τ34眎痜︘瞯85%τ臔ゑ瞯臔68%臔厩ネ32%
ONE PAGE MAP
Housing Authority's Shop Letting by Negotiation
8. 霉睲某拜挪┬〆穦"┬〆穦"烈坝穨虫︗璶琌щ夹よΑ徊坝よΑ現┎セЫ琌眡
(a) 恏坝初ず綫︗坝よΑ┮Τ┍綫ゑ瞯︙の┬〆穦︙络﹚赣ゑ瞯
(b) ┬〆穦︙ぃ盢┮Τ┍綫そ秨┷夹
(c) ┬〆穦Τま絋络﹚竒坝よΑ┍綫糵у夹非璝Τㄤ糵у夹非︙の
(d) ┬〆穦Τ菏恨诀菏诡糵у∕郸筁祘
┬氮畊ネ┬〆穦烈潦いみ坝穨虫︗场だそ秨щ夹よΑи-
⊿Τ砏﹚坝穨虫︗琘贺よΑ┮ゑㄒ筁ㄢΤ20%坝穨虫︗琌坝よΑ
ㄏノそ秨щ夹ы┪坝よΑ斗跌览竒犁ネ種┦借の砏家τ﹚羭ㄒㄓ弧ま璶箂扳そそ恏秨砞だ┍┬〆穦挤秖坝穨虫︗坝よΑ硂暗猭琵┬〆穦耕Τ紆┦璹﹚–兵蹿ㄒ戳㎝砏﹚硂贺よΑ莉眔珼匡め常琌恏﹡チ舧硈玛┍τ潦坝初ㄤ箂扳坝ョ穦舧硂ㄇ硈玛┍ウ-
镑ま坝初臮╬犁诀篶ョ┕┕蹦ノ硂贺よ猭坝穨綫︗
┬〆穦瓃薄猵坝よΑ坝穨虫︗
(a) 览虫︗縩禬筁250キよμτ┮竒犁︽穨潦いみ┷眛臮┪﹡チ矗ㄑ舧砞琁┪
(b) 禬筁ㄢΩそ秨┷夹い览虫︗Аゼま続щ夹┪
(c) 览坝穨虫︗竒犁穨叭坝腹ㄣま┪めΤ硓筁約獂崩約笆祇甶ㄤ穨叭硂ㄢА眏潦坝初俱砰ま┪
(d) 瞷め靡Τ耎穨叭
パ┬〆穦烈坝穨加舱〆穦畊烩旧割舱菏恨坝よΑ坝穨加逼割祘㎝非玥ョパ羆服疭稧現盡そ竝﹚戳秈︽浪癚
Criteria on Attorney General's request for Death Inquiry
9. 襖略ビ某拜沮掉﹛兵ㄒ材8兵現璶―碞琘秈︽癟掉﹛斗秈︽赣癟碞現┎セЫ
(a) 筁き現璶―掉﹛秈︽摸癟Τぶ﹙の
(b) 現沮或非玥矗赣兜璶―
現氮畊ネ掉﹛兵ㄒ材8兵砏﹚現璶―碞琘のΤ闽薄猵秈︽癟掉﹛斗秈︽赣癟筁き現⊿Τ︽ㄏ材8兵┮更瓃赣兜舦
現︽ㄏ掉﹛兵ㄒ材8兵舦琌⊿Τ猭﹚非玥∕﹚琌碞琘秈︽癟現穦σ納
(a) ゲ斗秈︽癟薄猵掉﹛┶荡┪簗秈︽癟┪
(b) ㄤ薄猵陪ボ秈︽癟穦才そ渤痲
Co-ordination of Information on Copyright Ownership
10. バ玊某拜現┎セЫ
(a) Τ禬筁丁そ羘嘿局Τ琘贺坝珇舦現┎Τ︙惫琁坝诀篶侩赣坝珇痷タ舦Τ磷赣单诀篶潦⊿Τ舦坝珇の
(b) 场璽砫参膚簈Ρ膟筿紇の筿福硁ン单坝珇舦Τ戈のΤ︙硚畖ㄑ坝琩高Τ闽戈
坝氮畊ネ
(a) 舦琌贺╬Τ舦翠礚斗翠瞷︽舦猭爹舦翠現┎蛤繦瓣悔篋盽暗猭礚砞ミ舦祅癘癘魁舦珇の舦珇舦Τ戈и-
⊿Τ称闽Τ┪锣琵舦戈
Τㄢ┪ㄢ羘嘿局Τ琘贺坝珇舦Τ種潦禦赣贺坝珇穨┪坝穨诀篶斗琩靡舦街妮τ硂ぃ琌闽矗靡沮拜肈ㄤ龟坝诀篶Τ闽穨┪坝穨∕﹚玡程紉高猭種ǎ
(b) タ玡┮弧現┎⊿Τ称闽Τ┪锣琵舦戈ョ礚現┎场璽砫俱瞶硂摸戈ぃ筁Τ種潦禦舦珇碻瓃硚畖琩高舦Τōだ
贾よ翠Ρ產の迭產穦そ秨簍冀の硄筁Τ絬筿跌肚癳贾珇帽祇砛靡魁籹珇冀舦狥玭ㄈΤそ玥璽砫祇砛靡ぉ瓣悔佰穨穦穦籹魁籹珇︓そ秨冀パ瓣悔佰穨穦穦籹魁籹珇の贾魁紇盿玥ゲ斗籔赣穦帽璹眔疭砛
膟よㄇゅ厩栏粿┪贾珇の坝常琌翠舦狡籹甭舦穦穦赣穦瞷タ璸购穦帽祇狡籹砛靡
筿紇の筿福硁ンよㄇ筿紇籹の筿福祘Α砞璸АΤ闽穦砛单穦镑矗ㄑㄇ穨ず舦Τ戈
醚玻舦竝砞Τ24筿杠琩高荐帹筿杠腹絏2803 5860瓣悔筿福呼蹈砞Τ呼呼http://www.houston.com.hk/hkgipd/矗ㄑΤ闽醚玻舦珹舦单戈
Polyclinic Services
11. ︙庇古某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 瞷セ翠Τぶ丁現┎秨砞だ禘┮ㄤい碭丁矗ㄑら丁の丁禘痝狝叭
(b) 瞷琌–跋计ㄓ∕﹚赣跋砞ミだ禘┮
(c) Τ︙非玥络﹚だ禘┮矗ㄑら丁の丁禘痝狝叭惠璶の
(d) そミ洛皘︙籔跋だ禘┮皌カチ矗ㄑ洛励狝叭
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ"だ禘励┮"琌矗ㄑ禬筁ㄢ摸洛励狝叭禘励┮ヘ玡セ翠Τせ丁だ禘励┮矗ㄑ絛瞅約獂膀糷胺眃臔瞶狝叭ㄒ炊硄禘穦徖ネの疭ブ涧单狝叭徖ネ竝矗ㄑら丁の丁禘痝狝叭翠60丁炊硄禘禘励┮いせ丁砞だ禘励┮ず18丁玥矗ㄑら丁の丁禘痝狝叭
沮翠砏购夹非籔非玥ㄓ弧–10窾カチ莉矗ㄑ丁炊硄禘禘励┮現┎∕﹚琘丁禘励┮莱矗ㄑ丁禘痝狝叭穦だσ納Τ闽ㄤい珹瞷Τ砞琁ㄏノ家Α禘励┮翴琌よ獽続いの綟跋琌砞Τㄤ洛励狝叭诀篶单
讽ЫΝ砞ミ锣ざ獽р惠璶盡臔瞶痜パ炊硄禘禘励┮锣ざ┕洛皘恨瞶Ы烈洛励诀篶钡秈˙獀励よ硄筁摸锣ざそ犁洛皘皘痜薄猵铆﹚ョ膀糷胺眃狝叭诀篶滦禘瓃洛励狝叭诀篶穦碞痜胺眃㎝獀励薄猵ユ传戈絋玂痜矗ㄑㄣ硈砮┦臔瞶癸硂兜逼讽Ы﹚穦沮ぃ耞锣跑薄猵﹚戳浪癚
Employees Retraining Scheme Programmes
12. MR SIN CHUNG KAI asked: Regarding the retraining courses offered by the Employees Retraining Board, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the number of workers who have joined the following programmes since the implementation of the Employees Retraining Scheme:
(i) General Retraining Programme
i Courses on Job Search Skills
ii. Job-Specific Skills Courses
iii. General Skills Courses
iv. Skills Upgrading Courses
(ii) One-the-Job Training Programmes, with a breakdown by industry
(iii) Programmes for the Elderly
(iv) Programmes for Disabled and Industrial Accident Victims
(v) Other Programmes; and
(b) the contents of each of the above programmes?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President,
(a) Since its establishment in 1992, the Employees Retraining Board has provided a total of 136 149 retraining places under the Retraining Programmes and the On-the-Job Training Programmes as at the end of June 1996. A breakdown of the number of retraining places by type of course is set out below:
Programme
No. of retraining places
(i)General Retraining Programmei.Job search skills courses28 307ii.Job-specific skills courses19 902iii.General skills courses69 725iv.Skills upgrading courses1 927 Sub-total:119 861
(ii)On-the-Job Training Programme (by industry)i. Communication, Social and Personal Service3 857ii. Import and Export and Retail and Wholesale2 723iii. Manufacturing1 929iv. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and
Business Service1 021v. Hotel and Catering908vi. Transport, Storage and Communication680vii. Others227 Sub-total:11 345
(iii)Programme for the Elderly2 888(iv)Programme for Disabled and Accident Victims1 485(v)Other Programmes570
Grand total:
136 149 There is no breakdown of the actual number of workers who have joined each of the above programmes and some workers might have taken more than one course since the commencement of the Employees Retraining Scheme.
(b) The general contents of each of the programmes are as follows:
(i) General Retraining Programme
i. Job search skills courses retrainees are taught job search skills, interview techniques, information on labour market, psychological coping skills, interpersonal and communication skills.
ii. Job-specific skills courses retrainees are taught vocational skills for specific occupations. Examples of vocational skills relate to salespersons, hotel housekeepers, receptionists, office assistants, junior account clerks, building attendants, travel assistants and domestic helpers.
iii. General skills courses retrainees are taught general vocational skills such as computer, typing and language (for example, English, Putonghua and Japanese) training.
iv. Skills upgrading courses these courses are designed to help workers of a specific occupation to upgrade their skills to meet market needs. Examples are skill upgrading courses for mechanical craftsmen and technicians, product design and development personnel and electroplating operatives.
(ii) On-the-Job Training Programme under this programme, individual employers provide induction training which is specific to the jobs concerned after they have taken on the retrainees.
(iii) Programme for the Elderly these are specially designed courses for persons aged 50 and above. They are trained for occupations such as junior clerks, couriers, carpark attendants and domestic helpers, and in areas such as office English and basic computer skills.
(iv) Programme for Disabled and Accident Victims this programme includes training for office assistants, cleaning services, desktop publishing, paging services, mobile kiosk work and fast food services.
(v) Other programmes these are tailor-made courses designed to train employees for a specific firm or groups of firms, such as training for paging operators, retail salespersons, market interviewers and building attendants.
Control and Improvement of Air Quality inside Road Tunnels
13. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: In 1993, the Environmental Protection Department issued the "Practice Notes on Control of Air Pollution in Vehicle Tunnels" to all tunnel operators. The Notes set down guidelines on the minimum requirements for three air pollutants: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide. As tunnel operators are already required by legislation and the terms of management contracts to monitor the concentration of carbon monoxide to ensure that it does not exceed the prescribed limits, and in view of the Government's recent statement that it will discuss with the tunnel operators the feasibility of installing nitrogen dioxide monitors inside the tunnels, will the Administration inform this Council whether:
(a) it will consider bringing in regulatory control on the level of sulphur dioxide as well as other pollutants (such as suspended particulates and various hydrocarbons) inside road tunnels; if so; what the details are; if not, why not; and
(b) it will adopt other measures to improve the air quality in all road tunnels to a standard conforming to the guidelines laid down in the Practice Notes?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) We will consider the need for legislation to ensure the consistent application of the air quality standards set out in the Practice Notes to all road tunnels. The development of new legislation will, however, require time. In the meantime, and as set out in my reply to a question from the Honourable CHOY Kan-pui on 26 June 1996, tunnel operators are already required, either by legislation or by contract terms, to monitor the level of carbon monoxide in the tunnels. They are also required to monitor visibility as well. The levels of carbon monoxide and visibility, together with nitrogen dioxide, are sufficiently indicative of the air quality inside the tunnels.
(b) A new ventilation system with nitrogen oxides monitors has recently been installed in the Lion Rock Tunnel and action is in hand to upgrade the air quality monitoring facilities in the Airport Tunnel. We are also assessing the air quality situation in the other government tunnels and upgrading work will be implemented if necessary. For franchised tunnels, the Administration will continue to discuss with the tunnel operators compliance with the air quality requirements set out in the Practice Notes issued by the Environmental Protection Department. A trial scheme to improve the air quality in the Tate's Cairn Tunnel is being conducted with the agreement and co-operation of the tunnel operator. Subject to the outcome of the trial, we will work together with the tunnel operator to implement the necessary air quality improvement measures as a matter of priority. In the longer term, as noted above, we will also consider the need for legislation to ensure consistent application of the air quality standards set out in the Practice Notes to all tunnels.
Comprehensive Insurance for Subsidized Schools
14. 眎ゅ某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 讽Ы翠戈厩潦禦そ砫ヴ侯玂繧ㄤ玂毁絛瞅の┮惠玂禣︙の
(b) 挪把揭笆┪碞弄Τ肩繧弊℡厩厩ネ祇ネ種┮眔玂毁ぃì镑讽Ы穦σ納戈厩糤玂繧基の耎玂繧絛瞅矗蔼種端眔竭纕肂
毙▅参膚氮畊ネ
(a) 現┎翠戈の︗瑉禟厩潦禦侯玂繧щ玂戳パきるら︓るら玂禣禬筁350窾じ
侯玂繧珹场だそ渤砫ヴ玂繧沟干纕玂繧の刮砰ō種玂繧硂兜玂繧┯玂絛瞅だ瓃
そ渤砫ヴ玂繧┯玂絛瞅珹玂厩祇ネㄆ珿の〓┪毙▅竝┪玂厩羭快毙▅笆τま璓厩ネのㄤぃ珹玂厩沟ō砰端の癩玻綝穕ア┪穕反玂厩猭斗┯踞竭纕砫ヴ–﹙ㄆ珿程蔼玂肂翠刽750窾じτщ玂戳ず纕Ω计礚
沟干纕玂繧┯玂絛瞅珹щ玂戳ず沟玂厩戳丁咯眞痚痜┪綝笿種璓ō砰端τ眔干纕–丁玂厩–﹙ㄆ珿程蔼玂肂翠刽2货じ
刮砰ō種玂繧┯玂絛瞅珹–厩ネ種┪端摧干纕Τ闽種ゲ斗厩ネ把籔厩笆祇ネ–﹙端ㄆンい–厩ネ程蔼玂肂翠刽2窾じ
(b) 現┎瞷タσ納矗蔼そ渤砫ヴ玂繧㎝刮砰ō種玂繧程蔼玂肂и-
辨е獽∕﹚ぃ筁и-
粄礚斗浪癚沟干纕玂繧程蔼玂肂赣玂肂籔沟干纕兵ㄒ材282彻猭﹚砏﹚才
Enforcement of Seat-belt Legislation
15. ㏄辩睶┥某拜現┎ミㄒ砏﹚╬產ó畒ㄘ盿盿τΤ竒Τ闽盡產уボ莱ぉ僚竒笲块竝糵絋莱ぉ僚眔僚靡碞現┎セЫ
(a) 笲块竝或非玥ㄓ挪﹚盡產碞琘ㄇ┮莱ぉ僚ㄘ盿盿某
(b) 笲块竝笲ノ皍薄舦︙磷瞷ぃそキ薄猵
(c) 現┎穦σ納糴癸ㄘ盿畒盿恨ㄒ虏て︓パ笲块竝帽祇僚靡も尿эパ盡穨帽祇靡蠢の
(d) 現┎︙毙▅カチ疭琌產㎝ゥ包Τ闽ㄘ盿畒盿惫琁
笲块氮畊ネ沮笵隔ユ硄杆称砏ㄒ材10兵ヴ︙常笲块竝竝ビ叫僚皌ノ盿
(a) 笲块竝矪瞶硂摸ビ叫穦σ納ビ叫矗瞶パ珹ㄤō砰猵のㄤΤ闽ㄒ爹洛ネ種ǎ爹洛ネ種ǎ獶ゲ璶穦Τ赣竝矪瞶ビ叫
(b) 絋玂┮Τ莉眔そキ矪瞶笲块竝璹矪瞶僚ビ叫ま硂ㄇま絛瞅珹ビ叫矗贺薄猵㎝瞶パ︙靡ビ叫瞶ㄒパ洛ネ靡の赣竝︙矪瞶ビ叫
(c) Τ闽皌ノ盿僚逼笲块竝硂よ眔竒喷獽穦浪癚礛∕﹚琌э︽穝も尿
(d) ︑き┏ㄓ笲块竝甶秨肚厩跋現叭矪笲块竝礟酚ㄆ叭矪猳单祇戈虫眎㎝笵隔ユ硄﹗琵緍ó㎝笵畒斗皌ノ盿砏﹚パせきる癬筿跌㎝筿常Τ肚硂ㄆ禣祇倒緍緋σ刚σネ笵隔ㄏノ玥タ璹いタ絋皌ノ盿よ猭础瓜のㄠ担㎝ゥ包ㄏノ盿斗
Out-patient Services
16. 独綺笽某拜Τ闽徖ネ竝の洛皘恨瞶Ы筁だ┮矗ㄑ禘狝叭現┎セЫ
(a) –―禘痜羆计の―禘Ωだ︙の
(b) ––Ω禘狝叭キАΘセのㄤΘセ挡篶珹羱筍媚のて喷禣ノ单だ︙
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ筁―禘Ω
徖ネ竝
炊硄禘狝叭洛皘恨瞶Ы
盡禘狝叭︓3 970 0004 709 713︓き4 010 0005 273 162き︓せ4 200 0005 851 232
筁–Ω禘狝叭キАΘセ
徖ネ竝
炊硄禘狝叭洛皘恨瞶Ы
盡禘狝叭︓152じ340じ︓き175じ386じき︓せ191じ422じ
筁–Ω禘狝叭Θセ挡篶
徖ネ竝
炊硄禘狝叭
︓
じ︓き
じき︓せ
じ戮禣ノ104121134媚禣ノ141516ㄤ禣ノ珹て喷秨やのㄤや穿狝叭禣ノ34
---39
--41
--152
===175
===191
====
洛皘恨瞶Ы
盡禘狝叭
︓
じ︓き
じき︓せ
じ戮禣ノ231270296媚禣ノ687380ㄤ禣ノ珹て喷秨やのㄤや穿狝叭禣ノ41
--43
--46
--340
===386
===442
===
Government Support Services for Matrimonial Troubles
17. 讲蚌某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 筁セ翠瞒盉Τぶ﹙叫疉のずの瞒盉计の-
┮ㄓ︑瓣產だガ薄猵
(b) (a)兜┮瓃瞒盉い叫ダ瞒钵紇臫18烦计の
(c) Τ闽场Τ瞒盉紇臫のㄤ產畑Θ矗ㄑ徊旧の
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ筁のきビ叫瞒盉だΤ8 6269 272の10 292﹙︓瞒盉い┮ㄓ︑瓣產だガ薄猵の18烦ダ瞒钵紇臫计и-
⊿Τ参璸戈
穦褐竝"竝"ビ叫瞒盉ひ包のㄤ產畑Θ矗ㄑ兜狝叭の穿竝穦某讽ㄆ钡盉徊旧-
毕盉搭淮盉闽玒瞷诀┮盿ㄓ產畑溃產畑穦硂ㄇひ包秆だ﹡┪瞒盉癸紇臫穦-
眏秸斗璶玂磕產畑闽玒竝菏臔ㄠ担ㄆ叭揭穦碞瞒盉┮ま癬季緄の菏臔舦拜肈矗ㄑ瞏狝叭竝临穦薄猵硂ㄇひ包のㄤ矗ㄑㄤ褐狝叭ㄒ竒蕾穿┬穿ギㄠ狝叭み瞶徊旧のㄤ產畑や穿狝叭单硂ㄇひ包惠猭穿竝ョ穦рㄤ锣ざ猭穿竝
Work Permits for Foreigners
18. 霉不瓣某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 筁┕–帽祇ぶ砛靡ぉぃ瓣膟瓣Τぶ﹙砛靡ビ叫綝┶荡の
(b) 筁┕–莉帽祇砛靡瓣ㄤ︽穨摸闹の羱筍だガ︙
玂氮畊ネ
(a) 沮ㄓ翠現郸筁┕祇帽靡计ヘぃ珹祇倒㎝膟產畑赌帽靡ずのぃ莉钡ビ叫计ヘだ玡き瓣膟更
だ瓣膟帽祇计ヘ┶荡计ヘ
らセ2 456101瓣2 280177緿瑆1 069205芖1 056261滇猾1 022399ㄤ
6 988
-----1 225
-----羆璸
14 871
======2 368
=====
だ瓣膟帽祇计ヘ┶荡计ヘ
瓣3 017164らセ2 93171滇猾1 205253芖1 068237緿瑆1 058777ㄤ
6 952
-----1 227
-----羆璸
16 231
======2 029
=====
だ瓣膟帽祇计ヘ┶荡计ヘ
きらセ3 14166瓣2 604108滇猾976276緿瑆878136芖83397ㄤ
7 606
-----2 549
-----羆璸
16 038
======3 232
=====
だ瓣膟帽祇计ヘ┶荡计ヘ
せらセ74730(る︓る)瓣59521滇猾26589緿瑆27014芖24010ㄤ
1 641
-----276
---羆璸
3 758
=====440
===
爹"瓣膟"逆"ㄤ"摸珹瓣玭龙皑ㄓ﹁ㄈのェ单
(b) 闽祇帽靡и-
⊿Τ︽穨闹┪羱筍灿だ筁–祇帽靡盡穨だ摸
盡穨
きせ
る︓る)
м砃2 7862 4852 967479︽現恨瞶の
盡穨6 8637 0176 5501 843ㄤ5 222
-----6 729
-----6 521
-----1 436
-----羆璸14 871
======16 231
======16 038
======3 758
=====
爹"盡穨"逆"ㄤ"摸珹穦璸畍臮拜砞璸畍穝籇眖穨量畍单
Labour Importation Related to Second Runway
19. 辩模┚某拜現┎セЫ
(a) Τ︳璸砍穝诀初材兵禲笵祘盢穦セ翠盿ㄓぶ碞穨诀穦
(b) 現┎穝诀初のΤ闽祘﹚块骋肂琌ご続ノ材兵禲笵祘璝現┎穦兜祘糤块骋肂の
(c) ∕﹚琌糤块骋肂現┎穦σ納セ翠瞷ア穨薄猵の筁穝诀初祘疭块骋璸购纯瞷玤Ι骋戈ㄆン
毙▅参膚氮畊ネ穝诀初のΤ闽祘疭块骋璸购"疭块骋璸购"ヘ琌甧砛Τ闽祘┯坝絋龟礚猭﹚戳ず砎眔続セ恶干戮︗块骋蠢琵穝诀初のΤ闽祘镑戳ЧΘ玂毁セ碞穨诀穦疭块骋璸购︑崩︽ㄓА兜現郸玥ㄌ沮碞琌沟莱纔沟ノセ恶干戮︗τセぃ莱砆ㄓ疭块骋璸购続ノ絛瞅珹兜籔穝诀初Τ闽祘传杠弧┮Τ莉眔硂ㄇ祘┯坝А沮赣璸购ビ叫块骋
闽借高场だ瞷だ氮滦
(a) 沮诀初恨瞶Ы蝶︳材兵禲笵縱祘の笲加﹁笲碮Τ闽祘秈蔼畃戳程惠璶1 000
(b) 材兵禲笵琌兜籔穝诀初Τ闽祘妮疭块骋璸购ビ叫块骋祘贺摸瞷赣璸购┮﹚块骋皌肂17 000癸硂计ヘ材兵禲笵縱祘㎝笲加﹁笲碮Τ闽祘惠璶计ヘぃ珿礚斗矗蔼ヘ玡﹚17 000皌肂
(c) 鲸恨材兵禲笵祘惠璶块骋и-
ぃゴ衡矗蔼疭块骋璸购┮﹚皌肂璝材兵禲笵祘の笲加﹁笲碮Τ闽祘┯坝辨赣璸购ビ叫块骋-
ゲ斗Ч宽酚赣璸购砏玥㎝祘快瞶
Senior Citizen Card Scheme
20. 地某拜碞璸购笲現┎セЫ
(a) 崩Τㄢ讽Ы穦浪癚
(b) 穦褐竝Τ或竒盽肚笆ㄓ崩約璸购
(c) 瞷或よΑ淋叫坝穨诀篶把籔璸购
(d) 穦σ納硓筁チ挂ㄆ叭矪︑笆祇ぉ続闹
(e) 瞷Τ诀菏诡赣ㄇ┯空矗ㄑ纔磃ぉ坝腹Τ宽┯空赣ㄇ诀篶ぃㄌ┯空矗ㄑ狝叭瞷Τ硚畖ㄑ矗щ禗の
(f) 現叭羆竝Τ硓筁ㄤ跋呼蹈跋吭高舱麓崩約璸购璝Τ纯秈︽或崩約笆璝︙
徖ネ褐氮畊ネ
(a) 篒︓せせる┏Τ427 699ρ穦褐竝快ㄆ矪ビ烩翠ρ70%赣快ㄆ矪︓さ祇 423 320眎ㄤ緇ビ叫玥ご矪瞶いùさΤ424丁そ㎝诀篶把籔璸购だ妮虫︗羆计2 133ρ矗ㄑ贺纔磃の〓┪纔矗ㄑ狝叭穦褐竝穦﹚戳浪癚硂璸购菏诡パ硂璸购笲常だ抖讽Ы粄礚惠秈︽浪癚
(b) 現┎场の獶現┎诀篶狝叭耫︗常称Τビ叫の肚厨ㄑカチ穦褐竝跋糷羭快肚笆㎝甶凝祇肚戈ㄏ璸购崩︽Τ秈˙崩約硂璸购
(c) 快ㄆ矪祇淋叫獺ノ筿杠羛蹈单よΑ淋叫坝穨诀篶把籔璸购程跋秨﹍刚快ㄏ璸购┷兑ρ㎝竡踞ヴㄏ克︑淋叫坝穨诀篶把籔璸购ùさΤ禬筁50诀篶硄筁硂璸购莱淋把籔璸购挪ㄏ璸购だΘ讽Ы盢膥尿ㄏノ硂崩約郸菠
(d) パ斗玂臔╬留讽Ы┸臩戈舦チ挂ㄆ叭矪璽砫ㄆ祅癘称Τ闹戈ぃ筁赣矪纗硂ㄇ戈ヘぃ珹帽祇ㄆ祅癘兵ㄒのㄤ妮砏ㄒ窽ゎ┸臩祅癘戈帽祇τ┸臩赣矪┮纗戈跌礚瞶獻デ╬留ぃ牟舦猭材14兵砏﹚穦牟е盢龟琁玂臔戈猭ㄒ膀硂ㄇゼ眔Τ闽種薄猵ぃ﹜ㄏノ硂ㄇ戈
琵︑︽∕﹚琌ビ叫琌耕暗猭讽Ыゲ斗羘-
ビ叫┮矗ㄑ戈穦ノㄓ帽祇
(e) パ璸购ヘ琌矗蔼カチ癸ρ碙の闽猔坝穨诀篶Ч︑祇┦把籔ρ祇瞷琘ㄇそ⊿Τ糹︽┯空钡硂ㄇそщ禗穦褐竝р硂摸щ禗锣笷Τ闽そ惠璶璶―硂ㄇそ秆睦
(f) ︑璸购崩︽ㄓ現叭羆竝硄筁籔跋某穦候盞羛么㎝セō約獂跋羛蹈呼蹈縩伐穦褐竝崩約硂璸购現叭羆竝瓃よ秈︽崩約笆さご穦膥尿硂妓暗
(i) 赣竝妮18跋吭高狝叭いみ常称Τビ叫㎝肚虫眎ㄑカチ
(ii) 跋糷約獂肚硂璸购赣竝рビ叫㎝肚虫眎だ祇だ跋〆穦秏ㄆ〆穦が〆穦穨ミ猭刮のㄤ跋舱麓現叭矪ら盽籔カチ钡牟穦-
崩約硂璸购の
(iii) 赣竝穦褐竝㊣苸跋某穦倒ぉや現叭矪跋某穦┪跋ずρ刮砰快兜跋砞笆い肚硂璸购
炊霉渤疭琌ρ癸硂璸购常獶盽剪眡現叭羆竝穦膥尿穦褐竝崩約硂璸购まρの诀篶把籔の觅硂璸购
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COUNCIL BILL
PATENTS BILL
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
THE CHIEF SECRETARY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (Amendment) Bill 1996 be read a Second time.
This Bill has three purposes. The first purpose is to empower the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (COMAC) to investigate those administrative actions taken by or on behalf of the police, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), and the Secretariats of the Independent Police Complaints Council and the Public Service Commission in relation to the Code on Access to Information. The second purpose is to enhance the operation of COMAC, and the third is to change COMAC's English title to "The Ombudsman".
Code on Access to Information
We have stated publicly that we will extend the Code on Access to Information throughout the Government by the end of this year. Under his existing statutory powers, the COMAC may investigate whether a branch or department listed in Schedule 1 to the Ordinance has failed to apply the Code properly. However, Schedule 1 does not include the police, the ICAC, or the two Secretariats of the Independent Police Complaints Council and the Public Service Commission, which are thus outside the COMAC's jurisdiction.
While we do not propose that the COMAC be given general jurisdiction to investigate complaints of maladministration on the part of these four departments, we consider that it would be more efficient for the operation of the Code, and less confusing to members of the public, to have a single independent review body under the Code. We therefore propose that the COMAC Ordinance be amended so that the COMAC may investigate complaints of non-compliance with the Code against these four agencies, for example, the police, the ICAC, and the two Secretariats of the Independent Police Complaints Council and the Public Service Commission.
Amendment to Schedule 2
When the police and the ICAC are brought within the COMAC's jurisdiction for the purpose of the Code, we need to ensure the security of sensitive materials relating to the prevention, detection or investigation of crime. We therefore propose to amend Schedule 2 to the Ordinance to make it clear that the COMAC is not to investigate any action taken in relation to the prevention, detection or investigation of any crime or offence.
Secrecy provision
Section 15 of the COMAC Ordinance requires the COMAC and his staff to maintain secrecy in respect of all matters that come to their knowledge in the exercise of their functions. This is unnecessarily wide. The Bill seeks to make it clear that the provision only covers matters arising from any investigation a complaint made to the COMAC or his staff in the exercise of their complaint-handling functions, and that the COMAC and his staff may disclose information that is necessary to be disclosed for the purpose of investigating a complaint, or deciding on whether an investigation should be undertaken, continued or discontinued.
Reporting requirement
The COMAC also finds that the present reporting requirement in the Ordinance poses problems for the efficient discharge of his functions in view of the large increase in the number of complaints made to his office. This is particularly so in respect of simple complaints where the organization being complained against agrees with his findings and recommendations. The COMAC wished to have greater flexibility in handling simple and minor complaints. We therefore propose that the reporting requirements set out in section 16(1) of the Ordinance, for example, when the COMAC has formed a view that there is maladministration or inadequacy on the part of the organization being investigated, should be made discretionary instead of mandatory. However, section 17(2) of the Ordinance would still require the COMAC to inform the organization affected of the outcome of his investigations.
Change in title
The COMAC considers that his powers and jurisdiction are more akin to those of a traditional ombudsman following the legislative changes effected in June 1994. He has proposed that his English title be changed to "The Ombudsman" as this would facilitate his contacts with his overseas counterparts. This proposal is now implemented in the Bill.
I commend the Bill to Honourable Members.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Employment Ordinance."
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄1996沟赌璹材3腹兵ㄒ
兵ㄒ某盢沟痜安–ぱ痚痜瑉禟肂パ瞷单沟讽ぱ眔戈だぇ糤︓きだぇㄤ緇砏﹚玥玂ぃ跑沟ゲ斗硈尿痜安程ぶぱ竒洛ネ┪爹洛靡絋Τ惠璶安莉祇痚痜瑉禟
沟赌兵ㄒΤ闽痚痜瑉禟兵ゅ程﹚痚痜瑉禟肂﹚戈現┎璹盢瑉禟肂矗蔼︓沟–ぱ戈だぇ硂兜瑉禟肂ゼΤ秸俱
現┎程碞痚痜瑉禟肂秈︽浪癚把σ瓣悔骋そ材130腹1969洛励臔瞶の痚痜褐そ綟瓣產Τ闽痚痜褐兵ゅの沟痜安秸琩挡狦現┎ЧΘ浪癚粄莱矗蔼–ぱ痚痜瑉禟肂パ沟戈だぇ糤︓きだぇ玂痙程ぶ硈尿ぱ痜安烩瑉禟砏﹚沟赌璹材3腹兵ㄒΞр硂兜某窖龟︽
兵ㄒい某耕Ν玡莉骋臮拜〆穦硄筁и-
ョ骋臮拜〆穦┯空ま秈硂兵ㄒи-
盢穦浪癚ㄤ籔痚痜瑉禟Τ闽兵ゅ
畊ネи略矗某
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Employment Compensation Ordinance."
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄1996沟干纕璹材2腹兵ㄒ
兵ㄒΞэ到端沟痜安戳丁眔干纕
沮瞷︽沟干纕兵ㄒ沟端旧璓赤ア硈尿禬筁ぱ獽Τ戈莉眔戳や干纕干纕肂琌沟種祇ネ–るΜ籔種祇ネ–るΜㄢ畉肂だぇ洛励禣
現┎冈灿浪癚瞷Τ闽戳蹿兵ゅ把σ瓣悔骋そ材17腹骋竭纕種そ㎝材121腹端痲そ綟瓣產端干纕兵ゅの沟㎝沟種ǎи-
瞷矗沟干纕璹材2腹兵ㄒΞ
(a) 沟瞷斗单ぱ莉眔戳蹿㎝洛励禣干纕砏﹚ㄏ端τ既赤ア沟ぃ阶赤アА莉眔硂ㄢ兜干纕の
(b) 璹戳蹿璸衡よ猭パ沟端玡Μ畉肂だぇ矗蔼︓きだぇ
膀硂ㄇ某現┎ョ浪癚沟干纕兵ㄒ瞷矪瞶干纕诀の干纕ビヲ掉祘
沮瞷︽砏﹚沟端旧璓既赤ア硈尿禬筁ぱぃ阶赣﹙種琌疉の干纕砫ヴ沟斗種祇ネ14ぱず沟干纕砏ㄒ璹Αр種硄骋矪矪沟斗璹Α恶厨沟㎝沟戈種冈薄沟干纕玂繧冈薄沟Μ沟㎝沟钡笷Θ干纕肂㎝冈薄沟端┦借㎝端現┎瞷某端赤ア沟ぃ阶赤アА莉眔既赤ア干纕穦旧璓戳蹿纕计ヘ糤端τ赤ア硈尿ぃ禬筁ぱ沟端墩耕淮-
纕穦ゑ赤ア丁耕耕虏虫и-
某莱虏てビ厨祘ㄣ砰ㄓ弧и-
某沟端τ赤ア硈尿ぃ禬筁ぱ沟骋矪矪ビ厨耕虏虫戈矪穦碻︽現よ猭﹚沟蹦ノ穝Α虏てビ厨祘搭淮沟㎝骋矪︽現璽踞
端沟饼沟發癚戳蹿瞷斗よ猭皘矗ビ沮龟悔竒喷既赤アぃ禬筁ぱ戳蹿肂计ぃи-
某硂摸ビョ讽チㄆ杜兜ユパ肂窥杜糵掉矪糵瞶τ獶よ猭皘矗パ箇戳ビ盢穦1996沟干纕璹材2腹兵ㄒτ糤硂兜逼搭淮よ猭皘秖罽祏糵丁龟琁硂兜逼硂摸ビ祘盢籔洛励禣ビ祘璓
畊ネи略矗某
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COUNCIL BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to provide a statutory basis for the Independent Police Complaints Council, to define its functions and powers, and to provide for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith."
She said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) Bill. The Bill seeks to give statutory status to the IPCC and enhance its monitoring role as a civilian oversight body on complaints against the police.
The Bill will provide the legal basis for the IPCC to discharge its functions of monitoring and reviewing investigations by the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO), which deals with all complaints against police officers. Where the IPCC identifies any inadequacies or discrepancies in police investigations, they will be taken up with the CAPO. If not satisfied with the CAPO's investigation, the IPCC can draw a case to the attention of the Governor.
Specifically, the Bill would empower the IPCC to require the CAPO to investigate or reinvestigate any complaint. The Bill also provides that the IPCC may interview witnesses, complainants or complainees. This will enable the IPCCC to clarify ambiguities and discrepancies and make a better assessment of the whole complaint case. Further, IPCC members can also conduct scheduled or surprise visits to observe investigations by the CAPO directly. In carrying out their duties, IPCC members enjoy the same protection and privileges as are given to Magistrates.
Mr President, the Bill will firmly anchor the IPCC in our police complaints system by defining clearly in the legislation the powers and functions of the IPCC. In turn, this will promote the accountability of the IPCC. According to the Bill, the IPCC shall in each year make a report to the Governor concerning the exercise of its functions and the Governor shall lay the report before this Council.
In recent years, we had already implemented a number of measures to improve our police complaints system, such as the installation of closed circuit television, video or tape-recording facilitates in the CAPO. We are, however, not complacent with improvements made so far. In parallel with the Bill, we will therefore introduce a new package of improvement measures aimed at further enhancing the independence of the IPCC, and the credibility and transparency of the police complaints system.
These improvement measures are drawn up from the recommendations arising from an independent review of CAPO procedures conducted under the IPCC aegis, and a comparative study of overseas police complaints systems conducted by representatives from the IPCC, Security Branch and the police. The full reports have been made available to Members of this Council.
The improvement measures are summarized as follows:
(i) to address the concern that some complaints may have taken considerable time to complete, the CAPO will set time limits on handling complaints. These include contacting a complainant within two working days, providing progress report to the complainant every two months, aiming to complete investigation of complaint cases within four months it will be shorter in practice if the case is less complicated;
(ii) to enhance transparency of the system, the IPCC will open part of its meetings to the public; complainants will be given more details of the investigation results; and leaflets on police complaints investigation procedures and the monitoring procedures of the IPCC will be made available at all police stations and District Offices for distribution. On top of these, we intend to allocate three million dollars to the IPCC Secretariat to launch publicity programmes over a three-year period;
(iii) to ensure serious cases will receive adequate attention in the complaints system, the IPCC will set up a special panel to monitor serious cases, after which it will submit its findings in a special report to the Governor;
(iv) to enhance the capability of the IPCC, one additional Vice-chairman and three additional members will be appointed. Besides, one more vetting team will be provided;
(v) to prevent any "tipping-off" to officers being complained, CAPO procedures will be tightened up to make this a disciplinary offence; and
(vi) to gauge public opinion towards the overall performance of the Force including the police complaints system, regular surveys and researches will be conducted.
Mr President, I believe that by enacting the Bill and implementing the above package of improvement measures, we would make the system more transparent and credible. It will enhance the public awareness of and confidence in the existing police complaints system.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
PATENTS BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to make new provision in respect of patents and related matters in substitution for the Registration of Patents Ordinance."
She said: Mr President, I move that the Patents Bill be read the Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to establish an independent patent registration system in Hong Kong, which is in line with international standards and will continue through 1997, for the protection of inventions.
A patent protects technical innovation. A patent system encourages new technology by granting the inventor a patent for his invention which gives him the right to exploit his invention for a set term. An inventor in exchange is required to make his invention public. The disclosure of this invention provides a major source of technical information to other inventors, businessmen and other users.
At present, there is no original grant of patents in Hong Kong. We register in Hong Kong United Kingdom patents and European patents designating the United Kingdom. A local patent law needs to be enacted before 1 July 1997 because the existing patent registration law is dependent on United Kingdom patent law. The Patents Bill aims to achieve this.
The Bill largely follows the recommendations made by the Patents Steering Committee in its Report issued for consultation in May 1993, and incorporates, where appropriate, comments received from the industrial, professional and academic fields during a consultation exercise conducted in February and March this year.
The Patents Bill provides for the grant of independent patents in Hong Kong based on the registration of a patent granted by designated patent offices. We propose the United Kingdom Patent Office, the European Patent Office designating the United Kingdom, and the Chinese Patent Office as designated patent offices. It also provides for the grant of short-term patents. This will give a new type of protection in Hong Kong for inventions with a short-term commercial life. The Bill sets out the procedures for obtaining and maintaining patents and short-term patents in Hong Kong, the rights given to the owners, and provisions for enforcement.
The basis for the Bill and the new independent patent system have been agreed in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group.
Mr President, a new local patent law is an essential tool for protection of technical innovation. It is also an integral part of Hong Kong's intellectual property regime. To ensure continuity in the protection of inventions in Hong Kong, the new local patent law and the necessary administrative system must be put in operation before I July 1997. At the risk of stating the obvious, I would just like to note that any delay in the implementation of the new patent system would jeopardize the protection of patents in Hong Kong after 1997, with all its consequential negative implications for the further economic and technological development of Hong Kong.
By introducing the Patents Bill into this Council today, we hope that Honourable Members will give the earliest possible consideration to the Bill. We hope that the Bill can be enacted with enough time remaining for us to prepare the necessary Patents Rules and administrative procedures for the implementation of the new patent system before 1 July 1997.
By introducing the Patents Bills into this Council today and having regard to the 12-month lead time required for procuring and setting up the first phase of the computer system, we also hope that Honurable Members will vote the necessary funds sought for the patent computer system at a forthcoming meeting of the Finance Committee of this Council before it goes into summer recess.
The time-table we have set for ourselves is an extremely tight one. With support from Honourable Members, I am confident we can achieve our task.
Mr President, I commend this Bill to the Council.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
PREVENTION OF BRIBERY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 18 October 1995
襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネ1995ňゎ胳革馒兜兵ゅ材2腹兵ㄒΞ龟琁稧現そ竝舦砫浪癚〆穦厨┮矗某莱琌Ω浪癚ま癬Τ闽ㄆ﹜莱逼
セ兵ㄒ材1腹琌ききるミ猭Ы穦戳ず矗ユセЫ繦Θミ兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽╯〆穦きせる羭︽Ω穦某ㄤいΩ琌籔讽Ы羭︽パ兵ㄒず甧狡馒讽〆穦ゼ穦戳ずЧΘ讽Ы笶るр兵ㄒ材2腹矗ユセЫ╯兵ㄒセЫるΘミ兵ㄒ〆穦〆穦籔現┎羭︽筁18Ω穦某ョ羛讽Ы籔癩現㎝祙叭Ы牡稧︽笆羛蹈舱の翠癘穦だ羭︽穦某〆穦羭︽22Ω穦某钡莉ㄓ︑27舱麓種ǎ
〆穦畊и︑稰磏▆兵ㄒ疉の拜肈伐羉狡и蔼砍〆穦㎝讽ЫА秨㎝︑パユ传種ǎ璓蛮よ程沧荡场だ拜肈眔某暴Τ闽ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30兵璹玥ㄒиΤ砫ヴ〆穦讽Ы璓種ぷㄤ琌讽捌現盡猭現郸稼竡瓣ネ稰谅-
〆穦冈灿╯兵ㄒ戳丁秨篈秈︽癚阶矗Τ砞┦種ǎи璶谅ミ猭Ы矪ㄆи穦翴矗瓃〆穦癚阶筁碭璶拜肈礛и穦矗癸兵ㄒ種ǎ
A. 璹ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材131兵疭秸琩舦材4兵
и纯兵ㄒ〆穦矗稧現盡沮ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材131兵︽ㄏ疭舦莱籔某い癸赣兵ㄒ材14兵Τ闽莉眔戈舦㎝材17兵Τ闽穓琩舦┮璹妓莱猭畑砏恨讽Ы猭畑礚箇穦紇臫稧現そ竝"稧竝"瞯㎝瘆胊秸琩玂盞┦ぃ筁-
程沧種赣兵ゅ┮璹癸好の材ㄒ蝗︽璶―莱跋だτ莱璹斗Τ"瞶パ獺"璶―ユゅン碞秸琩τē琌"闽"-
盢〆穦糵某顶琿笆某Τ闽タ
癸и矗兜某讽Ы竒σ納種埃赣兵ゅい癸玂恨絚矗瓃讽Ы穦〆穦糵某顶琿笆某Τ闽タ
兵ㄒ〆穦某某や赣单タ
B. 穝璹材13A兵矗ユの矗ㄑの材13B兵沮材13A兵莉眔戈┸臩材5兵
產不某闽猔璝祙叭Ы诀闽眔祙叭魁玥穦穕の祙叭魁玂盞┦の獻デ祙舦兵ㄒ〆穦ョΤ稰沮讽Ы秆睦靡琘デ砱γ竜︽ゲ斗絋﹚ㄤ戈玻-
粄ゲ斗眔蔼单猭皘у砏﹚ìňゎ稧竝ぃゲ璶まノ赣兵ゅぃ筁讽Ы種〆穦糵某顶琿笆某タ睲贰璹稧竝秸琩ゲ斗莉稧現盡┪捌盡у矗璶―祙叭魁ビ叫稧竝穦碞赣单ビ叫璹ず场ま現祔盢玂靡沮赣兵ゅ莉眔戈ぃ眔ㄤよ┸臩
兵ㄒ〆穦膥τΤ惠璶璹猭﹚ま稧竝矗ユ祙叭魁㏑薄猵璹惫琁璓礚禿祙魁砆そ秨靡沮讽Ы莱種碞穝璹材13A兵┮更"そ渤痲"喷靡夹非璹猭﹚ま糤璹材13C兵┮┸臩戈そガ
兵ㄒ〆穦瞷某某や讽Ы笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タэ览某兵ゅ
C. 璹ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材14兵莉眔戈舦材6兵
瞷︽猭ㄒ礚碞は癸蔼单猭皘猭﹛莱虫よビ叫┮㏑砏﹚兵ㄒ〆穦借好硂穦籔翠舦猭兵ㄒ牟讽Ы竒σ納靡龟-
粄薄猵獶礛τ-
種碞材6(a)兵笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タ璹虫よビ叫莱蔼单猭皘ず畑矗材祇硄讽Ы盢祔笆某Τ闽〆穦糵某顶琿タ
D. 璹羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒ材82兵稧竝〆ヴ材15兵
穝材82兵ゅ璹瞷Τ秆沟祘の矗禗舦
竒兵ㄒ〆穦矗拜讽Ы種碞赣兵ゅ笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タ砏﹚稧現盡秆沟琘ぇ玡猭﹚祘璶紉―砱γ拜肈吭高〆穦種ǎ讽Ы穦〆穦糵某顶琿笆某Τ闽タ
〆穦ョσ納莱砞ミ縒ミ禗诀矪瞶籔秆沟稧竝Τ闽禗挪ㄆ舅猭の戈方だ皌よ穦盿ㄓ約獂紇臫〆穦∕﹚ぃ莱瞷顶琿矪瞶ㄆ
E. 璹羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒ材13兵稧現盡舦材17兵
讽Ы莱兵ㄒ〆穦矗借高氮す笆某兜タ稧竝琩綷ㄤ瞶粄穦处臩琘そ诀篶盽砏の祘魁茂のゅン癸稧竝莱莉甭眏眔戈舦獽ㄤ矗Τ闽埃砱γ種ǎㄆи瘤礛ごΤ玂痙粄览某タ埃и场だ紐納兵ㄒ〆穦ョ觅иǎ秆某某やΤ闽タ
F. ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30兵┸臩秸琩ōだ单戈竜︽
続讽キ颗穝籇︑パ籔は砱γゑ嘲糠某Τ惠璶璹赣兵ゅ︙玊く某ョΤ稰兵ㄒ〆穦笶瞏╯赣兵ゅの览某璹よ╯筁祘い〆穦把σ筁ㄇㄤ猭恨烈跋摸猭ㄒ籔翠癘穦穦糵綷璣瓣枷盞皘さきるら碞厨┮迭
沮枷盞皘迭材30兵続ノ癸琘秸琩┸臩秸琩冈薄厨薄猵獶笻猭癸玂毁秸琩Ч俱┦τē玂毁好羘臕妮Ω璶ヘ兵ㄒ〆穦琩σ筁ㄇ菌戈╯赣兵ゅミ猭種瓜〆穦挡阶琌赣兵ゅ続ノ癸琘秸琩
稧竝癸枷盞皘迭ボ闽猔粄秸琩ョ莱玂盞秈︽τ㎝癸琘好秸琩妓玥伐戈砆┸臩τЙ甡珿稧竝辨材30兵ぉ璹ㄏㄤョ続ノ秸琩兵ㄒ〆穦癸羭ボ胔好礛τ讽Ы盢〆穦糵某顶琿笆某Τ闽タ
よ兵ㄒ〆穦╯计璹赣兵ゅよ瘤竒礷〆穦籔讽Ыゼ坝某蛮よА钡よ暴癚阶戳丁и-
祇瞷Τ瞶パ┸臩戈"瞶臛秆"﹚竡い才そ渤痲к臛瞶パいㄇ竒絋粄じㄒ稧竝ぃ猭笆のぃ讽︽癸そ腨单
畊ネ鲸恨兵ㄒ〆穦ゼ某矗璓種某㏄辩睶┥某嘲糠某︙玊く某㎝讽Ы穦だ碞赣兵ゅ︗矗種ǎの笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タи祇ēぇ-
獽穦近瑈祇種ǎ
G. 羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒ材10兵秂舦
兵ㄒ〆穦闽猔稧竝ノㄤ秸琩砱γン疭舦秸琩籔砱γ礚闽ン硂よ讽Ы籔畊〆穦穦某牡稧︽笆羛蹈舱А〆穦玂靡Τ闽よ蹦ì镑惫琁ňゎぃゲ璶ㄏノ赣单舦薄猵
兵ㄒ〆穦∕﹚рㄆ┮疉の︽笆ㄆ﹜ユパミ猭Ы玂ㄆ叭〆穦浪癚
畊ネи祇ē技瓃兵ㄒ〆穦┮矗耕璶種ǎ〆穦坝某筁祘いΘ笷筁ㄤ種ǎτи-
ョ碞は滦秈︽癚阶パ丁Τиぃ冈瓃硂ㄇ種ǎ㎝坝癚筁祘更兵ㄒ〆穦矗ユΤ闽ゅンずи獺︗ゲ冈糵綷珿丁и穦矗︑癸兵ㄒ弘種ǎ
祇ē琌и︑ㄇ種ǎㄤ龟牟祇さΩ浪癚㎝э璉春產常睲贰ê碞琌稧竝Θミ竒20и-
Τ惠璶浪癚畗產城ㄆン璉春の耴ぃ坝穨㎝穦ゅてカチ㎝瓣щ戈踞み砱γ碿てョ踞み稧竝続莱吏挂稧竝秈︽秸琩陪ボΤ禬筁70%カチ踞み砱γ穦腨50%カチ粄瞷砱γご礛炊筂Τ35%粄ぃ炊筂τ60%カチ粄莱赣糤癸稧竝菏恨30%粄莱赣玂ぃ跑
и粄さΩ浪癚程璶ヘ琌璶璹猭ㄒ倒稧竝Τì镑㎝Τ舦暗ウよ璶璹Τ菏恨琜篶ňゎ垒舦硂琌獶盽璶琌カチ戳秸琩い┮闽みㄆ兜程Τ坝璉春踞み盢ㄓ稧竝㎝祙叭Ы靡菏穦㎝坝穨竜秸琩伐狠薄猵Θ︽現垒舦㎝ゴ阑現獀┪竒蕾钵ㄣ
瞷薄猵稧竝羆服璽砫τ龟悔カチ┪丁钡カチㄓ菏诡稧竝︽笆碞Τ糵琩砱γ︽笆滦浪〆穦赣〆穦ず現┎澈礛⊿Τ〆ヴミ猭Ы某Θ硈⊿Τ硂ぃ窽и佩硂琌浪癚〆穦厨ず┮更璶某и谋眔狦現┎硈ミ猭Ы某ぃ獺┪传杠弧硈ぃ琌パ現┎〆ヴΘ常⊿Τи獺硂〆穦倒ぉカチそ獺ゼゲì镑
и-
粄ぃ虫ゎ璶磅猭璶瞏糷琌璶綿㏕稧间㎝は砱γゅてи-
戳ㄇ獵秸琩い癸砱γ拜肈鹤甡牡谋┦ぃì-
珹и︑⊿Τ竒菌筁硂ㄇ鹤甡龟悔砰喷礹璚竒喷и-
盢ㄓ翴琌璶硂よ暗ㄇは砱γぃ虫ゎ琌稧竝ㄆ琌俱穦ㄆ璶俱穦ぃ甧г硂ㄆō砰︽癸к硂ㄆ衡琌Θよи獺稧竝ゲ斗眏い翠は砱γ璓癸禫挂砱γㄆン眔矗琌戳Τ厨笵嘿ㄢ﹙ンい稧竝秸琩秈︽灧┏︽笆"筁"砆猭﹛у蝶护ㄏデ猭и-
惠璶琌弘㎝Τ玦Τ垦秸琩и辨-
㎝-
猭┏帹Τ┮稧竝莱浪癚Τ闽菏恨祘
程竒筁さΩ璹и粄璓眔舦㎝稧竝┮惠舦ぇ丁キ颗и戳辨稧竝镑暗ぃ璽カチ┮辨и㊣苸翠カチや稧竝綿㏕翠稧间ゅて今甶辨盢ㄓ翠惠璶琌"翠秤礹砱γ"硂腹τぃ琌"翠秤ΤICAC"讽礛"翠秤ΤICAC"龟琌Τ種腹и辨璶琌"翠秤礹砱γ"
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, today's debate concludes more than a year of scrutiny by this Council of the Prevention of Bribery (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill. In the view of some critics, the Council should long ago have stopped dawdling and enacted the Bill put before it. I strongly disagree with this view. On the contrary, I believe that what has been achieved by this Council's attention to the Bill demonstrates very clearly how valuable its legislative work is to the community.
I make this observation not only from the standpoint of a member of the Legislative Council Bills Committee that studied the Bill, but also as a member of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Review Committee. It was the Review Committee's recommendations a year and a half ago that formed the basis for this Bill in the first place. It has been an instructive experience to sit on both these Committees, one of them an advisory body that held its deliberations in private, the other a legislative one working in the open.
The many suggestions for reform made by the Review Committee in its public report provided a solid foundation for this legislation. But as a participant, I was struck by that Committee's unwillingness to come to grips with some issues.
There was no doubt, for example, that section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance raised fundamental questions: questions about the need for secrecy to protect investigations; about when criminal liability should arise from innocent acts; about the public's right to know about ICAC activity; and about the danger to innocent reputations posed by ICAC investigations. Section 30 has always generated public controversy, and recently gave rise to litigation that reached the Privy Council.
Nevertheless, I found it impossible even to initiate a discussion of section 30 in the Review Committee. The Committee readily accepted the ICAC's initial representations on section 30. It was simply not interested in entering this particular controversy.
It is often said, and indeed it was the justification of the Review Committee's own closed meetings, that an advisory body is able to provide more candid and useful advice on controversial issues if it meets in private. My experience was the opposite: closed meetings enabled the Committee virtually to ignore an issue that was clearly of importance to the public.
By contrast, the Legislative Council Bills Committee did not hesitate to press the Administration in public on matters the Review Committee had explored briefly or not at all in private. Although the ICAC and the Administration resisted such pressure, after persistent discussion in the Bills Committee, the Administration accepted that there was indeed a need for change in several, important areas.
Mr President, the Bills Committee's results speak clearly for the value of the open legislative process. The Attorney General will move several major amendments developed in the Bills Committee. One set of amendments will significantly enhance protection for taxpayers affected by the ICAC's new power to examine tax records. Despite strong ICAC resistance, other amendments will for the first time give the courts a role in authorizing the inspection of account information, one of ICAC's most frequently used powers. And, very reluctantly, the Administration has acceded to some relaxation of section 30's draconian restrictions on publicity about investigations.
It should come as no surprise that the open legislative process practised by this Council produces results. That is what it is designed to do. It does a disservice to the community to take a narrow view of this Council's legislative role.
I believe the Administration has only gone half way towards a sensible revision of section 30, and I will later propose one of several private Member's amendments to that section. Aside from section 30, I support this Bill and all the amendments proposed to it.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, Let me state from the outset that I do not think this Bill goes far enough in removing some of the most Draconian powers of the ICAC, particularly in relation to section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Therefore, I will support the Second Reading of the Bill on the basis of the amendments to be introduced by the Honourable Albert HO and Miss Christine LOH at the Committee stage.
In this community, we all recognize the importance of fighting corruption. We all recognize the importance of giving the necessary powers to the ICAC to fight corruption. However, this does not mean that, in the name of fighting corruption, the ICAC can claim unlimited power and privilege, or place itself above other law enforcement agents, above the rights of the individual and above the law. It is in this spirit that a Review Committee was set up in 1994 to review the relevant law, and in this spirit that the present Bill was proposed.
And that is why I am totally astonished by the Administration's attempt to amend section 30 in a way which enlarges the power of the ICAC and further restricts the rights of the individual. Mr President, such a move is not to be countenanced.
Section 30 has nothing to do with the ICAC's power of investigation. It aims at restricting anyone from reporting on it by making disclosure a criminal offence. As such, it restricts the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of information, and the public's right to be informed. While no freedom is absolute, every restriction has to be clearly and fully justified. In looking at section 30, we must never lose sight of that. It is not a question of what powers it may be convenient for the ICAC to have, but whether certain restrictions, and further restrictions on the citizen's rights can be allowed.
As the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has made clear in a recent decision concerning the Ming Pao Daily News, section 30 restricts the disclosure of an ICAC investigation only when there is an identified suspect. The Administration's amendment seeks to criminalize disclosure regardless of whether a suspect has been identified. This plainly broadens the scope of the infringement of rights and freedoms, contrary to the entire spirit of the Bill.
Mr President, the Attorney General puts it mildly as "plug[ging] a loophole disclosed by the recent Privy Council decision", but the ICAC Commissioner leaves us in no doubt as to what the ICAC's true attitude is, and always has been. In a letter to Members of this Council, he reiterates a view he had earlier expressed in a newspaper article. In his view, the present amendment "restores" section 30 to the meaning the ICAC had always given it. Otherwise dire consequences will follows. It will, he says, seriously impair the ICAC's capability to investigate corruption.
The attitude is quite clear, Mr President. In the Commissioner's view, the law is what the ICAC considers it to be, and if the court does not agree, then the law must be changed to support the ICAC's view.
Can we really endorse this kind of attitude? Can we entrust the ICAC with greater powers than it strictly needs, in the confidence that they will not be abused? That the ICAC will not gag the press except in a case where the investigation is such as to make it necessary?
I am sure that it is this fear of abuse which prompted the Honurable Albert HO to introduce his amendment, stipulating that a disclosure is a criminal offence only if it is "likely to prejudice the investigation". Where there is no likelihood of prejudicing the investigation, the press should not be gagged.
The Administration argues that such a requirement would be too difficult to meet, and would render section 30 nearly meaningless. Mr President, is not a strict requirement only reasonable, where fundamental rights are put at risk? Indeed, we are not talking about a theoretical or speculative fear of abuse. We are not talking in the realms of ideals but stark reality and an actual event.
That event is well-known. We have the Ming Pao case before us. As Members know, Ming Pao and three of its editors were charged under section 30 for a news report on 3 August 1994. The subject of the ICAC investigation was a land auction on 26 May 1994 in which several developers joined hands in a bid to keep the prices down. The auction was open. The behaviour of those developers were openly seen. The whole thing was given prominent coverage in all the major newspapers. The incident was widely discussed and commented upon. The ICAC did not think it a matter for investigation until, sometime afterwards, it received a letter suggesting that they should carry out an investigation. The letter, which was read out at the trial in court, contained no other information or allegation to any specific individual. The Ming Pao report disclosing the investigation hardly went beyond the fact that the ICAC was investigating it, and approaching media organizations to gather information.
Given the above facts, how can the report have prejudiced any investigation? Was there any real fear that suspects would be alerted to take flight, or evidence be destroyed? Was anyone's reputation unjustifiably at stake? Were, indeed, ICAC officers going about it in a secretive way? How was that investigation different from other police investigations such that it requires different treatment?
And yet, while no more is heard of the investigation, Ming Pao Daily News was charged under section 30. Not just the organization in order perhaps to "teach the media a lesson but three editors were also charged as co-defendants. But for the fact that Ming Pao took a strong stand and had the resources to go all the way to the Privy Council, but for the fact that section 30 does not apply where no suspect had been identified, these three individuals would almost certainly have been convicted. Anyone would have been entitled to call them criminals with the stigma of an offence under an anti-bribery legislation. Under the law, they would also have been deprived of important political rights for 10 years.
Why such oppressive measures? Is it in the public interest? Or is it to assuage the wounded pride of the ICAC? Is the fear of abuse theoretical, or is it real and present?
Mr President, forgive me if I use passionate language. But the power of prosecution is a dreadful weapon in the hands of the executive. It could be used oppressively against the innocent without redress. Where an attempt is being made to enlarge that power, indeed, to legitimize what, in my opinion, amounts to an abuse of that power, I cannot be other than passionately in opposition. Section 30 ought to be scrapped. The Honourable Albert HO's amendment is the least that we can accept.
Thank you, Mr President.
︙玊く某璓勉畊ネ稧現そ竝筁は砱γ眔翠蒥チ約獂や稧竝Θ罿ず常眔粄硂琌翠蒥チ眔ま篴
и-
や稧竝璓翠Θ稧间穦絣硑そキそタщ戈吏挂倒セのщ戈翠秈︽щ戈笆镑眔だ玂毁稧间穦ぃ癸翠瓣悔磕いみ︗羘璶癸翠瓣悔竒禩笆の癸翠セ竒蕾祇甶ョ癬龟借種竡щ戈ぃノㄆㄆ綼"ǐ"綼︽胳綼ノㄇぃタ讽よ猭胳革﹛ㄓㄇぃ莱眔柬瘆胊穦硂ㄇぃ讽も猭常琌и-
Чぃ钡琌ヴ︙ゅ瞷穦ぃ钡竒坝狟ねぃиは琈"翠秤ΤICAC"τ蒥チи弧苂洁稧竝┕礚好"ICAC"稧現そ竝竒瞏チ丁琌約獂蒥チ碙は砱γ诀篶
畊ネさる兜ㄈ瑆12瓣產㎝跋坝秈︽秸琩陪ボㄈ瑆跋砱γ拜肈程腨琌い瓣翠逼材耕らセ㎝穝℡畉
稧竝チ種秸琩ョΤ禬筁Θ砐粄砱γ穦腨きΘ粄瞷砱γ瞷禜繦ㄓ羬穦腨礚竚好ňゎのゴ阑砱γ笆盢琌翠ゼㄓ璶稧竝惠璶Τì镑のΤ猭﹚舦糹︽硂猭﹚は砱γ戮砫
籔繦舦猭龟琁畗產城ㄆンま祇稧竝舦砫拜肈и-
ョΤゲ璶浪癚稧竝舦穦筁┪琘ㄇよΤぃìぇ矪┪Τㄇよ惠璶颗眖τ続讽猭璹
稧現そ竝舦砫浪癚〆穦┏そガ竒浪癚ㄇ某疉のэňゎ胳革兵ㄒの羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒさぱи-
癸ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ璹场だㄓ︑硂浪癚厨某ヘ琌璶璹甅猭ㄒ倒ぉ稧竝ì镑のΤ舦暗は砱γよи-
ョ璶酚臮舦㎝膀セ︑パ玂毁穝籇︑パ眔蝴臔瞷︽猭ㄒい璹诀ňゎ稧竝垒舦ぷㄤ琌程ㄇ坝踞み稧竝穦Θら疭跋︽現ノㄓゴ阑現獀钵┪竒蕾癸もㄣ
ňゎ胳革兵ㄒい材30兵窽ゎ┸臩稧竝秸琩砏﹚瞷沮現┎┮某兵ゅ㎝現┎璹兵ゅ筁だ腨и-
谋眔穦ゴ阑穝籇︑パňゎ穝籇ш簍菏恨現┎à︹セ盢〆穦糵某顶琿矗ㄇΤ闽タи穦冈灿秆睦矗タ
さΩ癸ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ璹琌Ω璶猭ㄒэ结ぉ稧竝舦の砰瞷舦ぇ丁ゲ斗瞶キ颗チ囊辨硓筁硂Ωэ倒ぉそ渤獺み膥尿や稧竝ㄏ翠蝴稧间そタ穦筁寸
ぃ筁さΩ璹ごΤㄇよ﹟ゼЧ到ㄒňゎ胳革兵ㄒ更そ诀篶虫璹﹚夹非ご礛ゼ笷璓醚┪璹ㄇ猭玥眖τ癸猭莱璹ㄏ妓琌钡そ渤蹿㎝現┎挤蹿戈そ诀篶斗兵ㄒ堡さΩゼ竒筁璹猭ぇずチ囊盢蛤秈Τ闽浪癚и-
辨ミ猭ず続讽籔現┎坝癚ㄇ続讽璹
畊ネ膀и┮弧チ囊や1995ňゎ胳革馒兜兵ゅ材2腹兵ㄒ確弄и-
や硂猭ㄒэ膀セ玥㎝弘の現┎┮矗タ材30兵埃и-
辨兵ㄒ硄筁稧現そ竝镑秈穝じи-
略稧現そ竝ゼㄓら翠耴瓣-
秈阁顶琿镑膥尿┕縩伐粄痷㎝玦幢磅︽戮砫Θ罿翠絋ミ㎝綿㏕稧间ゅて㎝稧间臕
セ略朝勉谅谅畊ネ
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, this is the conclusive episode to the sequence of events which flowed from the dismissal of Alex TSUI, a public inquiry conducted by the Security Panel of this Council which reflected queries raised by the public on the dismissal and the appointment of the Review Committee which led to reforms to the Commission which are now contained in the Bill. The process of thorough vetting in the Bills Committee is in my view competent in adding the public dimension to the Bill through the amendments.
The Liberal Party, by and large, agrees with the Bills Committee's conclusions regarding the Administration's proposed Prevention of Bribery (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill 1995 with its latest set of Committee stage amendments, with the exception of the intended amendment for section 30(1) under the new clause 13A. I shall therefore be moving my own amendment to this clause. I would like to explain my reasons for moving this amendment, and also the Liberal Party's reasons for not supporting the amendment proposed by Mr Albert HO.
Section 30 deals with restrictions on disclosure of information relating to investigations. We believe that the legislation needs to establish the right balance between the public's right to know on the one hand, and the safeguard of the integrity of investigations as well as the adequate protection of reputations on the other.
We oppose Mr Albert HO's amendment which introduces the "likely to prejudice" test to offending disclosures. As was pointed out in the Privy Council ruling on the Ming Pao case, the difficulty with such a test is, and I quote, "in many cases it will be impossible to know whether disclosure has prejudiced an investigation or not," and it goes on to say, "For the same reason the suggestion that the desired aim could have been achieved by qualifying the second limb subsection with some such words as "likely to prejudice the investigation" fails because of the difficulty of establishing when a disclosure satisfied the test. If the restriction is to be effective it cannot draw distinctions between prejudicing and non-prejudicing disclosures nor have regard to the state of mind of the disclosure." We agree with their Lordships that the "likely to prejudice" test would render the restriction on disclosure of the investigation in question ineffective, and thereby risk prejudicing the investigation as well as unnecessarily causing damage to reputation to the subject person.
I would now like to come to my amendment to section 30(1). In fact my amendment is exactly the same as the one proposed by the Administration before the Privy Council ruling. It liberalizes the existing state of things by:
(a) limiting the application of section 30 to offences under Part II of the Ordinance; and,
(b) narrowing the application of this subsection so that the offence is triggered if the person who discloses does so knowing or suspecting that an investigation of a Part II offence is taking place.
Following the Privy Council ruling, the Administration substituted another amendment for section 30(1) which aims to extend the restriction on disclosure to general investigation where no identifiable suspect has yet been named. The Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption argues that such an amendment is to, in his words, "restore the section to one which protects investigations". We beg to differ. We see the latest amendment by the Administration not as a restoration to an accepted interpretation, but rather an expansion of the scope of the present law. We regard the existing provision as clear and beyond ambiguity, and accept the Privy Council's interpretation of it as entirely sensible. It is, and should have always been, applied to only those investigations where a suspect has been identified. We do not believe the shroud of secrecy is justified for fishing expeditions and general intelligence gathering. I shall therefore be proposing the amendment initially submitted by the Administration in order to proceed with the liberalization intended before the Privy Council ruling.
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネさΩ璹兵ㄒ程碔某┦馋筁Τ闽ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30兵璹チ羛粄翠ぇ┮Θ稧间穦ЧΤ苦や縒ミ蔼瞯稧現场钉瞷稧現そ竝硓筁ňゎ胳革兵ㄒㄓ︽ㄏㄤ舦τㄤい砆穝籇︑パ材30兵ㄤ龟琌Ν稧現そ竝Θミぇ玡竒磅︽繦穦锣跑カチ癸穝籇︑パ種醚禫跌兵ㄒ龟璶Τ糴ゲ璶ぃ筁и-
璝瞏兵ㄒミ猭弘玂毁の磷稧竝秸琩戳丁礚阶秸琩┪瞏糷Τ絋粄好デ秸琩砆┸臩秸琩戈τ硑Θぃゲ璶锚
現┎络﹚兵ゅ璉紐納獶礚笵瞶ぷㄤ琌瞷さ肚碈カ初縀疨膙肚碈礚ぃ荷ㄤ┮碝―縒產穝籇狦肚碈癸硂ㄇ碝―眔ㄓ戈矪瞶ぃ讽穦硑Θ稧竝耑τ綝╈篊︓瘆胊刚拜硂琌и-
┮腀種ǎ狦
畊ネチ羛粄稧現そ竝琂庇稰紇臫珿玂毁秸琩戈莱琌闽猔兜ヘ礚阶玂毁秸琩秈┪癸砆秸琩羘臕よτē肚碈厨笵癸秸琩のΤ闽硑Θぃゲ璶紇臫ㄤ龟現┎キ颗穝籇︑パの秸琩玂盞硂よぃぶ璚眖ㄤ某現┎玂毁秸琩硂┏帹糴肚碈厨笵よ琵˙㎝э到
稧現そ竝舦筁だ勘等のア菏恨現┎ョ某肚碈稧竝疉の獶猭笆腨波┛戮︽ぃ讽のㄇ腨穦㎝そ渤胺眃薄猵处臩秸琩к臛瞶パ颗の菏诡稧竝舦
チ羛觅穝籇︑パゲ斗籔カチ蝴臔㎝徖ョ斗Τ﹚砏絛癸穦俱砰盿ㄓ璽紇臫
畊ネセ略朝勉
郭Θ某璓勉畊ネチや㏄辩睶┥某癸ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30兵璹の矗场だ瞶パ疭琌ぃや︙玊く某矗璹瞶パ
チ粄ňゎ胳革猭ㄒ莱キ颗ㄢよ玥琌カチ薄舦琌稧竝磅︽ヴ叭秸琩舦㎝玂毁秸琩疭琌睲フ羘臕琌︙玊く某矗"Й锚秸琩"非玥ぃ琌続讽キ颗非玥ゼ┸臩ぷ肚碈σ納┸臩戈ì镑玂毁稧竝秸琩砱γそタ秈︽タ枷盞皘厨い┮瓃兵ゅㄒ癸秸琩硑ΘЙ锚ぇ摸粂碞笷箇戳ヘ夹弧猭琌螟Θミ璶絋﹚或薄猵┸臩戈才Й锚非玥ぃ琌ン甧ㄆ硂璝璶祇揣ぃ购だ硑ΘЙ锚のぃ硑ΘЙ锚┸臩и-
だや莱蹦枷盞皘硂蝶粂┮и-
ぃや︙玊く某タ
иョ粄︙玊く某タぃΤ玂臔秸琩羘臕疭琌猭ㄒ莱倒ぉ┸臩疭琌肚碈絋非玥ㄏㄤ笵或薄猵窽ゎ┸臩稧竝秸琩硂ㄇ非玥璶睲贰の甧フ磷癘戈カ初膙┸臩疭琌ㄇ睲フ砆秸琩薄猵
材翴и璶干琌ゑぇ㏄辩睶┥某タ碞カチみ璝┸臩稧竝Τ﹚秸琩薄猵妮笻猭硂琌睲贰玥琌眔や
ゑぇチ穦や嘲糠某タ瞶パ琌硂兜璹せ贺絋薄猵┸臩稧竝秸琩硂ㄇ非玥だ睲贰硂せ贺薄猵獺稧竝秸琩秈耕Θ剪┪獶盽Θ剪顶琿Τ﹚秸琩ぃ穦腨Й锚稧竝秸琩舦硂暗猭琌続讽キ颗
程チ粄現┎タぃ琌続讽キ颗逼癸カチ薄舦の穝籇︑パ玂毁まぃ続讽珿チは癸現┎癸材30兵璹
谅谅畊ネ
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President, I wish to thank the Chairman of the Bills Committee, the Honourable James TO, and members of the Committee for their thorough scrutiny of this important Bill.
The debate in the Chamber this afternoon, serious and high-minded, underscores the importance this Council and the community attaches to the work of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) while reflecting proper concerns over checks and balances over the use of the ICAC's powers.
I am pleased that almost all issues of concern to the Bills Committee have been resolved to the satisfaction of Members. The Administration has agreed to a number of Committee stage amendments, which I will be moving later this afternoon.
The Committee stage amendments
Mr President, I will now describe the major amendments to the Bill. I will propose that clause 1 should be amended so that the Ordinance will come into operation on a date to be appointed by notice in the Gazette, By virtue of section 20 subsection (3) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, it will be possible for different dates to be fixed for different provisions. The ICAC will need some lead-time before some of the new provisions can be brought into operation. This is the case, for example, where the provisions require court applications to be made. Members of the Bills Committee have, however, asked me to undertake to bring all provisions into effect as soon as practicable, and I agree to do so.
Clause 4 is to be amended so that further restrictions are placed on the Commissioner's powers of investigation under section 13 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. That section enables the Commissioner to require persons to produce certain documents. The Chairman of the Bills Committee had proposed that the powers under section 13 should be subject to court control. The Administration considers that a distinction should be made between requirements imposed under the section directed at suspects, and those directed at third parties, such as banks. Where a suspect is required to disclose a document, he may be required, in effect, to incriminate himself. This being so, we accept that there is a case for imposing court control over such requirements.
However, we do not believe that there is any similar justification for requiring a court order before third parties can be required to produce documents relating to a suspect. Moreover, precedents exist in the Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance and the Companies Ordinance for a power to require the production of documents without any court control.
The Committee stage amendment in respect of section 13 therefore imposes court control over requirements directed at a suspect. It also restricts the scope of section 13:
- by restoring to section 14 (and therefore imposing court control over) the power to require a person in charge of a public body to furnish documents to the ICAC;
- by deleting references to safe-deposit boxes; and
- by introducing a requirement that there must be reasonable cause to believe that the documents to be produced are "likely to be relevant" for the purposes of the investigation.
The Administration believes the amendments proposed will achieve the twin objects of:
- introducing court control where it is appropriate; and
- ensuring that ICAC investigations can continue to be undertaken effectively and in confidence.
The Committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Bill relate to new section 13A of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. That section would have enabled any ICAC investigating officer to make an application to the High Court for an order requiring the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to produce to the ICAC material held by him. The proposed amendments limit the persons who may make such an application; provide that applications lie to the High Court in chambers; and set out further guidelines to the court in deciding whether it is in the public interest to make such an order.
Further amendments to clause 5 are proposed in the form of a new section 13C. This new section reflects the concern, expressed by the Honourable Eric LI, that confidential information about a taxpayer that is held by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue may be obtained by the ICAC and publicly revealed in a subsequent prosecution. I wish to emphasize here that the Bill will permit the disclosure of Inland Revenue information obtained by the ICAC only for the purposes of proceedings relating to, or any prosecution of an offence, under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. I can assure Members that the information may not be otherwise disclosed.
The proposed new section 13C will apply where it is intended to use such information for those purposes. It will enable the taxpayer, and the person who may have supplied the information to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, to apply to the court for an order preventing the identity of the taxpayer from being publicly revealed. The court, when deciding whether to make such an order, will be required to consider whether the public interest in the publication of such information is outweighed by the privacy and confidentiality of the information, the prejudice that might result from publication, and the public interest in preserving the secrecy of tax information. This approach is, I suggest, a good way of dealing with the competing interests at stake, and I am grateful to the Honourable Eric LI for drawing attention to the problem and in assisting in finding a solution.
The proposed amendments to clause 6(a) of the Bill relate to the power under section 14 of the Prevention of Bibery Ordinance to obtain information. The Bill subjects those powers to court control. The Committee stage amendments provide that an application to the court for authority to use the powers is to be made in chambers, and prohibit the court from authorizing the use of certain of the powers unless the information sought is likely to be relevant to the corruption investigation or proceedings. It is essential that applications to the court under the section are handled in confidence, and I will be raising with the Judiciary how this can be best achieved.
The proposed amendment to clause 6(b) of the Bill restores to section 14 the power to require a person in charge of a public body to furnish documents to the ICAC. The effect of this amendment is that the power will become subject to court control.
The proposed amendment to clause 10(a) provides that the powers of search under section 17 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance can only be exercised if the court or the Commissioner is "satisfied" of relevant matters, rather than if it "appears to" them that this is the case.
A new clause 14A is to be added to the Bill. This is a savings provision to ensure that notices already served under section 14A or 14C of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance will continue in effect notwithstanding the repeal of the former section and the amendment to the latter. It also has the effect that extensions of such notices are subject to court control.
Mr President, I now turn to section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, on which so much has been said and written, and on which the Bills Committee spent much anxious time. Section 30 makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to disclose details of an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under the Ordinance.
The Bill, as introduced, proposed no amendment to section 30. The Bill, as Members will recall, was introduced to give effect to those recommendations of the ICAC Review Committee which required legislation. The Review Committee proposed no change to section 30, which had been amended by this Council in 1992 to ensure consistency with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Review Committee was satisfied that section 30 achieved the right balance. But that view was not shared by members of the Bills Committee as we have heard this afternoon. However, it is significant, Mr President, to note that, after exhaustive deliberations, no member of the Bills Committee has suggested that section 30 should be repealed. But the Bills Committee was not able to reach agreement with the Administration over the way in which the section should be amended. As a result, I will be moving two Committee stage amendments in respect of the section and three Members, as we have heard, will move their own amendments. I will say more about all these proposed amendments when the Bill is in Committee stage.
But, Mr President, I cannot leave section 30 without responding briefly to the suggestion made by a Member that the Ming Pao prosecution was an abuse of power. I would like to refute that suggestion as being completely unfounded. The prosecution was properly brought based on the view of the evidence and the law as it was then thought to be. There was no abuse of power by the ICAC. There was no abuse of the prosecution process.
The Committee stage amendments will also contain amendments to the Bill's provisions in respect of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance, to which I now turn.
Clause 15 of the Bill relates to the power to dismiss ICAC officers under section 8 of that Ordinance. The clause is to be amended so that, before terminating an appointment, the Commissioner must consult the Advisory Committee on Corruption. The Report of the ICAC Review Committee recommended that this should be the case, and the Administration has agreed that this recommendation should be reflected in the legislation.
Clause 16 of the Bill is to be amended to reflect the fact that, since the Bill was Gazetted, an authentic Chinese version of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance has been produced.
A new clause 16B is to be added, amending section 10D of the ICAC Ordinance. That section enables the ICAC to take fingerprints, photographs and measurements of persons arrested under section 10. The Bill will enable the ICAC, if it wishes, to serve a summons on a person, instead of arresting him or her. This being so, it is considered appropriate that the ICAC should have the power to take fingerprints, photographs and measurements of a person on whom a summons is served. The Committee stage amendment so provides.
Clause 17 of the Bill amends section 13(2) of the ICAC Ordinance so that, in order to perform his corruption-prevention duties, the Commissioner may gain access to documents held by public bodies. The Bills Committee was concerned, as we have heard, that this power might be too broad and so the Administration has agreed to limit the power so that it applies only to documents that an authorized ICAC officer reasonably considers will reveal the practices and the procedures of the public body.
The Committee stage amendments also include drafting improvements to the Bill. The amendment to clause 7, and the proposed new clauses 12A and 16A, are cases in point.
Conclusion
Mr President, when I introduced this Bill into the Council, I described it as an essential step in reaffirming the ICAC's mandate in the light of present day circumstances and the changing expectations of the people of Hong Kong. The Administration is pleased that, subject to the Committee stage amendments that I have referred to, the Bill has received the support of the Bills Committee. The enactment of this Bill will therefore indeed be a strong reaffirmation of the ICAC's mandate as it continues its vital work in the years ahead.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 6 December 1995
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
NON-LOCAL HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (REGULATION) BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 8 November 1995
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 22 May 1996
︙┯ぱ某璓勉畊ネセ略1996紅の穨竒犁璹兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ祇ē
兵ㄒΞ结舦骋矪矪穨竒犁狥祇窗玃э到硄の既氨硄
挪程祇ネ硈﹃穨種セ瞏獺︗某現┎讽Ыの約カチ常だ闽猔穨璶┦辨Τ闽猭ㄒ眔Νら硄筁籔兵ㄒ〆穦Τ砫ヴ冈灿╯兵ㄒパ丁候兵ㄒ〆穦筁ㄢ琍戳オ纯籔現┎讽Ыの刮羭︽筁Ω穦某セ瞷阀瓃〆┮矗ㄇ璶闽猔ㄆ兜
〆炊筂やΤ闽祇窗玃э到硄某礛τ〆闽猔狥钡莉窗玃э到硄穦ご笻は琘ㄇ疭﹚兵ゅτ綝浪北現┎讽Ыボ薄猵狥宽眖窗玃э到硄ボ獽ぃ穦赣单笻ㄒ︽τ綝浪北セ辨毙▅参膚ㄤ氮勉い穦秈˙靡龟翴
︓既氨硄〆诡眡龟悔磅︽讽骋矪紅服诡ǖ诡祇瞷繧薄猵獽穦讽初癸Τ闽狥矗繷牡盢薄猵ㄤ厨既氨硄斗パ骋矪︗捌畊紅服诡羆菏у﹍祇硂恨逼穦旧璓パǖ诡︓龟悔祇既氨硄ぇ丁筳琿丁現┎讽Ы莱兜闽猔種穦璹Τ闽まㄏ既氨硄眔荷е祇τヴ︙薄猵穦ǖ诡24ず祇
〆炊筂粄祘场だτ祇繷牡ぃì镑τ莱続讽タ览某材9C兵獽砏﹚祇既氨硄玡璽砫ǖ诡服诡莱讽初狥祇硄祇既氨硄種旧璓祇赣硄繧ㄆ兜︙硄ㄏ狥だ秆Τ闽繧薄猵蹦┮惠干毕︽笆現┎讽Ыぃは癸磅︽兜逼┶荡盢逼猭ㄒずセ盢穦〆穦糵某顶琿笆某┮惠タ獽盢砏﹚兵ㄒずセ盢〆穦糵某顶琿Ω冈瓃硂翴
闽骋矪矪既氨硄祇14ぱず秈︽滦ㄆ场だ刮の〆纯借好骋矪矪紉高穨の胺眃〆穦種ǎ祘琌妮讽逼穨の胺眃〆穦獶猭﹚诀篶度琌骋臮拜〆穦舱〆穦︓滦┮惠丁現┎讽Ыボ倒ぉ狥匡拒匡拒ぃрㄤユパ穨の胺眃〆穦矪瞶矪耕祏丁ず碞ㄤ∕﹚
現┎讽Ы⊿Τ钡场だ刮矗兵ㄒずм砃称а魁某ㄤ瞶パ琌м砃称а魁琌ノ更瓃м砃砏τ獶磅猭まぃ筁讽Ы氮莱穦そガ祘ま穦絋ミまの某癸まэ笆玡紉高Τ闽よ種ǎ毙▅参膚祇ē穦秈˙秆睦硂翴
〆ョ莉眡狥莱窗玃э到硄┪既氨硄τ秈︽干毕ぃ﹚砆膏睦︑粄デ竜场だ〆高拜琌兵ㄒず兵ゅ弧硂翴現┎讽Ы紉高猭種ǎ絋﹚ㄤ現郸ミ初ボぃ穦兵ゅ瞶パ琌粄礚ゲ璶
沮某い骋矪服诡斗ǔ硉蹦︽笆疭琌祇既氨硄琩干毕のΤ惠璶篗綪既氨硄よ〆璶―現┎讽Ы┮惠も逼絋玂の蹦︽笆
程セ稰谅兵ㄒ〆穦〆倒ぉ兵ㄒ坝某眔眖硉秈︽畊ネセ略朝勉や兵ㄒ
朝胞糭某璓勉畊ネи-
や崩笆箇ň穨種惫琁┪現郸τセ兵ㄒ结ぉ骋矪矪祇窗玃э到硄㎝既氨硄舦э到穨惫琁セ籔羛穦ㄆ玂毁ネ㏑àㄓ弧︑礛砫礚禪や現┎
畊ネパヘ玡薄猵ㄏ骋矪矪Τ瞶パ獺Τ闽盢笿繧荡癸礚舦いゎヴ︙祘巨ゲ斗猭皘掉﹛ビ叫氨ゎ祘巨硂妓程ぶ璶计ら祇窽戳丁穦祇ネ腨穨種セ兵ㄒタタ皐癸硂拜肈搭ぶ穨種祇ネ诀穦
兵ㄒ〆穦穦某畊〆纯癚阶現┎祇既氨硄祘現┎﹛穦ē骋矪紅服诡狦ǖ琩祇瞷Τ繧薄猵獽穦讽初祇繷硄ㄓэ牡盢薄猵厨祇氨硄ぃ穦р硂祘糶猭ㄒいτ琌紆┦よΑㄓ矪瞶セЫㄇㄆ癸矗タр硂祘糶猭ㄒ兵ゅいセ籔羛穦ぃ粄硂兜某硂妓穦現┎暗ㄆ"も竲"钡┪丁钡紇臫竤Τ盡穨キ紅服诡ǖ琩癸ňゎ穨種Τ﹚祘紇臫
畊ネи璶ēи┮弧"も竲"龟悔ぃ琌現┎も竲τ琌硂暗猭Τ甡ね胺眃㎝膀硂玡矗セの羛穦ㄆぃ穦やセЫㄆΤ闽硂よタ羛穦粄琂礛紅服诡Τ甅祇瓃も碞⊿Τゲ璶莱セЫㄇㄆ種ǎ暗硂妓穦Τ闽┯坝ㄇ诀穦ǐ猭簗瑌癸い–笲常Τκ甡τ礚
畊ネ兵ㄒ〆穦穦某いΤ某矗狥莱骋矪璶―癸Τ闽繧薄猵э到ぃ﹚膏睦"︑粄デ竜"セЫㄆ癸矗タ羛穦ぃ粄現竝﹛竒ēτ骋矪の毙▅参膚ョボ硂琌ぃ猭瞶ㄌ沮ミ猭Ы猭臮拜硂よΤǎ秆畊ネ刚拜и-
ミ猭粄ㄇ笻は猭盡種ǎタ㎡
程и璶羛穦穦や現┎硂兜м砃璹の癸現┎沧氮莱璹紅服诡ǖ琩ず场祘ㄏ既氨硄眔ǖ琩24ず祇の穦も秸皌皌莱Τ闽猭ㄒネи-
ボだ舧
畊ネи略朝勉и㎝羛穦ㄆ穦や現┎硂よ某谅
︙庇古某璓勉畊ネチ囊常э到骋猭ㄒ辨硄筁璹猭ㄒㄓэ到薄猵и-
やさぱ硂兜紅の穨竒犁兵ㄒ璹硂兜璹р┕Τ猭皘帽祇既氨硄эパ骋矪矪帽祇硂琌秈˙ㄏΤ闽硄е帽祇τ镑Τ瞯э到
既氨硄㎝窗玃э到硄镑荷е帽祇и-
临辨現┎硄筁︽現笲㎝笲ノㄤ紆┦р帽祇硂ㄇ硄┮惠丁荷秖罽祏癸現┎┯空р48ず帽祇既氨硄某э24ず獽帽祇и-
だ猋洁ぃ筁и-
辨盢ㄓ帽祇硂ㄇ硄丁环环祏24現┎临рㄓ繷硄祇氨硄種逼э硄и-
ョ钡硂兜э跑種︽現祘磅︽и-
觅硂︽現祘膀セì玂毁癸Τ闽狥そキи-
盢穦や毙▅参膚м砃タぃや甃ㄎ瞶某㎝︙┯ぱ某タ︓Τ闽タ兵ゅи-
盢穦〆穦糵某顶琿Ω祇ē
谅谅畊ネ
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, before I deal in substance with the amendment, that is, the Bill before the Council today, I would like to make one point quite clear. In the course of the Bills Committee's deliberation of this particular Bill, it transpired that the present procedure requires the Commissioner of Labour to actually attend court to obtain a suspension of works order. But no application has been made to court since the early eighties. We were told that the reason is because of the procedure is cumbersome and time consuming. It is no wonder that the labour sector is unhappy with that state of affairs and welcome the present amendment proposed in the present Bill.
Indeed, Mr President, I rise to speak in support of the Bill. But, firstly, I must chastise the Government for not bringing this measure in sooner.
My colleague, the Honourable Edward HO has outlined the purpose of the Bill and indeed some of the concerns expressed by my constituents in the property and construction sectors. Their concerns are not with the introduction of the improvement or suspension notices. Their concerns reflect what I believe to be the shortcomings in the Bill which were revealed in the course of and as a result of scrutiny by the Bills Committee. I will try to outline these concerns as briefly as I can.
First, in the course of scrutiny, we were informed by the Administration that in respect of a suspension notice, it would be issued subject to a three-tier administrative control. In brief, whenever a Factory Inspector discovers any imminent risk of serious bodily injury he should immediately but verbally warn the management of the industrial undertaking and report the situation to the Divisional Factory Inspector who, after assessing the situation, would forward his recommendations to a Deputy Chief Inspector for approval to issue a suspension notice. In the original draft guidelines, the Labour Department stated that the suspension notice will be served as soon as practicable but in no case later than two working days. On probing by the Bills Committee, this was reduced to the 24 hours as everyone in this Chamber has heard, as well as the Labour Department accepting that the verbal warning should be in writing although by an administrative measure.
Mr President, members of the Bills Committee were unable to pursuade the Administration that this written notice should be a statutory requirement rather than an administrative measure. The reasons advanced by the Secretary for Education and Manpower, in his letter dated 9 July this year to Members of this Council, are that it is unnecessary, unacceptable and will impose an undue burden on the proprietors and on the Administration. Mr President, what I cannot understand is why does the Administration want to avoid making statutory what it is otherwise prepared to do anyway? The only difference is that all the proprietors, and indeed all the workers, will know where their rights are and if this is set out in the law so much the better. We are being asked to give the Commissioner of Labour a pretty tough legal power to use these notices. I would have thought that the Commissioner would welcome this clear-cut requirement.
Mr President, the Honourable Edward HO mentioned that there was concern over the need for a 14-day period for the Commissioner to review the issue of a suspension notice. On being queried why such a lengthy period was required, the Bills Committee was told by the Labour Department that the Commissioner intended to consult with the Committee on Industrial Safety and Health which is a subcommittee of the Labour Advisory Board. It seems extraordinary that the Commissioner would embark on such an exercise outside the scope of the Bill and indeed the Ordinance, however well-intentioned these consultations may be. I made the point during our deliberations that if that were the case, what the Commissioner should do is to actually include this process in the relevant subsection in the Bill and that it would receive the support of this Council. But alas the Administration's response is that it was up to the Bills Committee to decide. I resisted using emotive remakes, but it does seem astonishing that in the exercise of a statutory power to review a suspension notice, the Commissioner intends to consult with a non-statutory committee and probably in the absence of the applicant. This may well explain why the Administration feels that a statutory notice is unnecessary, unacceptable and an undue burden.
Mr President, I shall deal with another concern which in simple terms is simply this: What is the effect of compliance with an improvement or suspension notice? The way in which the Commissioner is empowered to issue these notices, to say the least, implies that a contravention of the Ordinance is occurring or has occurred. Hence there is some doubt as to whether compliance by the proprietor with such notices can amount to evidence against him in any criminal or disciplinary proceedings. It seems to me that the policy objective of the Government must be to encourage compliance with such notices. But would this be achieved if there is a concern that compliance could be used as evidence against such proprietor? It is common sense that it will discourage rather than encourage compliance. My proposed amendment therefore is to preclude the act of compliance as being evidence. Mr President, I hasten to add that my proposed amendment is not intended to and does not preclude a prosecution or disciplinary proceedings. It simply excludes compliance as evidence of contravention. If there is cogent evidence of contravention and in serious cases, I am sure the Commissioner may well prosecute or indeed instigate disciplinary proceedings. I am not seeking to prevent that. Indeed you would expect that there would be other evidence to support the issue of the notices anyway. My proposed amendment, contrary to the Secretary for Education and Manpower's assertion, would not and cannot undermine efforts to bring to justice offending proprietors in serious cases.
Mr President, the choice for Members is clean and simple: encourage compliance by supporting my amendment without affecting criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
In conclusion, Mr President, my constituents, The Real Estate Developers Association and The Hong Kong Construction Association support the spirit behind the Bill. Like this Council, they are conscious of the urgency of this Bill and attended meetings to ensure its quick resolution. All they seek is clear and fair amendments and not to leave major issues to administrative measures as asserted by the Administration. Is that really too much to ask? I believe not! Mr President, I hope Members of this Council will support my amendments.
某璓勉畊ネиや現┎硂兜兵ㄒи睲贰癘眔讽и临穨端舦痲穦и竒矗現┎惠璶Τ祇既氨硄舦и癘眔讽現┎氮滦и弧現┎Τ舦掉竝ビ叫窽и蔼砍現┎兵ㄒ〆穦穦某畊瞷弧琌さぱиㄓゴ琎ぱи讽Ыи-
┯粄ㄤ龟-
⊿Τ︽ㄏ硂兜舦掉竝ビ叫窽祘獶盽羉狡┮常⊿Τ笲ノ硂舦
и粄狦硂兜兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁紅服诡獽Τ舦帽祇硂ㄇ硄τ翠碞弧琌局Τ"礟"俱兜兵ㄒヘ琌琵現┎紅服诡璝粄Τ闽薄猵獶盽繧┪琌Τ端诀穦帽祇既氨硄и-
獺狦讽Ы祇既氨硄τΤ闽┯坝宽杠碞单"礟"秈︽い穦氨ゎ硂ぃ琌璶俱絃氨琌氨ゎ琘и粄硂兜兵ㄒ璶и辨硂兜兵ㄒ硄筁紅服诡莉结舦秈︽ǖ琩Τ瞯氨ゎΤ诀穦端甡ō砰┪ㄇ繧祘
甃ㄎ瞶某矗筁兵ㄒ〆穦穦某穨ず纯у蝶現┎某禗戳丁斗吭高骋臮拜〆穦"骋臮穦"穨の胺眃〆穦и讽Τ畊穨の胺眃〆穦穦某┮и稱疭坚睲翴讽矗璶吭高骋臮穦獶骋よτ琌戈よ琌沟稱現┎吭高骋臮穦ㄤ龟骋よミ初程璶琌讽Ы帽祇既氨ゎ硄礛辨Τ闽沟镑宽眖狦璶矗禗ぃ阶琌骋矪矪矗临琌禗︽現〆穦矗癸骋よㄓ弧常琌よ猭┮и璶硂坚睲甃ㄎ瞶某弧-
ぃ骸種︙骋矪矪琂莉甭硂猭﹚舦玱璶吭高獶猭﹚诀篶и稱︗某ㄤ龟琌沟璶―盢硂祘珹ず
и獺現┎祔穦秆睦弧秆∕硂拜肈よ猭碞琌琵钡莉既氨硄沟┪┯坝匡拒琌ユパ骋臮穦穨の胺眃〆穦矪瞶狦匡拒ぃユ赣〆穦矪瞶杠現┎獺ぃ惠璶14ぱ硂或丁∕﹚и獺現┎穦︗秆弧硂拜肈
︓甃ㄎ瞶某㎝︙┯ぱ某┮矗タи穦场は癸и穦〆穦糵某顶琿矗иは癸瞶パ
谅谅畊ネ
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネ兵ㄒ〆穦畊︙┯ぱ某㎝ㄤ〆ǔ硉糵某やセ兵ㄒи璶-
璓谅
1996紅の穨竒犁璹兵ㄒΞ甭舦骋矪矪祇既氨硄獽埃盢癸硑Θ繧の祇窗玃э到硄タ⊿Τê或腨繧薄猵硂琌兜Τ闽穨璶猭ㄒ甭舦骋矪矪ǔ硉蹦箇ň惫琁㎝磅猭︽笆
и盢祔笆某и兵ㄒ兜タ硂兜タ妮虏虫м砃タ莉眔ミ猭Ы兵ㄒ〆穦やぃ筁︙┯ぱ某㎝甃ㄎ瞶某祇硄-
盢穦笆某ㄇ龟借タ現┎粄硂ㄇタ琌ぃゲ璶㎝ぃ続
︙┯ぱ某某タ琌候钡祇瞷ヴ︙ì祇既氨硄ㄆ兜骋矪矪斗赣穨竒犁狥祇硄瓃览祇既氨硄の盢赣既氨硄ㄆ兜
甃ㄎ瞶某矗某材场だ籔︙┯ぱ某某タ妓常琌璶―骋矪矪Τ闽穨竒犁狥祇硄ぃ筁甃ㄎ瞶某秈˙某硄莱璹Αの骋矪矪舅厨祅そэΑㄆ龟現┎種骋矪祇既氨硄祘まい璹硄穨竒犁狥現┎览祇既氨硄現┎は癸硂ㄇタ琌硂ㄇタぃр︽現祘跑Θ猭ㄒτ沮甃ㄎ瞶某某猭ㄒず璹セ妮︽現┦借硄Α㎝ず甧┮Τ闽タ盢穦腨玠畓骋矪矪伐惠璶艶莱跑獽莱㏑я闽薄猵
甃ㄎ瞶某矗某材场だ琌Τ闽宽眖窗玃э到硄璶―ㄆ龟┪既氨硄ボㄆ龟Аぃ钡皐癸狥靡沮タ某и-
琌Чぃ钡硂某硂穦紇臫現┎璓ゴ阑腨笻ㄒ狥и盢祔冈灿秆睦現┎は癸硂ㄇタ阶翴и略叫某∕は癸︙┯ぱ某㎝甃ㄎ瞶某笆某タ
и︗某玂靡骋矪矪碞︙贺薄猵祇既氨硄㎝窗玃э到硄の祇㎝篗綪硂ㄇ硄祘览称冈灿ま現┎瞷タ糵某硂ㄇま絋玂ウ-
ìňゎ祇ネ垒ノ舦薄猵籔猭ㄒ砏﹚の猭㎝︽現篋盽暗猭才セ兵ㄒ莉ミ猭Ы硄筁骋矪矪盢セ兵ㄒネそガ硂ㄇま
и-
穦沮まΘぃ浪癚ままΤэ骋矪矪盢穦硄筁瞷Τ吭高诀紉高Τ闽刮砰種ǎ吭高癸禜珹骋臮拜〆穦"骋臮穦"のㄤ盡產〆穦戮穨胺眃ЫのΤ闽沟羛穦の穦
骋臮穦癚阶赣兵ㄒ某ボ骋矪矪∕﹚沮材9C(4)兵ビ叫秈︽浪癚,莱紉高骋臮穦烈穨の胺眃〆穦種ǎ骋矪矪钡骋臮穦某琌穨の胺眃〆穦琌盡產〆穦Θ珹计单沟の沟の眖穨
兵ㄒ〆穦粄ㄇ狥ぃ惠璶穨の胺眃〆穦種ǎΤǎの骋矪矪種穦沮滦ビ叫種腀匡拒琌穨の胺眃〆穦碝―種ǎ
╯兵ㄒ筁祘い某の兵ㄒ〆穦癸ㄇ拜肈瞏闽猔иㄆ〆穦穦某い竒冈灿癚阶筁硂ㄇ種ǎи稱莱ㄇ耕璶拜肈
兵ㄒ〆穦〆のㄇΤ闽琂礛既氨硄ノ琌玂毁┦㏑のê或祇瞷繧薄猵獽莱ミㄨ祇赣兜硄パ硄祇穦祘秈疉の繧薄猵拜肈眔秆∕莱荷е篗綪硄Τ挪и-
┯空骋矪矪ぃ阶琌祇┪篗綪既氨硄常莱龟悔︽薄猵荷е秈︽礚阶︙莱祇瞷繧24ず祇硄のТ到蹦干毕惫琁24ずр硄篗綪
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
AVIATION SECURITY BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 5 June 1996
MR HOWARD YOUNG: The Aviation Security Bill, as laid before this Council is, a bill which is necessary for Hong Kong and has the support of the aviation industry, which is part of the tourism industry which I represent.
Hong Kong has had a good track record for many, many years as being a safe, secure place to carry out aviation business and aviation activities. And that has enhanced Hong Kong's reputation as an aviation and communications centre in this part of the world.
For historical reasons, aviation security, which to the layman deals with things such as hijacking of aircraft and the protection of passengers and aircraft, has been under the umbrella of United Kingdom civil aviation legislation which now, with the transfer of sovereignty, it is proper and correct that such laws should be localized to be implemented in Hong Kong beyond 1997.
Whilst the Bill itself has the support of the industry, I wish here to make one or two points which the industry which I represent is concerned with in relation to aviation security plus the main problem which this Bill tries to address, that is, the commandeering of aircraft.
Although the Bill deals with instances where aircraft may not be unlawfully taken over or commandeered in flight or at airports, there have been in recent years instances of where, for non-terrorist or reasons of hijacking and the like, passengers or people have in certain airports in the region have occupied aircraft unnecessarily whilst they are on the ground. Such instances have happened in recent years in Taipei and in Manila and most of them, although they have nothing to do with the ambit of this Bill in the sense of aviation security when it is related to hijacking or terrorist activities, in fact do have a side-effect of possibly affecting passenger and aircraft safety.
We all know that aircraft, although they must be secure whilst they are in the air or on the ground for refuelling or transiting, must stick to strict schedules and must take off and land according to aviation and aircraft control procedures. If these are not adhered to, they could indirectly have a bad impact not just on commercial scheduling and commercial interests, but also on the air traffic control in general which indirectly could also impact on the security of aircraft and passengers waiting to land or take off.
Mr President, in this context, I have had discussions with the Economic Services Branch, Civil Aviation Department and Security Branch. Whilst we all agreed that in the particular context of this Bill, it may not be proper to actually try and insert clauses in this to also prohibit the commissioning of commandeering of aircraft without the consent of its operator's owners whilst on the ground, there may be other measures to be taken such as when the Administration discusses by-laws with the Airport Authority in particular in relation to the new airport to prevent such instances from marring Hong Kong's reputation as an efficient and secure and safe aviation centre. In this respect, I hope that the Government, after the passage of this Bill, will not let the matter rest lightly.
Apart from these remarks, Mr President, the industry which I represent does fully support the contents of the Bill.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Aviation Security Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council for its First and Second Readings on 5 June 1996.
The Bill seeks to localize United Kingdom legislative provisions, concerning international conventions on aviation security, which are currently extended to Hong Kong by Orders-in-Council. It also includes provisions to apply other internationally recommended aviation security measures which are currently being implemented in Hong Kong through administrative means. The enactment of the Bill will enable us to establish a comprehensive statutory framework for implementing aviation security measures, now and beyond 1997.
Our aim is to implement our aviation security requirements in co-operation and consultation with the aviation industry. To this end, we have widely consulted within the aviation industry including with the airlines, airport tenants and the Airport Authority.
Although it is not directly related to the Bill, I wish to assure Mr Howard YOUNG that we are happy to continue with our consultation on any matters which ensure that we have the highest standard of effectiveness in operation of our airport as well as the highest standard in maintaining our security standards. I just wish to record my thanks for Honourable Members' immediate support for this Bill. With the passage of this Bill, we shall be sending a very strong message to the international community that Hong Kong is meeting and will continue to meet internationally accepted aviation security standards and obligations. There are only a few technical amendments which I shall move later at the Committee stage.
Mr President, I recommended the Aviation Security Bill to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
IMMIGRATION SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 7 February 1996
糂紌某璓勉畊ネセるら現┎ミ猭Ы矗ユ1996チ挂恨瞶钉璹兵ㄒミ猭Ыず叭〆穦ョㄢぱ∕﹚Θミ兵ㄒ〆穦╯赣兵ㄒ兵ㄒ〆穦るら甶秨и砆匡畊и-
羭︽きΩ穦某畊ネセ兵ㄒΞ穝璹﹚┪耎チ挂恨瞶钉"恨瞶钉"舦獽秸琩Τ闽ネ爹盉爹㎝ㄆ祅癘よ竜︽のㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ鞍硑ゅン竜︽兵ㄒ某р秸琩硂ㄇ竜︽戮砫パ牡よ簿ユ倒チ挂ㄆ叭矪璽砫
兵ㄒ某琵恨瞶钉璽砫秸琩ㄤ戮砫絛瞅ず竜︽瞷恨瞶钉Τ舦╇╇痙穓琩㎝浪珇ぃ筁秸琩Τ闽ネ祅癘盉祅癘ㄆ祅癘の鞍硑ゅン竜︽よ玱⊿Τ絋璹﹚ㄤ舦絛瞅讽笿硂ㄇ竜︽恨瞶钉˙秸琩靡沮Θミ獽璶锣ユ牡よ秈︽秸琩の矗浪北
讽Ы粄硂贺暗猭穦硑Θ舼瞯
覸絯牡竝╇痙┮筁澜薄猵セ兵ㄒ某恨瞶钉∕﹚盢砆秆┕牡竝临琌╇痙チ挂ㄆ叭矪"挂矪"快ㄆ矪秈˙秸琩
讽Ыボ盢穦э皑繷à笵現┎竝竚加箇戳祘ЧΘ盢徥痙90环ㄓ弧讽Ы璸购砞ミ┮甧300穝徥痙いみ瞷挂矪办いみ
畊ネ某獶盽闽猔璝恨瞶钉莉结ぉ硂ㄇ穝舦-
穦続讽ㄏノの穦菏诡讽ЫボΤ恨瞶钉矗ㄑ秸琩の徥痙よ癡絤穦祇ま挂矪快ㄆ矪ず╇痙好デタ絋矪瞶祘挂矪砞ミ徥痙いみ穦籔牡よの胓毙竝钡牟恨瞶钉矗ㄑ┮惠癡絤挂矪ョ穦祇恨瞶徥痙いみま畊ネ讽Ыョ┯空祔穦セЫ玂ㄆ叭〆穦矗ユゅン冈瓃恨瞶钉┮矗ㄑ癡絤┮璹まの砞ミビ禗琵カチщ禗垒ノ戮舦ㄆ﹜
糵某硂兜兵ㄒ某伐闽猔疉のō︑パ拜肈珹璶猭ㄒ璹程蔼Ι痙畊ネи弧琌Ι痙ぃ琌徥痙琌Ι痙琘秈︽秸琩程и-
癸穜皍Τㄇ某某ㄢ現┎粄ぃ︽Τ闽斗璸衡丁ㄓ秈︽秸琩и讽纯ボ安и砆╇иゲ﹚计–┮現┎璶璸衡–だㄓи獺琌钡畊ネ程某の現┎讽Ы種硂薄猵Ι痙ぃ眔禬筄12
兵ㄒョ璹そ渤Τ舦┶荡琵恨瞶钉そ渤よ穓琩-
硂籔牡よ薄猵ぃ瞷牡叭刁璶篒氨ヴ︙穓ō-
⊿Τ舦ボぃ稱ê砆穓ō沮硂兜兵ㄒ恨瞶钉ゲ斗讽ㄆ-
Τ舦┶荡刁砆穓琩現┎種祘ず糶硂翴恨瞶钉рΤ闽盿挂矪快ㄆ矪ê產┪╬よ秈︽穓琩硂ンㄆ某琌やи玥辨牡よ挂矪厩策ぃ筁畊ネ硂琌и︑種ǎ
讽Ы钡某某糶Τ闽场祘ず琵秸琩笵秈︽穓琩玡ゲ斗讽ㄆΤ舦┶荡そ渤よ砆穓琩常ぃ笵硂ㄇ舦-
刁綝篒琩硄盽常佩稺┮и-
璶―恨瞶钉讽ㄆㄤ舦辨挂矪常癘硂翴
畊ネ兵ㄒ〆穦竒筁礷癚阶∕﹚や兵ㄒの玂〆穦糵某顶琿矗タ
и略朝勉や兵ㄒ弄
襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネ糂紌某竒兵ㄒ〆穦弧и-
栋砰種ǎ瞷и稱弧ㄢ翴や種ǎ
и箇戳硂兜兵ㄒ硄筁チ挂ㄆ叭矪"挂矪"珼驹┦盢穦矗蔼τ磅猭┮硑Θ侥初ョ穦耕瞷秸琩钉挂矪场だ戈方の癡絤常陪ぃ琌皐癸侥初┪惠璶笲ノ眏舦初τ砞и辨現┎疭猔硂よ癡絤珹笲ノ妓мォㄓ矪瞶拜肈セ硂ㄇ琌パ牡よ璽砫τヴ︙牡叭ぃ阶琌瓁杆┪琌盎絩贝恗钡癡絤ì矪瞶祇ネ侥初ㄤい珹疉の徥痙秸琩の發︓薄厨よи粄現┎斗碞硂よ眏挂矪癡絤
材タ糂紌某┮弧現┎┯空盢ㄓ籔и-
坝癚Τ闽щ禗诀の菏诡щ禗诀иフ硂ㄇ场穦侥初τ砆щ禗и箇戳程ぃ穦Τびщ禗Τ闽ㄆン计ヘぃ穦и玥や砞ミ縒ミ秸琩诀戈方よ硂ぃ琌程Τ逼ぃ筁礚阶︙и辨現┎碞︙菏诡щ禗矗ㄇ縩伐某ㄏカチョ骸種硂琌そタ逼パ挂矪盢穦局Τ眏舦矪瞶祇ネ侥初τ沮牡钉竒喷陪ボ硂よщ禗ゑ瞯盢穦ら亥矗蔼и辨現┎镑荷Ν碞Τ诀矗某琵產癚阶
玂璓勉畊ネ現┎せるらミ猭Ы矗ユ1996チ挂恨瞶钉璹兵ㄒセΞ甭舦チ挂恨瞶钉Θ秸琩赣钉戮舦絛瞅ぇず籔祅癘ㄆ﹜Τ闽竜︽のㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ材200彻┮璹﹚琘ㄇ鞍硑竜︽セ砏絛チ挂恨瞶钉Θ矪瞶砆祘
糂紌某㎝兵ㄒ〆穦〆冈灿糵某セ兵ㄒ〆穦糵某顶琿矗兜腳禥某癸и瞏谅種
穦穦癸セ结ぉチ挂恨瞶钉肂舦ボ闽猔τ瓃祘硂よΤ腊現┎莱灿タセ兵ㄒ埃赣单好納
и-
某〆穦糵某顶琿碞セ兵ㄒㄇ璶タ玂毁タ钡秸琩┪砆舦
(a) 材и-
某タΑ╇ぇ玡程╇痙戳丁ぃ眔禬筁12
(b) 材и-
某パΤ闽程砆╇痙钡秸琩︓盿掉猭畑┪莉睦ゎ羆╇痙程48の
(c) 材и-
某タ材13(1)㎝(2)兵埃"Τ舦北赣よ┪﹡︘ê""﹡︘┪恨赣よ"蠢硂琌牡钉兵ㄒ材232彻材50(3)兵屡セチ挂恨瞶钉Θ穓琩╬加矗ㄑㄎ玂毁и-
某セ兵ㄒ兜淮稬タ籔砏恨ㄤ场钉舦ㄤ猭ㄒ皌璓
и某玂靡瘤礛讽ЫΤ種絋玂チ挂恨瞶钉Θ莉眔┮惠秸琩舦磅︽ㄤ猭﹚戮砫癸莱Τì镑颗ňゎ垒ノ舦ョ妓闽猔и-
獺セ兵ㄒ硈〆穦糵某顶琿タタ笷キ颗τ瞷︽腨玂毁だΤìňゎ垒ノ舦
︓糂紌某㎝襖略ビ某┮闽み拜肈и稱酵и-
チ挂恨瞶钉秸琩矗ㄑ秸琩㎝舦約獂癡絤セ兵ㄒ箋ガチ挂ㄆ叭矪獽穦秨快穝癡絤揭祘穦羭︽虏ざ穦絋玂局Τ赣单穝舦チ挂恨瞶钉剪策Τ闽猭︽ㄏ结ぉ舦镑秤ヴ穦祇続讽盽叭癡まの砏恨Τ闽︽ㄏ硂ㄇ某舦ㄆ龟セ┮结ぉ舦籔チ挂兵ㄒ甭ぉ瞷︽舦璝и-
獺挂矪磅︽穝秸琩戮砫盢ぃ穦笿螟
現┎盢莱兵ㄒ〆穦璶―セ兵ㄒネミ猭Ы玂ㄆ叭〆穦矗ユゅン冈瓃Τ闽矪瞶щ禗祘の挂矪矗ㄑ癡絤硂兜┯空и-
﹚穦蛤秈
畊ネи略崩滤1996チ挂恨瞶钉璹兵ㄒ
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 18 October 1995
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I rise to speak in my capacity as the Chairman of the Bills Committee formed to study the Buildings (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1995.
The said Bill was introduced into this Council at the first regular sitting of the current Session on 18 October 1995. The Bills Committee has taken one Legislative Council year to complete scrutiny of the Bill. Altogether the Bills Committee has held 19 meetings, paid one visit to a construction cite and received over 300 written submissions. I shall highlight some of the major issues considered by the Bills Committee.
The first part of the Bill deals with the regulation of building professionals. Members of the Bills Committee welcome the proposals under the Bill to improve the existing registration system of Authorized Persons (AP) and Registered Structural Engineers (RSE) by bringing the criteria for registration in line with those under other building professional registration Ordinances, namely, the Architects Registration Ordinance, the Engineers Registration Ordinance, and the Surveyors Registration Ordinance. The only major query raised by members is the proposal to include a lay member in the AP Registration Committee and the RSE Registration Committee. The Administration had explained that the policy of including a lay member is intended to allow public views be reflected in each Registration Committee because the duties of these building professionals are closely related to public interest and judgement factors will be considered in dealing with registration matters. The Bills Committee, whilst accepting the Administration's explanations, considers the proposed nomination mechanism for lay members unsatisfactory. At the suggestion of members, the Administration has agreed to improve the nomination system, the registration and the renewal procedures and the disciplinary proceedings for AP and RSE. Amongst these improvements, a major one is to empower the Building Authority (BA) to establish panels of members including lay persons for appointment to the AP Registration Committee and the RSE Registration Committee, and to appoint more than one Registration Committee of each type at any one time.
Regarding the registration system for contractors, the Bills Committee supports the proposed new contractor registration system to replace the existing one with a view to upgrading the standards of building contractors. However, members share the concern of the trade that this objective should be pursued with regard to the practical situation. To enhance certainty as to the criteria for registration, the Administration has worked jointly with the trade and come up with a set of criteria which will be specified in the Bill. The Administration has also assured members that a registered contractor will not be struck out from the list or be refused for retention of name because of absence or lack of physical works for a certain period. A contractor's name will only be removed on the ground that it has ceased to engage in the building business. This assurance has allayed the trade's concern on the matter.
On the transitional arrangements, the Administration has taken on board members' suggestion to amend the Bill to reflect that the registration of a contractor who is registered at the commencement of the new registration scheme will continue in force for two years. This arrangement will allow the existing contractors who have entered into building contracts before the enactment of the Bill to honour their contractual obligations and fulfil the new requirements.
Mr President, the Bills Committee has spent considerable time examining the proposed requirement under the Bill for the submission of a supervision plan by the AP to the BA for approval prior to the commencement of building or demolition works. The professional institutions have pointed out a number of deficiencies of such a proposal. To mention just a few; a prescribed supervision plan is excessively rigid and will not accommodate changes if site circumstances so require. Since the professionals are required to follow a prescribed plan, it will inhibit the exercise of professional judgement. Moreover, at the design stage of a building project, it is practically impossible to prepare a detailed supervision plan outlining the level of supervision at each stage and the manpower necessary to carry out the required level of site supervision. The professional institutions have repeatedly stressed that AP and RSE are design professionals and they are not in control of the day-to-day site operation the responsibility for which rests with the registered contractors.
To overcome shortcomings of a prescribed supervision plan but without compromising the standards of site supervision, the Administration, modeled on a counter proposal proposed by the professional institutions, has put forth alternative proposals to address the concerns of members raised in the course of deliberation. Under these alternative proposals, no consent to commence works shall be issued by the BA, unless a supervision plan for the works has been submitted. The AP shall submit an outline supervision plan, followed by a series of detailed supervision plans prepared by AP, RSE or registered contractor at different stages of works. The professional responsibility will rest with the person who prepares the plans. Both members of the Bills Committee and the professional institutions have agreed that the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands shall issue a Technical Memorandum which will set out the requirements, format and content of a supervision plan.
I need to point out that the most controversial issue lies with the proposal to make it a criminal offence for failure to provide proper supervision of building works in the prescribed manner. Whilst there is no doubt that everybody considers site safety important and agrees that appropriate measures should be taken to enhance safety, but it calls into question whether applying criminal sanction to persons in the building trade is the right way to do it. The building professionals have expressed strong sentiments on the matter. The Bills Committee has had thorough and in-depth discussion on the merits of criminal sanction. Since my colleague, the Honourable Edward HO, will move a Committee stage amendment on behalf of the Bills Committee to delete the provisions about criminal sanction, I shall leave this area to Mr HO for elaboration.
Mr President, I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, the Hong Kong Construction Association and the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong for the participation in the scrutiny of the Bill. Their invaluable contributions in terms of time, effort and suggestions have helped improve the Bill in a much workable and practicable form. On behalf of the Bills Committee, I would also like to thank the Administration for their hardwork and endeavour to co-operate with members, notwithstanding that it holds different views from those of the Bills Committee on the question of criminal sanction.
Mr President, subject to the amendments to be moved by the Administration and the Honourable Edward HO, I commend the Bill to Members.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, the building industry is in support of any measures to improve safety on sites. They support the Buildings (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1995 which is part of a series of legislative measures to enhance safety. But they do not support in its totality because of the problems I shall deal with later in my speech. The Buildings (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1995 can be roughly divided into three parts, and I shall deal briefly with these parts individually.
Registration of Authorized Persons (Aps) and
Registered Structural Engineers (RSEs)
The Bill provides for revisions to the composition of the relevant Registration Committees for APs and RSEs to provide for more self-regulation by professionals nominated from the relevant Registration Boards. I fully support these proposals which have been worked out with the support of the professional institutions.
Registration of contractors
I welcome the introduction of a system of registration for general building contractors which will take into account their qualifications, competence and experience. This will ensure that only contractors who possess the required level of competency will be allowed to carry out building works. The system will also allow the introduction of registers of specialist contractors to do more specialized types of construction works. This is also strongly supported.
The proposed register of general building contractors only calls for one class of contractors for any scale and complexity of buildings. In other words, the qualification and experience of registered contractors will be determined by the lowest common denominators. I hope that the Administration will give serious consideration to my proposal of a classification system whereby contractors will be qualified for different levels of scales of projects. It is important that only suitably qualified contractors are allowed to take on large scale building works, whilst not depriving the smaller contractors to work on smaller sized projects.
Supervision plans
The Bills Committee has to meet 20 times, including the visit, on this Bill, mainly because of the difficulties encountered with the concept of the introduction of supervision plans. The original Bill was conceived as if the sole intention was to enable the Administration to impose criminal sanctions on as many as possible of the parties involved, regardless of whether any or all of these parties have been responsible. I called that the "shot-gun" approach.
One example was that the supervision plan was to be prepared collectively by the Authorized Person (AP), the Registered Structural Engineer (RSE) and the contractor, despite the very different roles and responsibilities of the various parties involved in the building process.
Mr President, it is fortunate that due to the capable leadership of the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI, the persistent and conscientious efforts of members of the Bills Committee, and if I might say also, the very pragmatic approach of the Administration especially since the appointment of Dr CHOY, and representatives from the concerned professional and trade organizations, a number of amendments will be proposed at the Committee stage, which if supported by Honourable Members, will render the Bill much fairer in the distribution of responsibilities, and much clearer for practising professionals and contractors to follow.
Insofar as supervision is concerned, let me explain that the professional's role is quite different to that of the contractor. The former's responsibility is one of periodic supervision to ensure that the contractor was in general compliance with the provisions of the contract and the relevant government regulations. He exercises his judgment as to the frequency of his inspections, and what part of the works should be inspected, much like the medical practitioner exercising his professional judgment on how frequent he needs to visit his patient. The professional's role is also limited to that of the permanent works. The contractor, on the other hand, has the responsibility of continuous supervision, and to the safety of temporary works. He has also the responsibility of ensuring a safe working environment for the workers under the provisions of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance.
Members of the Bills Committee have been unanimous in removing criminal sanctions due to deviation from the supervision plans. They have considered this question very carefully. They have considered it more appropriate to introduce disciplinary proceedings for professional negligence, which in the worst case will remove the professional from the register of AP or RSE. In addition, they are aware that professionals are already burdened with very major civil and even criminal liabilities as a result of professional negligence. I shall elaborate on these and other relevant aspects when I move my amendment at the Committee stage to remove the criminal sanctions.
Finally, I wish to make two further points here. The first is that the Administration has agreed to issue a Technical Memorandum to deal with aspects of the supervision plans which will be subject to the vetting of this Council. There should be different and earlier effective dates for other provisions of the Bill so that such matters of registration of contractors can proceed as quickly as possible. The second issue is related to the issuance of cease work orders. These have very major economic impact on building projects. Cease work orders should be withdrawn as soon as remedial action has been taken on non-compliance that has caused such an order.
Mr President, the Bill, after going through all the amendments at the Committee stage later on, will be a much better version than that before scrutiny by the Bills Committee. It will provide a sound framework for improving safety on site. With these remarks, I support the Bill as amended later on.
朝岸穨某璓勉畊ネチ囊舧1995縱璹材3腹兵ㄒΤ闽璹硂ㄇ璹癸穨穦Τ陪帝э到硂兵ㄒ疉の絛瞅狡馒疉の羉狡м砃┦拜肈┮疉のぃ縒珹祇甶坝疉の籔祇甶Τ闽摸盡穨︓疉の眖ㄆ縱骋笆顶糷疭琌恨腨紇臫兵ㄒ〆穦癚阶現┎矗某矗タ某現┎钡〆穦荡场だ種ǎ現┎祔穦〆穦糵某顶琿莱タ〆穦畊甃ㄎ瞶某㎝︙┯ぱ某碞兵ㄒずよ秆睦㎝蝶阶иぃ狡
и稱翴и谋眔俱兵兵ㄒい程いぃì琌︓さぱゎㄆ掉场だごゼ眔蛾骸秆∕㎝矪瞶チ囊玥や碞よㄆ掉硂よㄆ掉穦糤眏猭ㄒΤ┦癸êㄇ穨よ暗眔ぃì眏纞ノぃ筁瞷ごΤㄢ拜肈ゼ眔だ秆∕㎝矪瞶ㄤ琌瞷兵ゅぃ続ノ現┎祘チ囊粄"猭玡キ单"玥⊿Τ瞶パ現┎祘瞷籔╬祘妓拜肈Τ闽礚斗癸ㄆ掉╬祘Τ闽玥惠璶и-
粄硂翴ぃ钡現┎祘常琌妓パ╬┯坝┯快硂妓現┎⊿Τ瞶パ疭纔㎝僚猭弘硂琌ぃ钡玥
材拜肈耕ぶ癚阶ㄤ龟パ硂兜兵ㄒ糵某戳и竒矗硂兵ㄒぃ縒皐癸盡穨盡穨筁る縩伐矗種ǎ矗⊿Τ蛤繦菏恨璸购τ瞷ㄆ浪北ㄤ龟縱疭琌恨Τ妓斗癸ㄆ浪北ぃ┋筁计る碞癸ㄆ浪北硂よ拜肈⊿Τ秈︽約獂癚阶⊿Τ穦矗ㄑ縩伐種ǎ筁计るиぃ初纯高拜ㄇ眖ㄆ縱骋-
荡场だは癸︑穦⊿Τㄌ碻菏恨璸购τ斗璽ㄆ砫ヴΤ闽菏恨璸购よず甧タ︙┯ぱ某┮弧盢ㄓ穦м砃称а魁Α睲贰灿竊╯澈癸骋Τ紇臫瞷Τ场だご礛ゼ睲捶┮瞷顶琿獽р骋珹ㄆ浪北絛瞅ぇずи-
粄琌ぃΘ剪㎝∕﹚
膀猭ぃキ单の癸骋紇臫硂拜肈ごゼだ癚阶㎝吭高薄猵チ囊ぃ觅Θ瞷顶琿獽秈︽ㄆ掉┮и-
穦や︙┯ぱ某矗タチ囊璶現┎睲贰ボи-
玥粄ㄆ掉琌惠璶程Ω兵ㄒ〆穦穦某現┎材Ωそ秨弧現┎玥ぃは癸盢ㄆ砫ヴ硂翴現┎祘兜ヘ現┎ぃは癸玥チ囊粄ㄆ掉琌璶吏竊и-
現┎縩伐㊣苸狦︙┯ぱ某タ莉眔硄筁杠Τ闽ㄆ掉兵ゅ綝∕и-
辨現┎ミ猭眖硉矗兜穝璹盢ㄆ砫ヴê场だ珹ず盢現┎┮Τ祘兜ヘ珹兵ゅ絛瞅ず狦現┎ぃ矗硂兜璹チ囊穦矗某兵ㄒ盢硂场だ珹ず辨矪瞶骋紇臫拜肈浪癚㎝矗兜穝璹
畊ネи︑きミ猭Ыネ睵いи⊿Τ襖略ビ某把籔硂或兵ㄒ〆穦縱よ硂兵ㄒ琌兵耕狡馒㎝惠癚阶某堡把籔硂〆穦某ぃ竒筁20Ω穦某〆穦Θ癸Τ闽璹兵ゅ種ǎ璓и辨︗某や〆穦碞硂兵ㄒ┮矗㎝やタ
谅谅畊ネ
綠模磁某璓勉畊ネセ籔羛穦癸崩笆ňゎ穨種だ闽猔︓ㄏ盡穨珹縱畍祘畍斗碞穨種璽ㄆ砫ヴ縱璹材3腹兵ㄒи㎝羛穦常だや
畊ネ兵ㄒ某Τ闽盡穨璽ㄆ砫ヴ琌︓璶ㄤ龟ヘ玡猭皘癸Τ闽盡穨ㄆ砫ヴ螟ㄤ螟埃獶靡龟-
珿種波┛τ硑Θ穨種Τ㏑端玥ぃ
セの羛穦粄狦縱璹材3腹兵ㄒぃ縱盡穨斗璽ㄆ砫ヴ碞单琌"礚ρ""逞眔妓"程癸ňゎ穨種琌礚干ㄆ
羛穦粄瓃祘盡穨ňゎ穨種よ璽﹚砫ヴ琌-
琂Τ盡穨巨拜肈-
琌砫礚禪瓣悔骋そΤ闽縱穨㎝徖ネ兵蹿材彻ビ沮瓣產猭兵ㄒの龟筋璽砫縱祘砞璸の砏﹚莱σ納縱の徖ネ拜肈璣瓣現┎きるら龟琁硑砞璸の恨瞶砏ㄒ毙▅参膚祇翠穨浪癚吭高ゅンョΤ妓某
畊ネ琂礛瓣悔糷骋戈﹛よ粄Τ闽某糶瓣悔骋そセ籔羛穦龟だ辨縱璹材3腹兵ㄒセЫ荷е硄筁現┎某
︓Τㄇ羘ēぃや現┎某某┮瞶パ琌現┎ぃ珹現┎縱盡穨-
礚斗癸穨種璽ㄆ砫ヴτは癸現┎τや︙┯ぱ某タ硂贺弧猭ぃ讽礛τ瞷兵ㄒぃ珹現┎盡穨τは癸ㄏ兵ㄒぃ硄筁筁╬盡穨砫ヴ璓ㄏ穨ぃ眔э到碞弧ぃ筁и-
や現┎硄筁膥尿ㄤ程沧ヘ夹耎甶︓現┎硂琌璓崩笆穨┮莱赣暗ㄆ薄セの羛穦穦兵ㄒ硄筁膥尿碻硚畖э到诀穦
畊ネセ略朝勉
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネ繦跋ρて璶穝祇甶跋╊㎝砍穝縱祘盢ら亥糤獺辣窗笵兜╊祘鲤厄㎝﹁吏╊加ホ琖糧種玃ㄏ現┎闽猔︙э到縱の╊祘絃秈︽Τ闽浪癚璓さぱΤ硂兜兵ㄒ矗ユセЫ糵某
兵ㄒ某э到縱盡穨爹ョ眏恨縱祘のタ秈︽祘絃キ硂弘眔やよョ琌タ絋程框狙琌現┎某兵ㄒいま癸ゼ玂靡絃キ矗ㄆ掉兵ゅチ羛癸ぃ觅
癸ぃ猔絃τま璓種疉の㏑穕端┯坝┪祘畍瞷︽猭ㄒΤㄆ掉兵蹿沮瞷Τ縱兵ㄒ璽砫縱絃Τ闽珹縱坝㎝Τ闽盡穨笻はΤ闽兵ㄒ敖搭篡禕薄ぃ厨┪⊿Τ磅︽﹚戳ǖ跌絃砫ヴ瞷猭ㄒ竒砏﹚璶璽ㄆ砫ヴ瞷現┎某碞琌璶Τ闽盡穨璽ㄆ砫ヴぃ惠璶北よ靡ㄤ牟デ猭ㄒ笆诀のパ硂癸穨ず琌ぃそキ
ㄤΩ現┎兵ㄒ籹硑蛮夹非ㄆ掉続ノ╬诀篶縱盡穨パ現┎︑场璽砫㎝パ現┎︑盡穨璽砫絃縱╊祘祇ネ拜肈翠祘現┎そ戮玱僚硂琌伐ぃそキ瞷"ㄒㄢ"ョ笻は"猭玡キ单"猭獀弘
埃ぇ兵ㄒいョ璹絃よ珹爹祘畍穨㎝┯坝珹琁い常ゲ斗宽┮璹祘祘Τ笻はョ斗ㄆ掉拜肈膒挡琌粄の爹祘畍ぃ磝恨絃ら盽砏﹚-
斗碞ゼ宽菏璸购璽ㄆ砫ヴ单琌璶-
璽兜-
礚猭糹︽砫ヴ
畊ネチ羛粄ㄆ掉ゼゲ絋玂絃┯坝の穨阀├の続讽癡絤琌拜肈闽龄┮現┎莱璶眏硂よチ羛や︙┯ぱ某タ
セ略朝勉
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I would like to thank the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI, Chairman of the Bills Committee, and other members for their very careful and detailed deliberation on this Bill in the past nine months.
This Bill serves two main purposes. The first aims to strengthen supervision and safety management at construction and demolition sites through the introduction of a supervision plan system. The second is to improve the registration system for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and building contractors.
The Bills Committee and other concerned parties, such as the relevant professional bodies and the contractors associations and Real Estate Developers Association, have given many valuable comments on specific provisions of the Bill. The Administration agrees with most of these comments, and I shall move the necessary amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage later on. However, it may be useful if I could explain in some detail the Administration's response to a number of points raised by the Bills Committee and other organizations.
With regard to the registration of Authorized Persons and Structural Engineers, there will be panels of members from whom the Building Authority may appoint more than one Registration Committee. The Building Authority will be empowered to direct the Registration Committee to hold meetings in order to help ensure that the applications for registration as Authorized Persons and Structural Engineers will be processed expeditiously. The registration will continue to be in force while an application for renewal is still being processed, subject to any order of the Disciplinary Board. This is to obviate the administrative problem of processing a large number of applications within a fixed time limit.
I also wish to assure the Honourable Edward HO that his suggestion of a classification system for contractors will be seriously considered.
The Building Authority will be required to give reasons why an application for inclusion, retention or restoration of name in the relevant register is rejected. He will also be required to inform an Authorized Person or Registered Structural Engineer before removing the latter's name from the relevant register. Furthermore, a legal adviser will be appointed to assist in the proceedings of the Disciplinary Board for Authorized Persons and Registered Structural Engineers.
The power of a judge to dismiss an appeal against a decision of the board if he considered that there had been no substantial miscarriage of injustice, even if he was of the opinion that the point raised in the appeal might have been decided in favour of the appellant, will be removed. These measures will serve to further improve the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings.
Similar amendments will be moved by me to other provisions of the Bill relating to the registration of general building contractors and specialist contractors. Moreover, the factors which will be taken into account in considering whether an applicant qualifies to register as a contractor will be clearly set out. In the case of general building contractors, the Building Authority will be allowed to accept relevant local experience as a substitute for the required qualifications. As a transition arrangement, the registration of existing contractors will continue to be in force for two years after the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Bill.
To implement the supervision plan system, the Building Authority may refuse to give his consent to the commencement of works where the Authorized Person has failed to lodge a supervision plan. The format and content of the plan have to comply with the requirements set out in the Technical Memorandum which will be formulated by the Building Authority in consultation with the professional institutes and the construction industry, and approved by this Council under the negative vetting procedures.
To ensure that supervision plans are complied with, we will recommend a three-tier sanction system. Minor deviations from the supervision plan may entail administrative warnings given by the Building Authority. Material deviations or repeated minor deviations will be made a disciplinary offence. Material deviations which directly result in injury to persons or damage to property or a risk of injury or damage will be made a criminal offence. However, provisions will be made for exceptional circumstances when urgent action is required for safety reasons to permit deviations from the supervision plan.
The Building Authority will be empowered to order works to cease when the conditions of approval or consent given by him has not been or is not able to be complied with, or when there is material deviation from the Technical Memorandum or the supervision plan, which may lead to dangerous or potentially dangerous situations.
I am, like the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI, pleased to note that the Bills Committee has indicated support for all but one of the amendments to be moved by me, that is, criminal sanction provision when material deviations from the supervision plan directly result in injury to persons or damage to property or a risk of injury or damage. I will further explain the views of the Administration and clarify any misunderstandings like those expressed by the Honourable Albert CHAN and the Honourable IP Kwok-him about government architects and engineers not subject to criminal sanctions on the issue during the Committee stage.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 14 February 1996
朝岸穨某璓勉畊ネи略︗蹲厨1996縱璹兵ㄒ〆穦坝某挡狦и琌硂〆穦畊
セ兵ㄒ〆穦せるせらΘミ纯籔讽Ы羭︽ㄢΩ穦某砏购吏挂現兵ㄒ弄┮秆睦兵ㄒㄤいヘ结ぉ縱ㄆ叭菏服舦穨吧诡紇臫弊℡逼措のγ措兵ㄒ〆穦闽猔縱ㄆ叭菏服穦璶―縱穨秈︽ぃゲ璶吧诡祘磷縱ㄆ叭菏服穦垒ノ舦某粄Τ惠璶璹縱ㄆ叭菏服︙贺薄猵祇㏑讽Ы钡某某種タ兵ㄒ璹∕﹚祇㏑非玥絛瞅珹縱逼恨γ恨┪恨Τ瞷簗穕反┪ぃì┦讽Ыョ某某種兵ㄒ続ノ絛瞅莱瞇籠恨兵ㄒ"恨"迭﹚竡τ縱ㄆ叭菏服璶―穨秈︽吧诡舦ョ莱耎珹紇臫弊℡恨
畊ネ兵ㄒ〆穦闽猔拜肈琌瞷穕簗逼恨┪γ恨︗﹛┪現┎τ斗秈︽弊℡铆﹚祘╯澈莱パ街璽砫拜肈讽Ы╬加穨斗璽砫ㄤ縱逼恨蝴玂緄ぃ阶赣单逼恨︗︙矪ぃ筁-
玱礚斗才竒矗蔼夹非τ秈︽綿㏕赣单そ弊℡祘┮疉の肂Θセ硂よ陪琌現┎砫ヴ︗ゼу逼恨のγ恨╬縱穨Аぃ穦莉僚ゲ斗璽砫Τ闽蝴祘坚睲翴ㄏぇ礚好拜兵ゅず睲贰讽Ы盢穦笆某兜〆穦糵某顶琿タΤ闽兵ゅ
兵ㄒ〆穦ョ笵縱ㄆ叭菏服穦候薄猵穨ゼΤ宽酚縱ㄆ叭菏服祇㏑┪穨璶―ぇㄤ秈︽吧诡祘璶Τ闽㏑爹矪祅癘吧诡祘Чō穨ヴ︙發癚Τ闽禣ノ癸祘丹┶荡蹿穨┮ろ蹿兜穦祅癘爹矪ろ現┎掸杜兜魁
畊ネ讽Ы某玂靡兵ㄒ﹚盢结ぉ縱ㄆ叭菏服舦穨吧诡紇臫弊℡逼恨γ恨㎝恨虑眏弊℡Τ闽Μ禣ノ璹兵ゅ盢ㄏ縱ㄆ叭菏服耕Μㄤ祘禣ノ籔潦禦穨痲ョ硂兜璹τ玂毁-
潦禦穨玡獽眔斗┯踞杜叭某ョ钡讽Ы笆某〆穦糵某顶琿タ盢秆∕兵ㄒ〆穦Τ闽┮弧êㄇボ紐納ㄆ兜
程讽Ы縩伐セ〆穦眔ǔ硉ЧΘ╯セ兵ㄒ癸и略〆穦現┎讽Ы疭琌璽砫览兵ゅ現竝璓谅種
畊ネи略某某祔現┎讽Ы矗ユ瓃タ叫︗ぉや
谅谅畊ネ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR RONALD ARCULLI, took the Chair.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Deputy, I would like to thank the Honourable Albert CHAN, Chairman of the Bills Committee, and other members for supporting this Bill and the Committee stage amendment that I will propose.
This Bill has three purposes: empowering the Building Authority to order owners to carry out investigations into drains and sewers for slope safety reasons; facilitating the recovery of the cost of works carried out by the Building Authority on behalf of building owners; and making clear that a closure order will cease to have effect when the concerned structures are demolished or cease to exist. In scrutinizing the Bill, some Members proposed that water pipes should also be covered by the Bill. We agree, and have prepared Committee stage amendments to this effect. Upon the enactment of the Bill, the Buildings Department will maintain close liaison with the Water Supplies Department in exercising the new power to require investigations into water pipes and remedial works regarding any leakage, defect or inadequacy identified.
Members have also expressed concern over the discretion of the Building Authority in serving orders requiring investigations into water pipes, drains and sewers. We have prepared Committee stage amendments to provide that, where the Building Authority is of the opinion that no leakage, defect or inadequacy is likely, no order shall be served. In forming his opinion, the Building Authority should take into account all relevant matters and information such as the age of the water pipes, drains or sewers and records of previous investigations and maintenance works. The Building Authority's decision is also subject to appeal to the Appeal Tribunal under Part VI of the Buildings Ordinance, the members of which are mainly independent legal or building professionals. We believe this provides the necessary safeguard against potential abuse of power.
We have also prepared a Committee stage amendment to ensure that an owner is responsible for the maintenance of and investigations into the water pipes, drains and sewers serving his building irrespective of where such pipes, drains and sewers are laid.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 1 May 1996
MR ERIC LI: Mr Deputy, I speak to applaud the introduction of this Bill which is part of the 1996-97 Budget proposals. The objective of the amendment Bill is to exempt from profits tax liability in respect of non-residents' investment activities through stock brokers and fund managers in Hong Kong.
As the Legislative Council representative for accountants in Hong Kong, I recognize with appreciation that this Bill represents a positive response to one of our specific budget recommendations. In the course of my examination of this Bill, I have received many representations from my constituency members acting on behalf of the Stock Exchange and other eminent professional bodies.
The main complaints were technical in nature and have focused on the narrowness of the assistance offered by the exemption in its draft form. In particular, section 20AA of the Bill, which seeks to add certainty to the tax liability of brokers and approved investment advisors acting as agents for non-resident investors, seemed to have worked quite the other way.
The accountancy profession submits that the exclusion of associates, a vague term introduced in this new section, from the exemption is unnecessarily restrictive. We consider that all restrictions on local brokers should be removed so that they can freely carry on their business and hence further enhance the development of Hong Kong securities in the international market. This, we believe, to be the true spirit of the Financial Secretary's original Budget proposal.
However, since this is the last sitting of the Legislative Council before the long summer break and any amendment at a late stage of the Bill's scrutiny may cause substantial delay and hence the implementation of other provisions in the Bill which are of equal importance to the securities industry, we therefore accept with some reluctance the amendment Bill in its present form together with the Administration's assurances of giving advance rulings and the issue of clear Departmental Interpretation and Practice Notes by the Commissioner of the Inland Revenue on matters in the various correspondences between myself, the Administration and the professional bodies concerned, which now form part of the record of the House Committee.
Nevertheless, I would still request the Administration to consider appropriate amendments to section 20AA and section 20AA(1)(a) at the earliest or subsequent opportunity in order to remove any remaining doubts in the implementation of this valuable exemption.
I would also like to record my personal appreciation of the professionalism, responsiveness and efficiency in the way in which the Administration has handled this Bill. It was our mutual willingness to get on with business which has helped me to sort out this rather complex and technical Bill with the Administration expeditiously and without the need to set up yet another Bills Committee, and also in the spirit of mutual trust and co-operation. I am convinced that, given the circumstances, the timely balance struck will best serve the financial services industry of Hong Kong.
With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the Bill and urge honourable colleagues to do likewise.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr Deputy, I am grateful for Members' support for the resumption of the Second Reading debate of the Bill. The Bill has two objectives. First, it seeks to reflect existing practices and provide greater certainty in law by:
(a) excluding stock brokers and investment advisers from potential profits tax liability in respect of share trading and fund investment profits derived by non-resident investors for whom they act as agents; and
(b) including a specific tax exemption for certain income derived from bona fide offshore funds managed in Hong Kong.
Secondly, the Bill seeks to extend the current tax exemption for stock borrowing and lending transactions to cover also stocks not listed in Hong Kong. This is in response to a request made by the financial services sector for promoting stock borrowing and lending transactions in Hong Kong.
After the publication of the Bill, we have received submissions from the Law Society of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Society of Accountants, the Joint Liaison Committee on Taxation, the Taxation Institute of Hong Kong and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong. We are grateful for their views on the Bill. I would also like to thank in particular the valuable advice on the Bill given to us by the Honourable Eric LI. We have carefully examined these views and, as a result, I will move at Committee stage a number of amendments. I shall explain at that stage the reasons for the amendments; but I would like to take this opportunity to address two points concerning the legislative intent of the Bill in respect of the first objective which I have just described.
Section 20AA as proposed in the Bill seeks to exclude brokers and investment advisers from potential profits tax liability for acting as agents for non-resident investors. We note the concern expressed by various parties in respect of the restriction imposed under the Bill that the provisions in section 20AA would not apply in cases where the investors and the agents have an "associate" relationship. We have thoroughly examined this issue and remain of the view that the imposition of the restriction is justified and necessary. In such cases, the agent, being the associate of his client, should be able to ascertain whether there is any potential liability to profits tax and the question of uncertainty which we aim to address in the Bill by providing the tax exemption therefore should not arise. There is a limit to how far the tax exemption provided under the proposed legislation should go without creating opportunities for tax avoidance. We believe that we have struck the right balance in the Bill. Our proposal does not imply that the parties concerned under an "associate" relationship would automatically be chargeable to profits tax. This is by no means the case. Whether a tax liability arises will depend on the circumstances of each case and on the application of the existing provisions of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. The situation for these cases with "associate" relationship will not be inferior to what it is now, before the proposed legislation is enacted. There is also no question of the proposed legislation preventing a non-resident investor from, or placing any restriction on him in, making use of an associated agent in Hong Kong.
However, to reflect better our legislative intent, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue will issue a Practice Note to clarify issues relating to the application of the "associate" restriction and the interpretation of the term "non-resident" as requested by the various parties concerned.
We also note the concern of various parties that section 20AB as proposed in the Bill, which is modelled on legislation in the United Kingdom and sought to provide a specific tax exemption for certain income derived from bona fide offshore funds managed in Hong Kong, is not easy to follow. Instead of achieving its objective, it may on the contrary complicate the existing tax system in this area. We have reviewed the approach and concluded that a simpler way to achieve the policy objective and to reflect our legislative intent is to amend existing section 26A(1A) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance to extend the present tax exemption under the section to cover also mutual fund corporations and unit trusts established outside Hong Kong or similar collective investment schemes, provided that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is satisfied that the mutual fund corporation, unit trust or collective investment scheme is a bona fide widely held investment vehicle which complies with the requirements of a supervisory authority within an acceptable regulatory regime. We are pleased to note that this revised approach is welcomed by the various parties concerned. I will move amendments at Committee stage to delete the proposed section 20AB and replace it with a new clause to this effect.
No prior approval from the Commissioner is necessary for an individual investment vehicle to qualify for the proposed tax exemption under section 26A(1A) provided that the requirements as stipulated in this Bill are satisfied. The Commissioner is prepared to give advance ruling if there is doubt in individual cases. The Commissioner will also issue a Practice Note to clarify the interpretation of such terms as "supervisory body" and "acceptable regulatory regime" under the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (1995-96) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 June 1996
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee Stage of Bills
Council went into Committee.
PREVENTION OF BRIBERY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
Clauses 2, 3, 8, 9, 11 to 14 and 18
〆襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネ材2兵某盢"Crown servant"迭"public servant"﹚竡ぇず疭琌矪瞶Τ闽猭﹛硂疭摸拜肈璓-
斗ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ┮
畊ネи辨玃叫現┎σ納ㄢ翴材パ程Τ硈﹃某钡痲猧и辨現┎虑诀穦浪癚莱ňゎ胳革兵ㄒず盢"Crown servant"┪"public servant"﹚竡瞇籠某瞷и-
璶―そ叭宽荡癸巨砏玥-
Μヴ︙痲ㄏぃ靡籔そ戮Τ闽穦綝浪北и辨現┎浪癚硂へ続ノ某и既癸⊿Τ﹚ǎ膀程そ渤癚阶и辨現┎镑碞浪癚
よ材3兵Τ闽ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材10(2)兵安砞兵ゅи種硂兜璹琌莱舦猭э笆τэ琌и-
程︙贾膀い龟悔硂兜安砞兵ゅㄌ礛穦玻ネぃそキ薄猵τ禗畑掉﹚俱ンㄆ硂兜安砞兵ゅㄏ材癩玻砆耴砆戈玻いσ納ㄤΤ笻は材10(1)兵砏﹚ぃ筁砆セō⊿Τ秸琩舦⊿Τヴ︙琩拜材局Τ戈玻舦兵ㄒ〆穦いи纯某北よ斗安砞材戈玻砆戈玻琌程ぶ斗莱砆璶―荷т材盢材ユ倒猭畑琵ㄤ靡钡絃拜硂癸砆ㄓ弧穦耕そキ
よ兵ㄒ〆穦纯癚阶倒ぉ砆兜舦ㄏㄤ糵癟玡肚材ㄓ絃拜獽箇眔戈氮臛瞶パ現┎程ボ種竒╯玱┶荡硂兜某琌硂穦秨承兜ㄆ糵癟猭砏ㄒぃ筁礚阶︙и辨現┎σ納硂贺浪北薄猵Τ惠璶杠稧竝莱赣荷秖よ砆碝т材
Clauses 2, 3, 8, 9, 11 to 14 and 18 were agreed to.
Clauses 1, 4 to 7, 10, 15, 16 and 17
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, for the reasons given earlier today in the debate on this Bill, I move that clauses 1, 4 to 7, 10, 15, 16 and 17 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
Proposed amendments
Clause 1
That clause 1 be amended, by deleting the clause and substituting
"1. Short title and commencement
(1) This Ordinance may be cited as the Prevention of Bribery (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Ordinance 1995.
(2) This Ordinance shall come into operation on a day to be appointed by the Attorney General by notice in the Gazette.".
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended, by deleting the clause and substituting
"4. Special powers of investigation
Section 13 is amended -
(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting -
"(1) where the Commissioner is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe -
(a) that an offence under this Ordinance may have been committed by any person; and
(b) that any share account, purchase account, club account, subscription account, investment account, trust account, mutual or trust fund account, expense account, bank account or other account of whatsoever kind or description, and any banker's books, company books, documents or other article of or relating to any person named or otherwise identified in writing by the Commissioner are likely to be relevant for the purposes of an investigation of such offence,
he may for those purposes authorize in writing any investigating officer on production by him of the authorization if so required -
(i) to investigate and inspect such accounts, books or documents or other article of or relating to the person named or otherwise identified by the Commissioner;
(ii) to require from any person the production of such accounts, books, documents or other article of or relating to the person named or otherwise identified by the Commissioner which may be required for the purposes of such investigation and the disclosure of all or any information relating thereto, and to take copies of such accounts, books or documents or of any relevant entry therein and photographs of any other article.
(1A) The Commissioner shall not, without the leave of the High Court obtained on ex parte application in chambers, issue an authorization under or by virtue of which any particular person who is alleged or suspected to have committed an offence under this Ordinance can be required to comply with any requirement of the description mentioned in subsection (1)(i) and (ii).
(1B) The High Court shall not grant leave for the issue of an authorization under subsection (1)(i) and (ii) unless, on consideration of an application under subsection (1A), it is satisfied as to the matters that the Commissioner is required to be satisfied under subsection (1).";
(b) in subsections (2)(a) and (3), by repealing ", safe-deposit box".".
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 13A(1), by deleting everything before "order" and substituting -
"(1) The Commissioner or an investigating officer with the approval of the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may, for the purpose of an investigation into, or proceedings relating to, an offence suspected to have been committed under this Ordinance, make an ex parte application to the High Court in chambers for an".
(b) in the proposed section 13A(2), by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting -
"(c) there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is in the public interest, having regard to -
(i) the seriousness of the offence suspected to have been committed;
(ii) whether or not the suspected offence could be effectively investigated if an order under this subsection is not made;
(iii) the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation or proceedings if the material is so produced or if access to it is given; and
(iv) the public interest in preserving secrecy with regard to matters relating to the affairs of persons that may come to the knowledge of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue or to any officer of the Inland Revenue Department in the performance of their duties under the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112),".
(c) by adding -
"13C. Restriction on publication
of information disclosed
under section 13B
(1) This section applies -
(a) to information of the description mentioned in section 13B which has been furnished to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue or to any officer of the Inland Revenue Department in respect of the liability, responsibility or obligation of any person ("the person named") under the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112);
(b) where that information is disclosed to the Attorney General under section 13B;
(c) where the Attorney General decides that any of the information so disclosed is to be adduced in evidence by the prosecution for the purpose of any prosecution of an offence under this Ordinance, not being an offence alleged to have been committed by the person named;
(d) where a venue for and a date and time of hearing of those proceedings has been fixed; and
(e) where those proceedings may result in the information being publicly revealed.
(2) As soon as practicable after having made a decision of the description mentioned in subsection (1)(c), and in any case not less than 14 days before the date referred to in subsection (1)(d), the Attorney General shall serve notice in writing of that fact on the person who furnished the information as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) and on the person named.
(3) A notice under subsection (2) shall be accompanied by a statement in writing so as to adequately inform the person on whom it is served of -
(a) the details of such information disclosed to the Attorney General that is to be so adduced;
(b) the venue for, date and time of the hearing of those proceedings; and
(c) the substance of this section.
(4) Within 14 days after the service on him of a notice under subsection (2), the person on whom it is served may on notice in writing to the Attorney General make an application in chambers to the court before whom the proceedings are to be heard for an order under subsection (5) and the Attorney General shall be given an opportunity to be heard on that application.
(5) On application made to it under subsection (4), the court may by order give directions prohibiting or restricting the publication of any information so disclosed to the Attorney General which may lead to the identity of the person named being publicly revealed.
(6) In the making of an order under subsection (5), the court shall in considering whether or not to make an order, have regard to the views of the Attorney General on the application, if any, and those of the applicant and shall consider whether the public interest in the publication of any information being the subject of the application, without prohibition or restriction, outweighs -
(a) the privacy and confidentiality of that information;
(b) any prejudice to the person named which might result from the publication of that information without prohibition or restriction; and
(c) the public interest in preserving secrecy with regard to matters relating to the affairs of persons that may come to the knowledge of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue or to any officer of the Inland Revenue Department in the performance of their duties under the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112).
(7) If in the course of any prosecution of an offence under this Ordinance after the making of an order under subsection (5) the court by whom the order was made is satisfied, after giving the person in favour of whom the order was made an opportunity to be heard, that the effect of that order is to impose a substantial and unreasonable prohibition or restriction upon the reporting of those proceedings or the reporting of that prosecution and that, notwithstanding the matters referred to in subsection (6)(a), (b) and (c) and the views of the person in favour of whom the order was made, if any, it is in the public interest to remove the prohibition or to relax the restriction, the court or the judge shall direct that the order shall not apply to such information in respect of which that order was made as is specified in the direction.
(8) Any person who publishes or broadcasts information being the subject of an order under subsection (5), including an order in respect of which a direction is made under subsection (7), in contravention of that order commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of $10,000 and to imprisonment for 6 moths.".
Clause 6
That clause 6(a) be amended
(a) in the proposed subsection (1A), by deleting everything after "committed" and substituting "by any person under this Ordinance, make an ex parte application to the High Court in chambers for an order under subsection (1).".
(b) by adding after the proposed subsection (1A) -
"(1B) The High Court shall not make an order under subsection (1) unless on an ex parte application made to it under subsection (1A) it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that -
(a) in the case of an application relating to subsection (1)(c), that the information to be required from the person being the subject of the application is likely to be relevant to the investigation or the proceedings;
(b) in the case of an application relating to subsection (1)(d) or (e), that the person being the subject of the application has or may reasonably have access to information likely to be relevant to the investigation or the proceedings.".
That clause 6(b) be amended, by deleting subparagraph (ii).
Clause 7
That clause 7 be amended, by deleting paragraph (g) and substituting
"(g) in subsection (6), by repealing "A third party on whom a restraining order has been served in accordance with subsection (3)" and substituting -
"A suspected person or third party on whom a copy of a restraining order has been served in accordance with subsection (3) or (3B)";".
Clause 10
That cluase 10(a) be amended
(a) in the proposed subsection (1A), by deleting "it appears to the court" and substituting "the court is satisfied".
(b) in the proposed subsection (1B), by deleting "it appears to the Commissioner" and substituting "the Commissioner is satisfied".
Clause 15
That clause 15 be amended, in the proposed subsection (2)(a), by adding "after consulting the Advisory Committee on Corruption," before "terminate".
Clause 16
That clause 16 be amended, in the Chinese text, by deleting the clause and substituting
"16. 秂祘
材10A兵瞷ぉ璹 -
(a) 材(3)(a)蹿い"斗"ぇ"厨"
(b)
"(3A) ヴ︙沮材(3)蹿莉睦
(a) ﹚秈˙ㄤ丁玡┕稧現そ竝快ㄆ矪厨の
(b) 厨穦稧竝蔼穦┶荡秈˙ㄤ丁ぃ阶Τ﹚厨
玥赣斗莉祇临材(2)蹿ヘτ蹿兜ぃ斗碞ㄤ厨τヴ︙踞玂┮"".
Clause 17
That clause 17 be amended, in the proposed subsection (2), by deleting paragraph (b) and substituting
"(b) in so far as is necessary for the performance of any of the Commissioner's functions under section 12(d) or (f), access to such records, books and other documents in the possession or under the control of a public body as the Commissioner or such officer reasonably considers will reveal the practices and procedures of that public body;".
Question on the amendments proposed.
〆襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネ癸材1兵現┯空荷Ν龟琁兜兵ゅ玡矗兵ㄒ〆穦某︗某や硂兜タ
畊ネよи癸ネら戳種ǎ琌辨現镑荷Ν龟琁硂兜兵ㄒи癸現弄臛阶┮臛秆Τ翴借好龟悔糵某硂兜猭ㄒ︓さパきい︓さ竒禬筁15るτ稧竝糵某筁祘い纯碞よ非称︓稧竝き厨矗-
竒非称稧現盡きる羆服琁現厨τ癸某ㄓ虏厨い簍勉矗竒碞硂兜猭ㄒ┮斗暗ㄆ薄非称斑и粄璶非称琌猭畑璶璹ミㄇ"Court Rules"τ稧竝斗硓筁ㄇず场︽ㄆ玥ㄓ皌穝猭ㄒ龟琁ぃ筁礚阶︙и辨現镑荷еぃ禬筁るず盢硂兜猭ㄒ龟琁
︓材4兵兵ゅ兵ㄒ〆穦某某やτ現酵阶筁タセΤㄇ種ǎ瘤礛さΩ現┎ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材13兵琵˙и粄玥盡┮Τ舦常莱猭畑ビ叫︽ㄏτ瞷硂ぃ筁琌竒Тч癑快猭и辨現┎ら浪癚盢盡硂斑︑︽︽ㄏ舦ユぉ猭畑縒ミ菏诡
︓材5兵兵ㄒ〆穦某某やΤ闽〆穦糵某顶琿タиぃ狡セ種ǎ琌硂兜兵ゅ疉の祙叭魁程眏瞶パぃ琌秸琩籔祙叭Ы┪ㄤ砱γΤ闽︓禬祙叭Ы砱γи谋眔ê阶沮ぃだ穦玠畓Τ闽祙叭玂盞璶拜肈琌祙叭戈┕┕琌祙叭㎝祙叭Ыぇ丁ㄇТ挡狦狦и-
盢硂ㄇ祙叭魁绑靡ㄑ杠穦癸糵癟硑Θ伐ぃそキ薄猵
︓材6(a)㎝6(b)兵兵ㄒ〆穦某︗某種現┎タ
︓材7兵兵ㄒ〆穦猔種硂兜览タぃ穦盿ㄓㄤ琁現紇臫某︗某種硂兜タ
︓材10兵兵ㄒ〆穦粄穝璹材17(1A)兵矗非玥"猭畑谋眔"㎝穝璹材17(1B)兵矗非玥"盡谋眔"莱赣ラ材14兵妓"猭畑獺"ㄓ兵ㄒ〆穦種現┎碞硂よ矗タи種ǎ琌パ稧現盡ご候薄猵玂痙兜舦礚斗竒猭畑τ︑︽祇も┮и璶―現┎镑暗ンㄆ材璹﹚ず场ま︙贺薄猵衡琌候薄猵盡礚斗竒猭畑τ祇穓琩材и辨現┎镑┯空穦﹚戳糵琩砱γ︽笆滦浪〆穦厨Τぶ﹙琌候薄猵⊿Τ猭畑ビ叫τ琌盡︑︽祇穓琩材и辨–稧竝厨ず常穦更盡︑︽祇穓琩计ヘそ渤ユ
畊ネΤ闽材15兵兵ㄒ〆穦璶―︗某や現┎タ
MR ERIC LI: Mr Chairman, the accountancy profession has shown serious concern in recent months on the gradual weakening of the protection of tax secrecy provided by section 4 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. In this context, I am most grateful for the very understanding remarks made by the Attorney General in the Bill's Second Reading debate.
Despite these serious concerns in safeguarding the interests of taxpayers, the accountancy profession, as a responsible public body, also recognizes the very high priority that this community as a whole accords to the combat of corruption. We also accept that there may be a need to have access to confidential tax records in the most exceptional circumstances. I understand from the Commissioner of the ICAC during the Bills Committee's meeting held on 12 June 1995 that there should only be two or three such cases in a year, and hence there is no question ......
CHAIRMAN: Mr LI, which clause are you referring to? Which clause are you speaking on?
MR ERIC LI: It is on section 13C but I believe it is clause 5, but because of the ...... clause 5.
CHAIRMAN: Clause 5?
MR ERIC LI: Clause 5, yes. So I am correct.
CHAIRMAN: Please continue.
MR ERIC LI: I just referred to the meeting held on 12 June 1995 and that there is no question of ICAC officers using the provision to launch a fishing expedition for evidence. The present Committee stage amendment does effectively protect the identity of innocent taxpayers and third parties from being specifically disclosed.
However, I have expressed some reservation during the Bills Committee's examination that this may not have gone far enough. Ideally, I would have liked to widen the Committee stage amendment to ensure that all the circumstantial information which may lead to the revelation of the identity of the persons involved be also brought within the scope of the court application. This is particularly relevant if the persons concerned are well-known public figures and that the detailed events of the corruption case has already been well-publicized.
Nonetheless, in appreciation of the immense goodwill displayed by the Administration and members of the Bills Committee in reaching a difficult consensus, I am content to give the present Committee stage amendment a chance to prove its worth. Nonetheless, I would still urge the Administration to monitor its actual application carefully and to consider further appropriate amendments at the first sign of detecting any inadequacy.
With these remarks, Mr Chairman, I thank the Administration for taking over the Committee stage amendment and urge Honourable colleagues to join me in support of these Committee stage amendments.
〆襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネぃ種и簗碞材17兵祇ē
CHAIRMAN: You may not repeat yourself.
〆襖略ビ某璓勉иぃ穦矗ぇ玡场だи琌簗材17兵
畊ネ讽Ы莱兵ㄒ〆穦某τ矗癸材17兵癸羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒ材13兵タ〆穦辨︗某や現┎硂兜タ
畊ネи︑癸硂兵Τ種ǎи膀娄は癸阀├碞琌稧竝眏┪眏眔ㄇ戈τ硂ㄇ戈ぃ筁琌ノ倒ぉ琘そ诀篶種ǎэ到ウňゎ砱γよ薄猵眏眔戈τ-
э到砱γ薄猵┪猭ㄒい玱⊿Τ莱眏硂ㄇそ诀篶э到舦и谋眔狦眏舦ぃ皌甅杠呸胯琌デ婚τи粄眏舦笲ノ秸琩ン┪痷龟竜︽щ禗τぃぇㄓ眏э到祘ぃ筁и種現┎硂兜タ埃и场だ紐納ウ戈絛瞅穨祘τぃ琌ヴ︙戈
程иご礛踞み穦瞷垒ノ薄猵碞琌狦ňゎ砱γ矪稧竝场だ局Τ硂兜約獂舦杠虑ňゎ砱γ竡龟悔砱γ薄厨Μ栋ぃ筁礚阶︙иや現┎辨現┎盞ち菏诡τ稧竝セō盞ち菏诡硂贺薄猵ぃ穦瞷
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. If I can just respond very briefly to some of the points that have been made by the Honourable James TO and the Honourable Eric LI.
If I can just deal with Mr James TO's point on clause 1. Let me restate, Mr Chairman, that I undertake to bring all the provisions of this Bill when enacted into effect as soon as practicable. As I noted in my speech on the resumption of the Second Reading debate, there will have to be some lead time, for example, where provisions require court applications to be made, but we are as conscious as the Honourable James TO and other Members of this Council that, having spent so much time in anxious deliberation in the Bills Committee, it is in the public interest that the enacted Bill be converted into effective law as soon as possible. That is as much our wish as it is the wish of Members of this Council.
I have noted carefully the Honourable James TO's points concerning clause 4, and my remarks here will extend to other points on this Bill. We will have to see how these provisions work in practice. We are changing the law, introducing court control for the first time in relation to the ICAC's powers. We will obviously want to see how those powers work and to consider them in the light of experience. That applies particularly, I would suggest Mr Chairman, in relation to clause 5 which concerns tax records, on which, as I say, the Honourable James TO and the Honourable Eric LI expressed concerns. These are new powers. Clearly a balance has to be struck. We do not want the ICAC hampered in their task of fighting corruption. We recognize fully concerns over the secrecy of taxpayers' records. Once again, we will want to keep these provisions under scrutiny and to monitor their operation, to monitor how the courts are applying them, to see whether in the light of experience further changes should be made.
I have also noted carefully the Honourable James TO's points concerning clause 10 of the Bill. That deals with powers of search under section 17 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, and those are matters that I will, if I may, refer to the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption for his further consideration.
Finally, Mr Chairman, I note once again what the Honourable James TO said about clause 17 of the Bill in relation to section 13(2) of the ICAC Ordinance. That section has as its scope the highly laudable objective of corruption prevention. I think that we should not be seeking to inhibit, and I know that is not the intention, the ICAC in that most laudable of aims. But I have once again heard the concerns expressed and I am sure the ICAC will take those to heart.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 1, 4 to 7, 10, 15, 16 and 17, as amended, put and agreed to.
New clause 12A Further provisions relating to
security, appearance, etc.
New clause 14A Savings
New clause 16A Search warrants
New clause 16B Power to take finger-prints
and photographs
Clauses read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, for the reasons given earlier today in the debate on this Bill, I move that new clauses 12(A), 14(A), 16(A) and 16(B) as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
Question on Second Reading of the clauses proposed.
〆襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネ兵ㄒ〆穦種現┎矗硂兜タ辨︗某や
Question on the Second Reading of the clauses put and agreed to.
Clauses read the Second time.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that new clauses 12A, 14A, 16A and 16B be added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
New clause 12A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"12A. Further provisions relating to
security, appearance, etc.
Section 17C(1) is amended by repealing "Where a person fails to comply with the terms of a notice under section 17B(2) or an order under section 17B(6)" and substituting -
"Where a person granted an application under section 17B fails to comply with the requirement of any condition imposed under that section".".
New clause 14A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"14A. Savings
(1) Notwithstanding the repeal of section 14A of the principal Ordinance by section 14 of this Ordinance, a written notice issued under section 14A(1) of the principal Ordinance and in force immediately before the coming into operation of this Ordinance, shall continue in force according to its tenor for such period as it would have continued in force had section 14A of the principal Ordinance not been repealed and shall as from the coming into operation of this Ordinance be treated as if it were an order made by the District Court and served under section 14C of the principal Ordinance prior to its amendment by section 7 of this Ordinance.
(2) Notwithstanding the amendment of section 14C of the principal Ordinance by section 7 of this Ordinance, an order issued under section 14C(1) of the principal Ordinance and in force immediately before the coming into operation of this Ordinance shall continue in force according to its tenor for such period as it would have continued in force had section 14C of the principal Ordinance not been amended and shall as from the coming into operation of this Ordinance be treated as if it were an order made by the District Court and served under section 14C of the principal Ordinance prior to its amendment by section 7 of this Ordinance.".
New clauses 16A and 16B
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"16A. Search warrants
Section 10B is amended by repealing "16 or section".
16B. Power to take finger-prints and photographs
Section 10D(1) is amended by adding before ", any officer" -
"or, has been served with a summons under section 8(2) of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227) in respect of a section 10 offence".".
Question on the addition of the new clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
New clause 13A Offence to disclose identity, etc.
of persons being investigated
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
CHAIRMAN: The Attorney General, Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO have separately given notices to propose the addition of new clause 13A to the Bill. I will first call upon the Attorney General to speak and move the Second Reading of his proposed new clause 13A, as he is the Public Officer in charge of the Bill.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 13A as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time. The new clause repeals and replaces section 30 subsection (1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
Section 30 makes it an offence for a person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, to disclose details of an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under the Ordinance. This section has been a key element in the overall scheme for tackling corruption in Hong Kong.
In the recent Ming Pao case, the Privy Council stated that the restrictions on freedom of expression created by section 30 are consistent with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Privy Council said in that case:
"It cannot be denied that there is a pressing social need to stamp out the evil of corruption in Hong Kong. Investigation by the ICAC is an important means of achieving that end and the protection of the integrity of such investigation is essential."
The Privy Council also accepted that the section affords protection to the reputation of suspects, although it considered that this protection is of secondary importance to the protection of the integrity of the investigation.
The fact that section 30 is consistent with the Bill of Rights Ordinance does not mean that this Council cannot decide, as a matter of policy, to amend the section. The question, therefore, is whether section 30 should be amended and, if so, in what way.
The Administration's proposals
The Report of the ICAC Review Committee concluded that "No changes should be made to section 30, which strikes the right balance between the need to protect the reputation of an individual under investigation and the secrecy of an investigation at the covert stage on the one hand, and the freedom of expression on the other." The Bill does not therefore include any provision to amend section 30.
Some members of the Bills Committee nevertheless considered that there should be some relaxation of the restrictions in the section. The Administration has listened carefully to those views and has agreed that subsection (1) of section 30 should be amended as follows:
firstly, the offence will be expressly limited to disclosures made by a person who knows or suspects that an ICAC investigation is taking place; and
secondly, it will only apply to disclosures relating to an investigation into an offence under Part II of the Ordinance;
The proposed new clause 13A will achieve this. I will shortly be moving the addition of a new clause 13B which will further limit the scope of section 30.
As well as proposing these relaxations to the section, the Administration strongly believes that a recently discovered loophole in section 30 must be plugged. The Privy Council decided in the Ming Pao case that section 30 applies only to an investigation in respect of a specified person. Disclosure of the details of a general investigation, as occurred in that case, is not an offence.
Mr President, the Privy Council came to its decision as a matter of statutory interpretation. It did not express any view as to whether there is any justification for distinguishing between the two types of investigation. The Administration strongly believes that there is no justification for such a distinction. A general investigation needs to remain covert, and is equally vulnerable to being prejudiced by a disclosure as one in respect of an identified suspect.
It is undeniable that an investigation may be prejudiced by a disclosure even though no particular suspect has been identified. For example, an investigation may relate to a small group of people, one of whom is in fact a corrupt person. A disclosure of details of that investigation may be as damaging as one which relates to an investigation into that person. The corrupt person may destroy all evidence of his corruption or may disappear.
ICAC investigations need to be kept confidential, particularly at the early and particularly vulnerable stages of the investigation. If details of the early stages of an investigation can be freely disclosed, simply because there is no identified suspect, the investigation may never get to the stage where there is an identified suspect. All evidence of the crime may have been destroyed as a result of the disclosure.
I will shortly be proposing amendments that relax the restrictions on disclosure at the more mature stages of the investigation, when there is less need for secrecy. But I urge Members to support the amendment I propose to section 30(1) which will ensure that the most vulnerable stage of an investigation is properly protected.
Question on the Attorney General's motion on Second Reading of the clause proposed.
CHAIRMAN: As Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO have also given notices to propose the addition of new clause 13A to the Bill, I propose to have the Attorney General's motion and the respective proposals by Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO debated together in a joint debate.
Committee shall debate the Attorney General's motion and the respective proposals by Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO together in a joint debate. I will call upon Mrs Selina CHOW to speak first on the Attorney General's motion as well as her own proposal and Mr Albert HO's proposal. After Mrs CHOW has spoken, I will call upon Mr Albert HO to speak on the Attorney General's motion and Mrs Selina CHOW's proposal as well as his own proposal. However, no motion on the Second Reading of either Mrs Selina CHOW's proposal or Mr Albert HO's proposal is to be moved at this stage.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I do not wish to repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate of this Bill except to urge Members to vote for my amendment. The Administration's amendment does not just plug a loophole as the Attorney General just put it, but aims to widen the scope of the present law to restrict disclosure on general investigation, and therefore is contrary to the general direction of liberalization, while Mr HO's amendment introducing the "likely to prejudice" test would in fact render the necessary restriction ineffective.
I commend to Members my amendment which strikes the right balance between the public's right to know and freedom of expression on the one hand, and the protection of the integrity of investigations with identified suspects and the protection of reputation on the other.
〆︙玊く某璓勉畊ネ讽チ囊σ納莱玂痙材30兵ы┪璹и-
璶矗材拜肈琌╯澈材30兵琌惠璶玂痙и-
猭ㄒいㄆ龟и-
纯竒璶―現┎倒и-
ㄇ龟︽炊硄猭瓣瓣產Τ闽兵ゅи-
祇瞷摸材30兵窽ゎ肚碈┸臩現┎癸琘ㄇ秸琩兵ゅ狦ぃ琌Ч⊿Τ杠琌荡礚度Τи-
獶盽借好╯澈翠琌惠璶Τ硂ㄇ兵ゅ讽礛程兵ㄒ〆穦㎝и-
チ囊腀種甧г硂兵ゅ璶琌膀ㄢ翴材и-
谋眔Τ瞶パ獺秸琩砱γ琌兜讽羮筪τゼㄓぷㄤ琌ぇ硂盢穦羮筪и-
辨镑酚臮盢ㄓ稧竝秸琩穦倒-
ㄇ-
粄惠璶玂毁硂玂毁洪稧竝み瞶┪惠璶材璶琌〆穦糵某兵ㄒ戳丁現┎и-
粄琌讽琵˙珹-
腀種倒氮臛Τ猭﹚к臛瞶パ珹︙琌瞶┸臩肚碈┪材┸臩稧竝ㄇぃ猭︽垒舦︽波┛︽┪膀そ渤痲ㄒΤそそ渤そ徖ネの单τ┸臩戈現┎種讽秸琩祇甶︓Θ剪顶琿êㄇ窽ゎ┸臩兵ゅぃネ
畊ネ瞷程ㄣ某┦琌硂兵ゅ材场だ琌и︑矗タ场だㄤいΤㄢ翴程ㄣ某┦材現矗挪枷盞皘∕-
谋眔Τ簗瑌谋眔-
セ┮瞶秆猭ぃ琌硂妓┮瞷辨秈︽эㄏ-
ㄏゼΤ秸琩癸禜秨﹍┮孔秸琩材30兵竒続ノ產常笵玡兵ゅ竒筁枷盞皘秆睦琌﹚璶Τ秸琩癸禜材30兵莱ノ
畊ネㄆ龟и螟瞶秆Τぶ秸琩琌⊿Τ癸禜ヴ︙щ禗常瞣疉щ禗癸禜ㄏ秸琩癸禜ぃゎ琌癸禜ㄒ現┮弧Τу琌Τ┪きи谋眔-
ご礛琌秸琩癸禜猭ㄒ⊿Τ﹚璶Τ瞶瞶パ胔好τ琌逞е璶北琌秸琩癸禜и谋眔猭ㄒぃ琌硂種璶睲贰Τ砆щ禗τΤ瞶パ谋眔莱砆秸琩杠ㄏ琌禬筁硂竒琌秸琩癸禜硂妓薄猵и谋眔荡场だ(ㄏぃ琌场)秸琩常ゲ﹚Τ癸禜讽礛稧竝┪現弧ΤΜщ禗弧闽猔琘ㄇよ穦Τ砱γ笆┮-
秨﹍璶闽猔硂ㄇщ禗琌稧竝闽猔絛瞅溜琌–硔-
惠璶闽猔琘絛瞅笆┪踞み琘現┎场Τ砱γ︽秨郎ぃ笵璶盎琩︙碞嘿硂"莱赣玂毁秸琩"
畊ネи祇ē程矗и-
甧г材30兵琌現┎腀種タи辨ぃ莱ぃゲ璶耎材30兵莱ノ絛瞅膀иだ猂и谋眔現┎┮孔踞紐弧秨﹍秸琩ぃ玂毁琌筁納ㄆ龟иビㄤ龟荡癸ぃ螟弧т癸禜狦兜秸琩硈癸禜⊿Τи胔好硂琌痷タ兜ㄣ砰秸琩膀硂翴иは癸現┎タи辨玂ㄓゅセゲ斗Τ秸琩癸禜続ノ
材翴ㄣ某┦琌иさΩタ┮矗璶场だê碞琌狦北よまノ材30兵羭靡砫ヴゲ斗靡ê琌Й锚秸琩┸臩礛﹚竜Τ闽硂よиゲ斗狦弧穦Й锚秸琩穦Τ贺薄猵贺琌痷タ癸秸琩篶ΘЙ锚┪穕甡иぃ琌璶―硂妓ㄆ龟螟靡Τㄇ弧ぃ甧痷靡︙Й锚秸琩ㄒ弧Τㄇ硄厨癟琌Τ反防靡ㄑ┪Τㄇ靡瞒秨单иぃ琌璶―硂妓иぃ琌璶―靡┸臩Τ笆诀籛種Й锚秸琩иぃ惠璶靡硂ンㄆ笆诀琌螟靡и璶―ンㄆ碞琌猭畑癸竒┸臩戈斗跌硂﹙ン薄芠耞╯澈穦篶ΘЙ锚硂琌贺薄猵ぇい耕甧羭靡贺薄猵и谋眔ご礛琌惠璶ㄆ龟薄猵┸臩戈セЧ⊿Τ紇臫Чぃ穦癸秸琩篶ΘЙ锚τ狦硂妓ご礛まノ材30兵ㄓ竜杠и-
谋眔琌獶盽ぃそキ
畊ネи-
纯σ納ㄇㄆ種ǎ-
胔好硂妓糶猭狦穦ぃび睲贰螟︳璸猭畑︙∕ぃ筁タタ琌硂妓硂兵兵ゅぃ穦搭ぶ材30兵ノê碞琌狦ㄇ非称┸臩戈-
莱稱睲贰穦τ砆癬禗兵ゅご礛Τ硂贺ノ程璶琌狦弧璶靡┸臩戈琌Й锚そタ硂琌ぃㄆ⊿Τ快猭暗眔︙穦Τㄇк臛瞶パ琌靡┸臩戈穦Τそ渤痲そ渤硂ㄇ妓靡㎡妓琌沮芠薄猵猭畑筁场吏挂靡ㄑ礛崩阶硂琌Ч暗и龟ぃ︙弧穦ㄏ現┎ぃ羭靡и谋眔硂琌ぃ钡
チ郭Θ某弧┤狦Τ硂兵ゅ穦甧穕甡材臕и痷ぃ瞶秆瞶沮︙ㄆ龟產常笵讽и-
σ納材30兵и-
璶琌σ納Τ惠璶杠︙玂靡秸琩ぃ穦ㄇぃ瞶ヴ種┸臩眖τㄏㄇ靡Μ硄厨癟ㄇ︽瘆胊赣兜秸琩и-
パ﹍︓沧常谋眔玂毁臕硂ㄆ痙瞷︽Τ闽节两猭ㄒㄓ玂毁и-
ョぃи"Τ旧璓Й锚秸琩"硂篶Θ场だ穦籔玂毁臕Τ闽玒
㏄辩睶┥某獶盽枷盞皘猭﹛┮倒ぉ種ǎиゲ斗眏秸讽枷盞皘猭﹛蝶阶穦篶ΘЙ锚秸琩だΘㄢ琿弧材琿矗の穦篶Θ龟悔穕甡弧硂翴螟靡︓琌⊿Τ靡材琿讽矗のΤ篶ΘЙ锚弧ゑ耕螟ノ琌"螟"迭τぃ琌"ぃ"и種硂穦Τ﹚螟硂ンㄆぃ琌⊿Τ猭﹛跌–﹙ン薄τ∕﹚
и-
谋眔現┎ノ硂兵ゅㄓ穝籇︑パ讽ウまノ硂兵ゅ癬禗ウ莱赣Τ耕蔼羭靡砫ヴ璶琌讽枷盞皘蝶阶弧琌才舦猭ウ琌眖硂瞶├祇弧材30兵琌才舦猭τ⊿Τ蝶阶狦硂兵ゅ硂ㄇ篶Θ琌ы┪ぃ程璶琌и稱眏秸ンㄆ碞琌讽枷盞皘σ納穦篶ΘЙ锚秸琩琌笵璣瓣Τ兵兵ゅ碞琌Τ闽ぃ琵碈ざ┸臩ㄇ闽"瑍堵窥"秸琩琌笵ㄤ龟Τ硂妓兵兵ゅ㎡兵ゅ睲贰弧狦弧肚碈┪材琌獶猭┸臩戈杠璶靡Τ癸秸琩篶ΘЙ锚硂琌材ㄒ材ㄒ琌緿瑆穝玭焊吹Τ闽ňゎ胳革兵ㄒずΤ妓兵ゅ更ヴ︙砆胔好讽钡は砱γ诀篶も┪Τ闽肚癟ㄤい弧ぃ┸臩┸臩τ砆北杠ㄤい羭靡砫ヴ琌璶靡Τ闽┸臩穦Й锚秸琩硂ㄇ戈琌パ翠厩矗ㄑ倒ICAC Review CommitteeΤ闽ㄤ瓣產癸穝籇碈ざ┸臩戈硂ㄇ戈琌パ翠厩矗ㄑ瘤礛и⊿Τ琩靡и獺-
┮弧琌非絋
羆珹ㄓ弧и-
谋眔莱赣ま秈硂兵兵ゅ糤現┎羭靡砫ヴи-
谋眔肚碈镑疭﹚薄猵︽ㄏ穝籇︑パㄓ菏诡稧竝ㄏそ渤Τ薄舦硂琌獶盽璶σ納ㄏ硂兵兵ゅи谋眔肚碈ら厨笵穦讽みㄆ龟琌螟蝶︳╯澈┸臩戈穦Τ癸秸琩篶ΘЙ锚膀硂翴и谋眔и┮矗タ琌酚臮穝籇︑パの秸琩﹚玂臔硂ㄢよそ渤痲キ颗ㄆ龟иタ眔翠癘穦㎝畍そ穦やи獺-
疭琌癘穦ぃ穦虫眖︑︽穨痲祇τσ納硂拜肈
程и辨︗某钮筁и┮朝瓃瞶パやиタ
谅畊ネ
CHAIRMAN: Members may now debate the Attorney General's motion as well as the respective proposals by Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I would like to seek a point of clarification. I am looking at the voting procedures later on. It seems like we will be voting on the Attorney General's motion first, followed by Mrs Selina CHOW's if the Attorney General's amendment should fail, and then by the Honourable Albert HO's amendment. I am just wondering that all three amendments could fail. What then would be the position?
CHAIRMAN: If no Second Reading of any new clause has been agreed to, the existing section 30 remains standing.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Yes, thank you. That is the clarification that I am looking for.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr James TO, a point of order?
MR JAMES TO: No.
CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to speak? Mr TO, please.
〆襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネи讽礛ぃ辨瞷嘲糠某┮高拜薄猵狦琌硂妓杠硈度Τ糴⊿Τ笷︗チ囊祔穦は癸現┎タ穦は癸㏄辩睶┥某タぃ筁狦㏄辩睶┥某タ莉硄筁程逞硂┦и-
常穦觅Θ玥碞穦场︗
и種︙玊く某┮弧阶翴и稱干ㄢ翴材︙玊く某矗Τ闽┸臩ゲ斗ΤЙ锚秸琩"likely to prejudice"衡デ猭и稱羭ㄒ︙玊く某羭穝玭焊吹㎝璣瓣發癚猭眔痲ㄒτи┮羭ㄒ眔產瞏璣瓣Τ兜ňゎ┢だ┪ňゎ┢笆猭ㄒㄤい癸闽╇㎝秸琩┢だ兜ヘ单闽舦璙ㄨ砏﹚璣瓣㎝︓舦〆穦常у蝶硂兜兵ㄒ獶盽璙ㄨ或穦硂妓璣瓣薄猵斗癸だτêㄇぃ琌虏虫㎝蛤弧笵瞶-
郸购脄㎝紆ン陪礛穦旧璓癸俱穦┮篶Θ框甡㎝┢薄猵ぃ砱γи種ǎ︓耕砱γㄓ眔钡㎝┢琌讽璣瓣硂兜猭ㄒσ納窽ゎ┸臩盢"ΤЙ锚秸琩┢笆"ㄓ窽ゎ夹非传杠弧薄猵璣瓣瓣薄-
ご礛種盢"ΤЙ锚秸琩"∕兵ン
よ翠猭ㄒい發癚砪瑀眔痲兵ㄒΤ兵ゅτ發癚砪瑀眔痲兵ゅ临Τ碞琌狦琌デ猭杠ゲ斗琌笵┪胔好êㄇ┸臩ΤЙ锚秸琩传ēぇ"Й锚秸琩"硂翴ョ惠璶Τ種瓜︓琌眡戈┪胔好硂ㄆ穦Й锚秸琩ぃ筁︙玊く某タ⊿Τ盢硂翴珹ず
и或璶盢硂ゑ耕發癚砪瑀眔痲兵ㄒいи-
酵阶薄猵琌"financial tracing"传ēぇ琌發癚ㄇ眔痲-
發琩︽笆┦借籔稧竝發琩硂ㄇ砱γユ┮拔旅窥琌妓笵瞶㎝┦借硂埃セō"ΤЙ锚"临璶笵┪胔好ㄤ┸臩琌ΤЙ锚┮и辨︗ㄆσ納疭琌σ納硂翴璶痙種ゑㄒ拜肈舦猭渤ㄒい矗и-
璶穝籇︑パ┪ヴ︙︑パи-
ノも琿ゲ斗籔и-
惠璶癸穦鹤甡嘿
и稱弧材翴琌秸琩┪﹚好秸琩よ╯澈︙矪辅茎и稱弧翴ㄤ龟厨ê﹙ンいиぃ骸現┎矪ㄆよ猭厨ê﹙ンい現┎陪礛ぃ┯粄Τ﹚好好デ┪秸琩龟悔泊㎝穦常笵畊ネê﹙ン竒Ч挡┮и谋眔そ渤癚阶絛瞅琌Τ﹚秸琩ぃ筁硂﹙ンず稧竝玱ぃ┯粄τ俱秸琩︓沮ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30兵北程枷盞皘м砃瞶パ崩陆и谋眔赣ンい稧竝尔好琌ㄇ碔玻坝┮稧竝ぃ┯粄︓枷盞皘┪猭畑ぃ┯粄竒Τ﹚好ㄆ龟ê﹙ン莱﹚好и谋眔稧竝硂よ⊿Τノ荷ㄤ舦ウぃ耴㏒琌猭拜肈
程ㄏ硄筁㏄辩睶┥某┪︙玊く某タ肚碈穦Τ義秖︓︙ㄓ戈笵稧竝ず场ㄆ薄琘顶琿璶┸臩肚碈笵稧竝琌Τ﹚狦ぃ笵杠礚阶琌肚碈恨ы┪猭臮拜﹚穦讽-
セぃ笵琌デ猭琌笷羬翴и谋眔現┎┮弧踞みぃ筁琌筁納
MR JAMES TIEN: Mr Chairman, I have to confess I am not very knowledgeable in this subject but, based on what the Honourable Miss Christine LOH has just asked, the possibility is based on section 30. I would just describe the proposal by Attorney General as the most restrictive. The amendment moved by the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW is a little bit more relaxed, and the amendment by the Honourable Albert HO is even more relaxed.
Now, at the procedure, if the Attorney General's motion is voted down because of the Liberal Party and Democratic Party's position, and subsequently if the Liberal Party's position is voted down by the Democrats and others, then at the end, the Honourable Albert HO's amendment is again voted down by the Liberal Party and the rest, we will revert back to the current section 30, which is the most restrictive of all. Now, on that analysis, I would urge the Democratic Party to really consider voting for Mrs Selina CHOW's amendment. Thank you.
〆襖略ビ某畊ネ硂獶借高祘и谋眔硂妓琌......
CHAIRMAN: Mr TO, I need to call your name first?
〆襖略ビ某癸ぃ癬畊ネи粄バ玊某ㄤ龟ぃ琌碞祘矗借好иはτ稱矗兜祘借好ぃ畊ネ穦σ納盢∕祘п锣碞現某肈秈︽∕沮祘τē現タ琌程候τ︙玊く某タ琌程糴肞狦盢︙玊く某タ∕Ω逼材τㄤタぃ莉硄筁杠チ囊腀種や㏄辩睶┥某タ祘ゼ畊ネ呸胯ㄓ耞程逼︓Τ惠璶杠ヰ穦琿丁ㄓσ納
CHAIRMAN: Honourable Members, I think that some Members are trying to get myself involved in the debate. I regard both speeches to be speeches, not enquiries. I have ruled that the order of voting on the three alternative new clause 13A should be: the Attorney General's, Mrs Selina CHOW's and then Mr Albert HO's. Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, I will invite Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO as sponsors of alternative new clauses to speak for a second time. Mrs Selina CHOW, do you wish to speak?
MRS SELINA CHOW: I have nothing to add.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, forgive me, I have been raising my hand but I have not been able to catch your eye. The order of the voting obviously is of very great importance, and section 30 is obviously a very important provision of very great public interest. I wonder, because of how it will affect the outcome, you would agree to rest for a short time so that we could re-think the order of voting so as to make any submissions to you?
7.49 pm
CHAIRMAN: I suspend the sitting for five minutes.
8.07 pm
Committee then resumed.
CHAIRMAN: Honourable Members, as I said earlier, there are three new clause 13A, proposed by the Attorney General, Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Albert HO. They were received at the same time, so I cannot rely on the first-come first-served principle. In deciding on the order of moving the motions on the three new clause 13A, I have had regard to Standing Order 25(4). I have ruled that the Attorney General should first move his motion by virtue of his being the Public Officer in charge of the Bill, to be followed by Mrs Selina CHOW by virtue of her seniority, and lastly by Mr Albert HO. It stands to reason that the voting on the three proposals should follow the same order, or else the Council will be setting a very bad precedent for the future.
I am not prepared to make an exception in this case or in any other case. As the custodian of the rules and practice of this Council, my role as the President and as the Chairman of the Committee of the whole Council is to rule on whether or not the propositions are in order and, secondly, the order in which they are to be taken, that is, to be moved and voted on. It is not the President's or the Chairman's job to involve himself in the merits or otherwise of the alternative propositions. It is a matter for Members themselves. So I have taken both Mr James TIEN's point and Mr James TO's point to be speeches.
ATTORNEY GENERAL:
The Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW's proposal
Mr Chairman, the only difference between Mrs CHOW's amendment and my own is that her amendment does not plug the loophole that I have mentioned earlier. It would allow disclosures of details of a general investigation, no matter how harmful the disclosure may be to the investigation.
I would ask Members to consider the example in which a report is made to the ICAC of the most serious corruption by a member of a senior group of government officials corruption striking at the heart of good government. Suppose the report does not identify a particular person, but gives information that seems credible, concerning a unit within a certain government department. The ICAC begin to investigate. They uncover clear evidence of corruption but have not yet identified any particular suspect. Then a newspaper publishes details of the investigation. The guilty party flees from Hong Kong taking his ill-gotten gains with him. Just consider what effect that would have on the confidence of the community and their faith in the ICAC.
If Members support Mrs CHOW's amendment, they will be saying that they are content for such publications to take place, regardless of the consequences. Therefore, I urge Members to support my amendment. If that amendment is negatived, I would urge Members however to support Mrs CHOW's amendment and to reject Mr HO's amendment to which I now turn.
The Honourable Albert HO's proposal
The amendment proposed by the Honourable Albert HO would also allow disclosures in respect of general investigations. I have already spoken on that and would urge Members to reject it.
There is, however, a further aspect to Mr HO's amendment. The effect of that amendment would be to limit restrictions contained in section 30(1) to disclosures which are "likely to cause prejudice to the investigation." Mr Chairman, this is unacceptable for two reasons. Firstly, it would deprive the section of its role in protecting the reputation of suspects. Secondly, it would inadequately protect the integrity of investigations.
Let me quote from the judgment of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in the Ming Pao case.
"...... it cannot be assumed that every time an offence under the Ordinance has been alleged or suspected to have been committed, and an investigation is underway, it necessarily leads to a person being charged. The allegations and suspicions may, ultimately, turn out to be groundless. The protection of the reputation of suspects, who may have to undergo the opprobrium of investigation over a long period, is a matter of considerable importance: particularly if the suspect is a Crown servant having to perform his duties vis-a-vis the public in the meanwhile. No time limit is imposed by statute for the process of investigation."
It is no answer to say that the law of defamation can protect the reputations of suspects. Truth is a defence to an action in defamation. A disclosure of the fact that a person is being investigated by the ICAC, if true, would not therefore give that person any remedy in defamation.
The effect of Mr HO's amendment would be that a person could make a malicious report to the ICAC of corruption by a particular person and then disclose to the media the fact that the person was under investigation. The media could then publish the story, with the result that the person's reputation was seriously tarnished. Provided the disclosures were not likely to prejudice the investigation, no offence would have been committed.
It may be argued that persons who are under investigation for non-corruption offences do not have any protection for their reputations beyond that provided by the law of defamation. But corruption offences are in a category of their own, and call for special measures, both to further investigations and to protect those subject to investigation. There are several reasons why corruption suspects need special protection:
- a large percentage of allegations received are, after investigation, not substantiated
- the ICAC is under a duty to investigate all allegations and is given special powers to do so
- a corruption investigation may continue for a long period of time
- a serious stigma attaches to corruption, and those under investigation for corruption, however innocent, may be unfairly tainted.
The ICAC has quite properly been given special powers of investigation, but hand in hand with those powers must go special measures to protect suspects who may be entirely innocent. Mr HO's proposed amendment offers no protection to the reputation of suspects.
Mr HO's amendment would also inadequately protect the integrity of investigations. This is not simply the view of the Administration. The Privy Council, in the Ming Pao case, which so much reference have been made today, made the following comments on the second limb of section 30 subsection (1), which prohibits disclosures to persons other than the suspect.
"Lord Lester argued that the restrictions in the second limb were disproportionate in that they criminalised disclosures even when no prejudice was caused or likely to be caused to an ICAC investigation and even if the accused believed that there would be no prejudice. The difficulty about this argument is that in many cases it will be impossible to know whether disclosure has prejudiced an investigation or not, for example, a suspect might destroy incriminating documents of which the investigator was not and never would be aware but which he would have discovered had there been no prior disclosure. For the same reason the suggestion that the desired aim could have been achieved by qualifying the second limb subsection with some such words as "likely to prejudice the investigation" fails because of the difficulty of establishing when a disclosure satisfied the test. If the restriction is to be effective it cannot draw distinctions between prejudicing and non-prejudicing disclosures nor have regard to the state of mind of the discloser." That was what the five law lords in the Privy Council had to say.
The "likely to prejudice" test would fail to achieve the desired aim of protecting the integrity of ICAC investigations because of the difficulty of establishing when a disclosure satisfied the test. Let me give another example. Let us assume that a government official is under investigation but he does not know this. Someone in the same department as the suspect learns of the investigation and tells a colleague. The colleague tells someone else, and so on. Would any of these disclosures be likely to prejudice the investigation and, if so, which one? The fact that the suspect may or may not eventually learn of the investigation does not answer the question. The suspect may overhear a conversation that was not, of itself, likely to prejudice the investigation. If he then destroys all evidence of his corruption, the disclosure would still not have been an offence. Even if the suspect is informed of the investigation by a colleague, that does not necessarily mean that the disclosure was likely to prejudice the investigation. Under the "likely to prejudice" test, it is not clear whether it would be an offence for a person to disclose to a suspect the fact that he was under investigation. It is in general terms unacceptable from a legal policy point of view that a criminal offence should be subject to such uncertainty.
These examples show that the "likely to prejudice" test does not adequately protect ICAC investigations. I am aware that a similar test appears in certain other pieces of legislation. But that, Mr Chairman, proves nothing. Two of the precedents for the "likely to prejudice" test relate to investigations into drug trafficking and terrorism which we have heard this afternoon. Investigations into such offences are of a completely different nature to investigations into corruption. Let me once again quote from the Privy Council decision. This is what they had to say:
"The fact that disclosure of investigations into other offences is not so severely restricted does not render the provisions of section 30(1) disproportionate or unnecessary. In many offences involving dishonesty there will be a party who suffers and who has an obvious interest to report the matter to the authorities with the result that the offender can expect that some investigation into the offence will take place. In cases of bribery, however, neither party to the transaction is likely to have any interest to report the matter rather the reverse, since both are likely to be satisfied with what has occurred. This means that bribery offences are particularly difficult to detect and the maintenance of secrecy as to an investigation is even more important in order not to put the suspect on his guard."
Once again, I emphasize that those are the views of the five eminent law lords in the Privy Council. I am also aware that the anti-corruption legislation of New South Wales contains the "likely to prejudice test". However, in February of this year, the Australian Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service published an interim report, dealing with police corruption. The report concluded that the internal anti-corruption work of the New South Wales police service, and the anti-corruption work of the elements of the New South Wales ICAC that targeted the police, have failed. The report recommended that a new agency be established and that the agency be given "an appropriate secrecy provision". I trust that I have said enough to indicate how dangerous it is to point to a precedent from another jurisdiction and assume both that the precedent is effective in that jurisdiction and that it would be effective here.
In contrast to the position in New South Wales, the success of the anti-corruption work of the ICAC in Hong Kong is widely recognized. The Report of the ICAC Review Committee stated that:
"Almost all submissions acknowledged the success of the ICAC in combating corruption and bringing it under control. They perceived the danger of a significant increase in corruption during the run-up to 1997 and expressed a belief that the independence and effectiveness of the Commission remained crucial to the continued development and prosperity of the community."
One of the reasons for the ICAC's success, I believe, is the protection afforded to the integrity of investigations by section 30. At this crucial time in Hong Kong's history, we should not be putting the effectiveness of the ICAC at risk by weakening the main elements of section 30. The "likely to prejudice" test would do just that.
For all these reasons, I strongly urge Members of this Council to vote against Mr HO's amendment.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the Attorney General's motion put and negatived.
CHAIRMAN: As the Attorney General's motion on the Second Reading of his proposed new clause 13A has not been agreed, I will now call on Mrs Selina CHOW to move the Second Reading of her proposed new clause 13A.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 13A as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
Question on the motion proposed and put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr TSANG Kin-shing claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: Members may wish to be reminded that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the new clause 13A moved by Mrs Selina CHOW be read the Second time. Will Members please press the top button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Are there any queries? Members may wish to check their votes. The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the motion.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announces that there are 29 votes in favour of the motion and 27 votes against it. He therefore declares that the motion is carried.
CHAIRMAN: As Mrs Selina CHOW's motion on the Second Reading of her proposed new clause 13A has been agreed, it is not possible for Mr Albert HO to move the Second Reading of his proposed new clause 13A.
Clause read the Second time.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 13A as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 13A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"13A. Offence to disclose identity, etc.
of persons being investigated
Section 30 is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting -
"(1) Any person who knowing or suspecting that an investigation in respect of an offence alleged or suspected to have been committed under Part II of this Ordinance is taking place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, discloses to -
(a) the person who is the subject of the investigation (the "subject person") the fact that he is so subject or any details of such investigation; or
(b) the public, a section of the public or any particular person the identity of the subject person or the fact that the subject person is so subject or any details of such investigation,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $20,000 and to imprisonment for 1 year".".
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
New clause 13B Offence to disclose identity, etc.
of persons being investigated
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
CHAIRMAN: Both the Attorney General and Miss Christine LOH have given notice to propose the addition of new clause 13B to the Bill. I will call upon the Attorney General to speak and move the Second Reading of his proposed new clause 13B first as he is the Public Officer in charge of the Bill.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 13B as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
The existing subsection (1A) of section 30 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance provides that the restrictions on disclosure cease to apply after the person who is the subject of the investigation has been arrested. Under my proposed amendment, the restrictions would also cease to apply after a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the person who is the subject of the investigation, or after a restraining order has been served on any person under section 14C(3) of the Ordinance.
Where an arrest warrant is issued, the investigation will clearly have reached a mature stage and have a specific direction, similar to that where a person is actually arrested. A restraining order prohibits a particular person from disposing of, or otherwise dealing with specified property. Such an order will only be made after considerable investigations have taken place. In addition, such orders give rise to a degree of publicity in that, if they relate to immovable property, they are registered in the Land Registry. The Administration therefore considers that, if an arrest warrant is issued or a restraining order is made, it is difficult to justify continuing the restrictions of section 30.
The existing subsection (2) of section 30 provides that the Commissioner, ICAC, may disclose the identity of a suspect if any of five specified events occur. Two of those events are the issue of an arrest warrant and the making of a restraint order. As I have just explained, the occurrence of either of those two events will, under my proposed amendment, cause all restrictions on disclosure to be lifted.
That leaves three further events in the existing subsection (2), namely, where the person subject to the investigation fails to comply with a notice under section 14(1)(a) or (b) requiring him to give details of his assets; where his residence has been searched under a warrant issued under section 17; and where he has been required to surrender a travel document under section 17A.
The amendment that I am moving will have the effect that, if any of those three events occur, any details of the investigation may be disclosed by the Commissioner, or by the subject person, or by any other person with the consent of the Commissioner or the subject person.
Mr Chairman, this is a considerable relaxation of the section, but it ensures that third parties will not be able to disclose details of an investigation after one of the specified events has occurred, unless the Commissioner or the suspect consents to this. The Administration considers that, even though one of those events has occurred, there are still good reasons for imposing such restrictions on disclosures. In particular, there is still a need to protect the reputation of the subject person.
As I have said, in the three situations described, third parties should not be permitted to make disclosures without the consent of the subject person or of the Commissioner. However, my amendment provides that, where the Commissioner or the subject person has consented to a disclosure being made by a particular person to the public or a section of the public, he is to be treated as having consented to such a disclosure by any other person. This provision will be of particular assistance to the media since, if the subject person is content for details of the investigation to be made public, it will not be necessary for each newspaper or broadcaster to obtain the consent of that person before it can run the story.
The amendment I am moving will also permit disclosures to be made by any person if, but only to the extent that, the disclosure reveals any unlawful activity, abuse of power, serious neglect of duty, or other serious misconduct by the ICAC; or a serious threat to public order or to the security of Hong Kong or to the health or safety of the public.
The combined effect of these amendments will relax the restrictions imposed by section 30 in significant respects.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the Attorney General's motion on Second Reading of the clause proposed.
CHAIRMAN: As Miss Christine LOH has also given notice to propose the addition of new clause 13B to the Bill, I propose to have the Attorney General's motion and Miss LOH's proposal debated together in a joint debate.
Committee shall debate the Attorney General's motion and Miss Christine LOH's proposal in a joint debate. I will call upon Miss Christine LOH to speak on the Attorney General's motion as well as her own proposition, but will not ask Miss Christine LOH to move the Second Reading of her motion unless the Attorney General's motion has been negatived. If the Attorney General's motion is agreed, that will by implication mean that Miss Christine LOH's proposal is not approved.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, let me begin by mentioning the two points of agreement between the Attorney General's amendment and mine. First, there is no dispute that section 30 should cease to apply to an investigation after the suspect's arrest or issue of a warrant for his arrest or service of a restraining order in connection with the investigation.
Second, both amendments only come into play at a mature stage in the investigation when secrecy is neither possible nor needed. Both my amendment and the Attorney General's, therefore, permit the suspect himself to publicize the investigation freely. Protecting the integrity of investigation is not in issue here, so let us put that aside in case there are any Members of the Council who are still pondering about this particular issue.
The difference between the two amendments lie in their treatment of three overt acts by the ICAC against the suspect. These acts are: confiscation of the suspect's travel documents; search of his home; and service of a section 14 notice compelling him or her to divulge information about his or her assets. My amendment proposes to terminate the application of section 30 after any of these acts. The Administration's amendment also relaxes section 30 in similar circumstances but only to the extent authorized by the suspect or by the Commissioner of the ICAC.
The Administration claims that the approach it takes is necessary to protect the suspect's reputation. Mr IP Kwok-him, the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW and Mr Bruce LIU all took up this argument in their Second Reading debate and said that they intended to vote against my amendment. I urge them to listen to my explanation. I would like to put it to them that once an investigation reaches the advanced stage whether either of the two amendments comes into play, such concern over reputation is no longer appropriate. The amendments we are debating do not concern the investigation of raw corruption allegations when there may be little or no real evidence to implicate the suspect.
These amendments only come into play after the ICAC has already uncovered significant, and I repeat, Mr Chairman, significant evidence that the suspect is guilty. Before the ICAC may serve a section 14 notice or confiscate travel documents, it must satisfy a court that it has reasonable grounds to suspect the targeted person is guilty. This is exactly the same degree of suspicion required to arrest that person. Significant suspicion is also required before a court will issue a warrant to search a suspect's home and the court must be shown reasonable cause to believe his or her home contains evidence of an offence he or she committed. Being a lawyer, I am sure the Honourable Bruce LIU will appreciate this. When the ICAC has already uncovered significant evidence of a person's corruption, this should moderate concern that an innocent reputation is at stake and tilts the balance in favour of treating the corruption suspect like any other suspect. That is, free speech should be allowed subject to defamation laws.
That is why the new section 30 ceases to apply after the suspect is arrested as it was amended by this Council in 1992. The same considerations apply when, on the basis of the same or similar suspicion, the ICAC chooses not to arrest a suspect immediately but does confiscate his or her passport or search his or her home or serve him or her with a section 14 notice. The Administration points out that a person whose home is searched, or whose passport is confiscated, may nonetheless later be found to be innocent. The Administration fails to mention that this applies as well to a person who is arrested who may in fact never be charged or against whom all charges may be dropped later. But observations of this type miss the point. The point is that these are all major overt actions by the ICAC taken only at the advanced stage of an investigation on the basis of significant evidence against the suspect. I argue, therefore, that section 30 should cease to apply after any of them.
The Administration instead errs dangerously in the opposite direction. In the name of protecting reputation, the Administration in effect gives the suspect the power to control publicity about the investigation. Under the Administration's amendment, it is the suspect who determines what details of the investigation may lawfully be publicized and to whom such disclosure may be made. This extraordinary power to tailor section 30 for a suspect's own benefit will not be available to a suspect in the early stages of an investigation when there is often no real evidence that he or she committed any offence. Rather the Administration's amendment exclusively benefits suspects against whom the ICAC has already taken overt action on the basis of significant evidence of corruption. Mr Chairman, that does not seem to make sense to me.
The ICAC will also retain its own comparable power to authorize selective publicity. The Administration's amendment will predictably give rise to battles of disclosure fought in the media as media-savvy suspects and the ICAC launch competing disclosures to influence public opinion. Both the suspect and the ICAC in these battles will be armed and armoured by the amended section 30 as proposed by the Attorney General. The victim in such battles will be the public's unprotected rights to full and accurate information. A reporter who publishes any detail that has not been authorized by either the Commissioner or the suspect will still be criminally liable under section 30 as amended by the Attorney General regardless of the report's accuracy.
Again the better approach is simply to terminate section 30's application to the investigation instead of making it selectively permeable to both the interested parties.
For these reasons, the Administration's partial relaxation of section 30 at the advanced stage of investigation is not a sensible approach. I urge Members to give what I said good consideration and to support my amendment instead.
CHAIRMAN: Members will now debate the Attorney General's motion and Miss Christine LOH's proposal together.
〆襖略ビ某璓勉畊ネぃ阶琌嘲糠某┪現┎タ碞ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30(3)兵常Τ硄翴и辨產兵ㄒ〆穦糵某筁祘い硂兜ヘи-
讽丁秈︽癚阶眔醚〆穦碞材3蹿笷兜醚硂よи粄琌兜秈˙ㄏら肚碈の翠カチ狦伐狠薄猵惠璶┸臩ㄇΤ闽稧竝垒ノ舦┪腨波┛巨┪獶猭笆┪癸ㄇ璶そㄆ叭┪┦借ㄆ叭┸臩硂琌兜糴琌だ璶糴
и種現┎硂兜タいㄇ龟借┦琵˙и種現┎材30(2)兵い盢计兜セパ盡┸臩牟祇兜ヘユ倒そ渤传杠弧ㄒ好デ砆╇セΤ盡┸臩瞷讽好デ砆╇そ渤ミ莉肚碈厨笵硂翴硂琌兜龟借糴
︓瞷嘲糠某籔現┎ㄢタぇ丁だㄤ龟贺薄猵嘲糠某Τ酵のτ牟祇翴琌惠璶好種
現┎Ч逼埃阶硂翴琌穦紇臫秸琩絫珿琂礛矗の好現┎秸琩碞ぃ穦ㄌ綼ぃ弧ㄓτΤ┮玂臔и-
┮癚阶ぃ筁琌羘臕玂毁拜肈竒筁だ猂и粄現┎ミ阶琌讽螟Θミ
安砞Τタ稧竝秸琩︘┮砆稧竝穓琩稧竝弧猭琌稧竝ЧΘ穓琩︽笆砛らぃ穦癸ê矗浪北︓ぃ穦╇ê笵瞶狦砆牡よ穓琩︘┮胔好旅Τ瑀珇┪ㄤㄆτ牡よ穓琩筁砛⊿Τ╇êㄆ龟肚碈厨笵牡よ穓琩ê︘┮玱ぃ厨笵稧竝穓琩ê︘┮ㄒΤ闽冈薄┪琌︘┮
и︑粄稧竝秸琩┮瞣疉羘臕穕祘荡ぃ穦耕砆牡よ秸琩腨ㄒ狦砆旅Τ瑀珇и獺琌ンㄆ︓狦嘿丁カそ珹畊┪赋ㄆ单瞣疉坝穨竜秸琩琘ㄇ坝穨禕腇ン琌ンㄆиぃ種稧竝穓琩琘︘┮ê羘臕穦穕τ斗玂毁狦琌牡よ┪ㄤ磅猭诀篶穓琩︘┮羘臕獽礚斗玂毁и粄硂琌ぃ瞶
材硂琌и琎边贬┮稱ㄤ龟嘲糠某┮矗タㄤい牟祇翴琌讽稧竝沮ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材14兵祇戈玻獽┸臩и粄ㄤいぃЧよㄆ龟瞷現┎種ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材13兵妓蔼单猭皘ビ叫㏑好ユㄇ眀ヘ单и粄ぃ阶琌現┎┪嘲糠某タ牟祇翴莱材14兵兜"の材13兵"硂琌妮妓笵瞶
程и臛阶祇ē現┎粇穦и種и矗の厨ンい稧竝秸琩иぃ琌現┎弧晾и種琌現┎┪稧竝讽琌耞Τ岿粇и粄-
讽礛弧и耞岿粇稧竝讽耞龟悔琌Τ┪絋﹚好τ獶ウ┮弧ゼ絋﹚и荡礚種稧竝讽琌珿種弧晾┪琌陪絋﹚好ウご弧ゼΤ絋﹚硂獶и種略坚睲
〆郭Θ某璓勉畊ネ谅谅倒и祇ēパ璣ゅ陆亩Τぶ砛粇穦璓嘲糠某岿チぃや龟悔チ琌やタ
谅谅畊ネ
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I am most pleased by the Honourable Bruce LIU's comments, so let us get on with the vote. Thank you.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, under the amendment proposed by the Honourable Miss Christine LOH, section 30 would cease to apply where a notice is served on the subject person under section 14(1)(a) or (b); where his residence has been searched under a warrant issued under section 17; or where he has been required to surrender his travel document under section 17A. The Administration strongly opposes this amendment, because of its possible impact both on a suspect's reputation and on ICAC investigations.
Subject's reputation
In the three situations I have described, there is still a need to protect the subject person's reputation. There is no reason why section 30 should cease to apply simply because a person has been required to give details of his assets. Needless to say, that person may be entirely innocent and may, by complying with the notice, establish this to the satisfaction of the ICAC. A search of the suspect's residence may reveal no evidence of criminality and, if the suspect is required to surrender his travel document, he may subsequently get it back. In none of these situations is there any compelling reason why details of the investigation should be freely disclosed, and the subject person's reputation ruined. However, if the subject person wished to disclose details of the investigation; or there has been serious ICAC misconduct; or there is a serious threat to public order or to the security of Hong Kong or to the health or safety of the public, disclosure will be possible under the amendment I am moving.
Miss LOH has argued that section 30 should cease to apply if any of the three events I have mentioned has occurred, since the same degree of suspicion is required for those events as for the arrest of the subject person. With respect to her, this is not an adequate justification. A suspect's reputation should not be exposed to attack merely because there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that he has committed a corruption offence. As I have explained earlier this afternoon, there are valid reasons for protecting the reputation of those under ICAC investigation. That protection should only be removed if there is a compelling reason to do so.
The arrest of the suspect, or the issuing of a warrant of arrest, indicates that the investigation has reached a mature stage, and that the suspect has been deprived, or will be deprived, of his liberty. Members of the public have an overriding right to be informed of this. The making of a restraint order in respect of land already involves public registration, and so it is difficult to justify further restraints on disclosure. But Miss LOH is proposing that all restrictions on disclosure should be lifted after three events which merely form part of ongoing investigations, and which are not of such significance that there is an overriding reason for the public to know about them. I do not believe that a suspect's reputation should be so exposed.
Protection of investigations
I turn now to the protection of the integrity of an investigation. Miss LOH has argued that there is no practical need for secrecy after any of the three events had made the suspect aware of the investigation.
There is a fallacy in her argument. It assumes that all suspects who know they are under investigation will tip-off any other guilty parties. This is not the case. Firstly, the suspect may be entirely innocent and may not know who the guilty parties are. He will not tip them off. Why should third parties be permitted to disclose details of the investigation and thereby alert the guilty parties? Secondly, the suspect may be guilty and may be assisting the ICAC by giving evidence against his co-conspirators. In that situation, he will not want to tell the co-conspirators what he is doing. Third parties should not be permitted to do so.
In contrast to Miss LOH's proposed amendment, my amendment does afford protection to an investigation in situations where neither the Commissioner nor the suspect wants to disclose any details of it.
Conclusion
Mr Chairman, the Administration objects to Miss LOH's proposed amendment because it affords inadequate protection to the reputation of suspects and to the integrity of investigations. The amendment I have moved will relax the restrictions imposed by section 30 in several important respects, whilst still affording adequate protection to reputations and investigations. I urge Members to support the Administration's amendment.
Question on the motion put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr James TO claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the Attorney General's new clause 13B be read the Second time. Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the motion.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 23 votes in favour of the motion and 31 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
CHAIRMAN: As the Attorney General's motion on the Second Reading of his proposed new clause 13B has not been agreed, I will now call on Miss Christine LOH to move the Second Reading of her proposed new clause 13B.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 13B as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause read the Second time.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 13B as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 13B
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"13B. Offence to disclose identity, etc.
of persons being investigated
Section 30 is amended by repealing subsections (1A) and (2) and substituting -
"(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply as regards disclosure of any of the descriptions mentioned in that subsection where, in connection with such investigation -
(a) a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the subject person;
(b) the subject person has been arrested whether with or without warrant;
(c) the subject person has been required to furnish a statutory declaration or a statement in writing by a notice served on him under section 14(1)(a) or (b);
(d) a restraining order has been served on any person under section 14C(3);
(e) the residence of the subject person has been searched under a warrant issued under section 17; or
(f) the subject person has been required to surrender to the Commissioner any travel document in his possession by a notice served on him under section 17A.
(3) Without affecting the generality of the expression "reasonable excuse" in subsection (1), a person has a reasonable excuse as regards disclosure of any of the descriptions mentioned in that subsection if, but only to the extent that, the disclosure reveals -
(a) any unlawful activity, abuse of power, serious neglect of duty, or other serious misconduct by the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or any officer of the Commission; or
(b) a serious threat to public order or to the security of Hong Kong or to the health or safety of the public.".".
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Clauses 1, 3 and 4 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 5 and 6
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 2, 5 and 6 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circulated to Members.
When considering the Bill, members of the Bills Committee were concerned that the Bill sought to incorporate into law provisions in relation to the definition of "attempt" and the offence of incitement which were only recommended by the English Law Commission but not yet enacted in England.
In England, incitement to commit an offence still remains a common law offence despite its presence in the draft Criminal Code. Members of the Bills Committee were concerned that, unlike attempt or conspiracy, the merit of codifying the offence of incitement has not been tested in England. The Administration accepts that this may not be the appropriate time to codify the offence of incitement. Accordingly, I will shortly move a Committee stage amendment to delete the relevant provisions in the Bill in respect of that offence. However, Mr Chairman, we will keep this matter under review, tracking developments in England and elsewhere since I believe that there remain sound reasons for eventually putting incitement into codified form.
I now turn to the Committee stage amendments to clause 2. The amendments to clause 2 delete the definition of "fault element" and an intention to commit an offence in relation to attempting an offence and delete the proposed codification of incitement as an offence. The proposed new section 159H defines what constitutes the offence of attempting to commit an offence. It further provides that, and I quote, "an intention to commit an offence is an intention with respect to all elements of the offence other than fault elements except that recklessness with respect to a circumstance suffices where it suffices for the offence itself." The purpose of this section is to provide for circumstances where it is an offence to do an act recklessly. It will also be an offence for a person to be reckless in attempting to do that act. This section follows a decision of the English Court of Appeal in a case of attempted rape.
Although the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 does not contain a similar revision, the English Law Commission recommended such a clause in its draft Criminal Code for the protection of victims against violent or drunken offenders. In the course of examining the proposed section 159H, members of the Bills Committee have considered the position by referring to various precedents in England after the enactment of the Criminal Attempts Act 1977. They take the view that such a provision may be of little use since the English case law suggests that the courts accept that, where recklessness with respect of a circumstance suffices for the substantive offence, then recklessness as to those specific circumstances should be enough for the offence of attempt. The Bar Association also shares the view that the inclusion of such a clause in the Bill is not appropriate.
Members of the Bills Committee have also come to the view that the concept of "fault element" is new to Hong Kong and there are few precedents available to be of assistance if interpretation of the term is called into question.
In the light of the comments of the members of the Bills Committee and the Bar Association, I accept that it is not entirely clear whether the proposed provisions will produce the desired result at this point in time. In this regard, I will move an amendment to delete subsection (2) of proposed new section 159H in its entirety. In addition, proposed new section 159G, which provides for the definition of "fault element" and subsection (4) of proposed new section 159J, which defines an intention to commit an offence of attempt under other enactments in the same manner as section 159H subsection (2), should likewise be deleted.
The amendment also deletes from clause 2 proposed new sections 159M, 159N and 159O which would have codified the offence of incitement. Consequential amendments are made to clauses 5 and 6.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended
(a) by deleting the proposed section 159G.
(b) by deleting the proposed section 159H(2).
(c) by deleting the proposed section 159J(4).
(d) by deleting the heading "Incitement" before the proposed section159M.
(e) by deleting the proposed section 159M.
(f) by deleting the proposed section 159N.
(g) by deleting the proposed section 159O.
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended, by deleting the clause and substituting
"5. Reference to an offence to include aiding, etc.
Section 101C(1)(i) and (iii) is repealed.".
Clause 6
That clause 6 be amended, by deleting paragraphs (a) and (b) and substituting
"(a) in subsection (1), by repealing "subsections (2), (3) and (4)" and substituting "subsection (2)";
(b) by repealing subsections (2)(b) and (4).".
Question on the amendments proposed.
MR AMBROSE LAU: Mr Chairman, I rise to support the amendments that the Attorney General has just moved as they are the result of detailed deliberation by the Bills Committee which I chaired to study the Bill.
In the course of deliberation, the Bills Committee reviewed the definition of the offence of attempt. It found that the term "fault element" might create problems and confusion in operation. Its inclusion would render the Hong Kong legislation different from that of the English legislation and would thus put in doubt the value of precedents of the English case law. Further, the reference to "recklessness" might confuse rather than clarify the mental element which the English courts have had no difficulty in interpreting under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
After full discussion with the Administration, the Bills Committee has agreed that the Administration should move Committee stage amendments to delete the proposed sections 159G, 159H(2) and 159J(4) from clause 2 of the Bill, in order to remove references to "fault element" and "recklessness" in relation to the offence of attempt and in order to bring the definition in line with that of the English Criminal Attempts Act 1981.
Regarding the codification of the offence of incitement, since in England, the draft Criminal Code which reinstates the existing law in respect of incitement has not been enacted, the majority of members of the Bills Committee feared that Hong Kong would be in a difficult position if it were to adopt the draft Code in advance. They also queried the proposed codification of incitement, as follows: (a) that it may be impractical to codify such a concept of uncertain width; (b) that after codification, the offence may lose the assistance of existing case law; (c) that the new definition of the offence of incitement, particularly the Chinese version, may lead to more confusion; and (d) the term "incite" is not defined.
In the end, the Administration conceded that they were unable to convince the Bills Committee that it is timely to include "incitement" in the condification exercise, although they believe that there are good reasons to do so. The Administration has agreed to move amendments to delete the proposed sections 159M, 159N and 159O from clause 2 and to amend clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill and that the Attorney General has just done.
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I just want to take this opportunity of thanking the Honourable Ambrose LAU and members of the Bills Committee for the time and the care which they took over this Bill. I would only like to add that the Bill in its amended form will be a modest but important step towards the goal of codification, bringing in enhanced accessibility, ease of reference and comprehension and providing for consistency and certainty in its application.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 5 and 6, as amended, put and agreed to.
NON-LOCAL HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (REGULATION) BILL
Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 27, 39 and 40
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某ㄌ酚矗ユ︗某肚綷ゅン┮更タ兵ㄒ┮Τタ莉兵ㄒ〆穦種Τ闽材13561619232739㎝40兵タの材281013㎝14兵琘ㄇタ琌妮м砃┦借┪睲贰の絋は琈兵ㄒヘ夹τ矗兵ㄒ〆穦糵某硂兵ㄒ疭闽猔琘ㄇㄆ兜и稱秆睦莱硂ㄇ闽猔τ矗タ
玂毁厩ネ窥穕ア
兵ㄒ〆穦程闽猔ㄆ兜ぇ琌玂毁厩ネ磷パ揭祘矗玡いゎτ籜窥穕ア兵ㄒ〆穦㎝現┎А種秆∕硂拜肈程ㄎよ猭琌砏﹚揭祘快箇厩ネΜ籔揭祘Τ闽禣ノの砏﹚快ゲ斗逼璹薄猵癶临禣ノ
辅龟硂よ猭и笆某材10(3)兵穝材(e)蹿硂妓獽盢揭祘禣ノやの癶临骸種逼ビ叫揭祘爹兵ンぇи-
┮玥琌璶―Τ闽逼酚臮揭祘笲惠璶ョ玂毁厩ぃ穦揭祘矗玡挡τ籜窥穕ア
兵ㄒ〆穦粄惠璶秈˙揭祘快箇Μ厩禣ぃ禬筁ゼㄓる莱煤厩禣羆肂現┎種矗硂兜獶セ蔼单の盡穨毙▅揭祘爹矪矪嘿"矪"斗Τ皍薄∕﹚舦粄薄猵惠璶ㄒ揭祘秨﹍玡惠璶ì镑蹿兜膚快揭祘獽甧砛快ぃ宽酚硂兜砏﹚и笆某兵ㄒ材10(3)兵材(d)蹿
и矗癸材13(1)兵の材14(1)兵タ盢穦甭舦矪笿快ゼ癸禣ノやの〓┪癶临骸種逼のゼΤ宽Τ闽箇Μ厩禣砏﹚祇盢赣揭祘爹篗綪某の篗綪Τ闽揭祘爹硂ㄇタ盢絋玂快揭祘爹膥尿Т到逼玂毁厩ネ癩現よ痲
菏诡莉僚揭祘
兵ㄒ〆穦闽猔ㄆ兜琌獶セ蔼单毙▅诀篶の獶セ盡穨刮砰嘿"獶セ诀篶の刮砰"籔セ蔼单毙▅诀篶┪盡厩皘快揭祘借玂靡兵ㄒ砏﹚Τ闽セ蔼单毙▅诀篶︽現恨–斗矪矗ユ靡絋粄Τ闽揭祘妮快┦借快揭祘獶セ皘ㄣΤ粄︗の揭祘キ籔獶セ皘セ瓣秨快摸揭祘キゑ硂兜快揭祘獽莉僚爹沮硂兜砏﹚菏诡㎝絋玂莉僚揭祘借璶琌パΤ闽セ蔼单毙▅诀篶τ獶矪璽砫
兵ㄒ〆穦糵某兵ㄒ闽猔癸莉僚揭祘砏恨┪穦筁糴肞瘤礛現┎笵セ蔼单毙▅诀篶借玂靡よΤ伦碔摟喷ョ穦だ秆獶セ蔼单毙▅诀篶戈㎝揭祘冈薄∕﹚快揭祘ぃ筁現┎ョフΤ惠璶糤莉僚揭祘硓㎝拜砫┦и笆某タ躬纘セ蔼单毙▅诀篶縩伐絋玂莉僚揭祘借の琵矪㎝そ渤甧眔籔硂ㄇ揭祘Τ闽戈
и癸兵ㄒ材2(1)兵矗タの祔癸1矗タ穦セ蔼单毙▅诀篶︽現恨琌Τ闽皘菏服┪皘眖τ絋﹚莱パ街璽砫矗ユ僚揭祘爹┮惠靡и笆某タ兵ㄒ材8兵材(4)蹿砏﹚祇瞷硂ㄇ靡琌店安┪ぃタ絋靡妮礚и笆某材(8)の(9)蹿秈˙甧砛矪Τ惠璶紉高盡產種ǎ龟靡ず甧碞紉高盡產種ǎτ┷璓秨やΤ闽セ蔼单毙▅诀篶Μ禣ノ
и笆某タ兵ㄒ材8兵材1(c)(5)(6)の(7)蹿のタ材9兵ㄏ矪眖揭祘快の〓┪セ蔼单毙▅诀篶眔Τ闽莉僚揭祘戈矪跌薄猵琵そ渤琩綷硂ㄇ戈の莉僚揭祘靡㎝厨籔и笆某タ兵ㄒ材10(7)の材21兵结ぉ矪舦琵そ渤琩綷眖竒爹揭祘快眔戈㎝ゅン
玂毁厨弄莉僚揭祘厩窥穕ア㎝-
ōи笆某兵ㄒ材8(1)兵材(e)蹿璹莉僚揭祘快ゲ斗宽Τ闽Μ厩禣㎝癶临蹿兜砏﹚の宽甭揭τㄏノ矪┮Τ闽砏﹚
畊ネи略矗某
Proposed amendments
Clause 1
That clause 1(2) be amended, by deleting ", other than sections 3, 41 and 42,".
That clause 1(2) be amended, by deleting "" and substituting "参膚".
That clause 1 be amended, by deleting subclauses (3) and (4).
Clause 2
That clause 2(1) be amended
(a) in the definition of "local institution of higher education", by adding "column 2 of" after "specified in".
(b) in the definition of "relevant accreditation authority", by deleting ", evaluation and official recognition of" and substituting "and evaluation of and give official recognition to".
(c) by adding -
""executive head" (︽現恨), in relation to a local institution of higher education, means the person specified opposite to the institution in column 3 of Schedule 1 and includes any person duly authorized to act in his capacity,".
That clause 2(1) be amended
(a) in the definition of "蔼单厩砃戈", by deleting "晃┪嘿" and substituting "嘿晃┪".
(b) in the definition of "盡穨戈", by deleting "戈" and substituting "ōだ".
That clause 2(4) be amended
(a) in paragraph (b), by deleting the semicolon and substituting a full stop.
(b) by deleting paragraph (c).
That clause 2(6) be amended
(a) in paragraph (a), by deleting "conductor" and substituting "person".
(b) in paragraph (b), by deleting "an examiner or conductor of the tests or assessments, as the case may be," and substituting "a person".
That clause 2 be amended, by adding
"(7) Where the duration of a regulated course exceeds 3 months -
(a) each month during which the course is conducted; and
(b) the month in which the course commences or ends,
shall, for the purposes of sections 10(3)(d), 13(1)(ba) and 14(1)(ba), be taken as a part of the course.".
Clause 3
That clause 3(1) be amended, by repealing everything after paragraph (c) and substituting
"unless -
(i) the course is an exempted course;
(ii) the course is a registered course; or
(iii) the course is conducted -
(A) by a school registered or provisionally registered within the meaning of section 3 of the Education Ordinance (Cap. 279); or
(B) by a local institution of higher education,
otherwise than in collaboration with a non-local institution or non-local professional body.".
Clause 5
That clause 5(2) be amended, by deleting "for the purposes of this Ordinance".
Clause 6
That clause 6(2) be amended, by deleting paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) and substituting
"(b) section 14(1); and
(c) section 22.".
Clause 8
That clause 8(1) be amended
(a) by deleting paragraph (a)(ii) and substituting -
"(ii) the course -
(A) is not funded wholly or partly by any fund allocated by the Government out of the general revenue to that local institution of higher education; or
(B) is funded wholly or partly by any fund allocated by the Government out of the general revenue to that local institution of higher education with the written consent of the Secretary for Education and Manpower; and".
(b) in paragraph (a)(iii)(A), by deleting "leading to the award to a non-local higher academic qualification by that" and substituting "purporting to lead to the award of a non-local higher academic qualification by that non-local".
(c) in paragraph (a)(iii)(B), by deleting "leading to the award of a non-local professional qualification by that" and substituting "purporting to lead to the award of a non-local professional qualification by that non-local professional".
(d) in paragraph (a)(iii)(B)(I), by deleting everything after "recognized by" and substituting "that professional body for the purpose of awarding the qualification or of the claimed purpose referred to in section 2(2)(b)(ii); and".
(e) in paragraph (a)(iii)(B)(II), by deleting "and" at the end.
(f) in paragraph (b)(ii), by deleting the full stop and substituting a semicolon.
(g) by adding -
"(c) the certificate referred to in paragraph (a) is accompanied by such information or document as may be specified by the Registrar;
(d) the certificate referred to in paragraph (a) or (b)(ii) is accompanied by the prescribed fee;
(e) no rule made under section 39(1)(c) or (d) has been contravened in relation to the course; and
(f) the requirement of subsection (9) is complied with in relation to the course.".
That clause 8(1)(a) be amended, by deleting "" and substituting "恨".
That clause 8(1)(b)(ii) be amended, by deleting "" and substituting "恨".
That clause 8 be amended, by adding
"(4) A certificate referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b)(ii) shall be of no effect if it is false in any material particular.
(5) The Registrar may by notice in writing require the operator of an exempted course to give to the Registrar within such period as is specified in the notice (being a period not less than 1 month beginning on the date of the notice) any information or document which -
(a) relates to the course; and
(b) is in possession of the operator or under his control.
(6) The Registrar may in his absolute discretion extend the period specified in a notice under subsection (5).
(7) An operator who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with a requirement made of him under subsection (5) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine at level 3.
(8) The Registrar may obtain, from the Accreditation Council or such other person or organization as he thinks fit, such advice as is reasonably required to enable him to verify the content of any certificate referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b)(ii).
(9) Where the Registrar incurs any expenses in obtaining an advice under subsection (8) in respect of a certificate furnished by the executive head of a local institution of higher education -
(a) that institution shall pay to the Registrar a sum of money equal to such expenses within such reasonable period as the Registrar may specify;
(b) such sum, if unpaid under paragraph (a), shall be recoverable from that institution as a civil debt.".
Clause 9
That clause 9 be amended, by deleting the clause and substituting
"9. Disclosure of certain information
by Registrar
The Registrar may send a copy of any certificate or report received by him pursuant to section 8(1)(a) or (b) or any information or document received by him pursuant to section 8(1)(c) or (5) to such persons as he thinks fit and -
(a) shall make such certificate and report; and
(b) may make such information or document,
available for inspection by the general public at the office of the Registrar during normal office hours free of charge.".
Clause 10
That clause 10(1)(c) be amended, by adding
"(ia) a sum the amount of which is specified by the Registrar;".
That clause 10(3) be amended
(a) in paragraph (a), by deleting "leading" where it first appears and substituting "purporting to lead".
(b) in paragraph (b), by deleting "leading" and substituting "purporting to lead".
(c) in paragraph (b)(i), by adding "or of the claimed purpose referred to in section 2(2)(b)(ii)" after "qualification".
(d) in paragraph (b)(ii), by deleting "and" at the end.
(e) in paragraph (c), by deleting "subsection (1) or (2) have been complied with in relation to the course." and substituting "subsections (1) and (2) have been complied with in relation to the course;".
(f) by adding -
"(d) it is or will be an express term in the contract between the operator and students that the tuition fee charged for any part of the course shall not be payable before -
(i) the period of 3 months; or
(ii) such other period as the Registrar may in his absolute discretion allow in a particular case,
before the commencement of that part of the course; and
(e) satisfactory arrangements for payment and refund of the fee charged for the course are in place to -
(i) cater for the operational need of the course; and
(ii) protect the students against financial losses resulting from pre-mature cessation of the course.".
That clause 10 be amended, by deleting subclauses (4) and (5) and substituting
"(4) The Registrar may -
(a) obtain, from the Accreditation Council or such other person or organization as he thinks fit, such advice as is reasonably required to enable him to determine an application under subsection (1); and
(b) for such purpose send a copy of the application or any part of it or any information or document received by him pursuant to subsection (1)(c)(iii) or (2) to the Accreditation Council or such person or organization, as the case may be.
(5) Where the Registrar incurs any expenses in obtaining advice under subsection (4) in respect of an application -
(a) the applicant shall be liable to pay to the Registrar a sum of money equal to such expenses;
(b) the Registrar may apply the sum tendered under subsection (1)(c)(ia) in respect of the application towards the payment of such expenses and upon such application -
(i) where such expenses exceed the sum tendered under subsection (1)(c)(ia) -
(A) the applicant shall pay to the Registrar an additional sum equal to the amount of such excess; and
(B) such additional sum, if unpaid under sub-subparagraph (A), shall be recoverable from the applicant as a civil debt;
(ii) where the sum tendered under subsection (1)(c)(ia) exceeds such expenses, the Registrar shall refund the balance to the applicant as soon as practicable after the determination of the application.
(5A) Where the Registrar does not incur any expenses in obtaining advice under subsection (4) in respect of an application, he shall refund the sum tendered under subsection (1)(c)(ia) to the applicant as soon as practicable after the determination of the application.
(5B) A sum tendered under subsection (1)(c)(ia) shall not bear interest.".
That clause 10(6) be amended, by deleting "subsection (5)" and substituting "subsection (5)(b)(i)(A)".
That clause 10(7) be amended, by deleting everything after "a course," and substituting
"he -
(a) shall issue a certificate of registration to the operator of the course;
(b) may make -
(i) the application or any part of it; or
(ii) any information or document received by him in relation to the course pursuant to subsection (1)(c)(iii) or (2),
available for inspection by the general public at the office of the Registrar during normal office hours free of charge.".
Clause 13
That clause 13(1) be amended
(a) in paragraph (b)(i), by adding "or of the claimed purpose referred to in section 2(2)(b)(ii)" after "that qualification".
(b) by adding -
"(ba) any tuition fee charged for any part of the course is collected before -
(i) the period of 3 months; or
(ii) the period allowed by the Registrar under section 10(3)(d)(ii) in relation to the course,
as the case may be, before the commencement of that part of the course;
(bb) the arrangement for payment and refund of the fee charged for the course fails to -
(i) cater for the operational need of the course; and
(ii) protect the students against financial losses resulting from premature cessation of the course;".
(c) in paragraph (d), by deleting "or 21(3) is not" and substituting ", 21(3), 21A(2)(a) or 35(2) has not been".
That clause 13(2) be amended
(a) in paragraph (b), by deleting everything after "notice of the" and substituting -
"proposal -
(i) in English in at least one newspaper in the English language circulating daily in Hong Kong; and
(ii) in Chinese in at least 2 newspapers in the Chinese language circulating daily in Hong Kong; and".
(b) in paragraph (c), by deleting everything after "notice referred to in" and substituting -
"paragraph (a) -
(i) in English in at least one newspaper in the English language circulating daily in Hong Kong; and
(ii) in Chinese in at least 2 newspapers in the Chinese language circulating daily in Hong Kong.".
That clause 13(3) be amended, by adding "or published" after "given".
Clause 14
That clause 14(1) be amended
(a) in paragraph (b)(i), by adding "or of the claimed purpose referred to in section 2(2)(b)(ii)" after "that qualification".
(b) by adding -
"(ba) any tuition fee charged for any part of the course is collected before -
(i) the period of 3 months; or
(ii) the period allowed by the Registrar under section 10(3)(d)(ii) in relation to the course,
as the case may be, before the commencement of that part of the course;
(bb) the arrangement for payment and refund of the fee charged for the course fails to -
(i) cater for the operational need of the course; and
(ii) protect the students against financial losses resulting from pre-mature cessation of the course;".
(c) in paragraph (d), by deleting "or 21(3) is not" and substituting ", 21(3), 21A(2)(a) or 35(2) has not been".
That clause 14(1) be amended, by deleting "ㄌ" and substituting "".
That clause 14(2) be amended
(a) in paragraph (b), by deleting everything after "notice of the" and substituting -
"cancellation -
(i) in English in at least one newspaper in the English language circulating daily in Hong Kong; and
(ii) in Chinese in at least 2 newspapers in the Chinese language circulating daily in Hong Kong; and".
(b) in paragraph (c), by deleting everything after "notice referred to in" and substituting -
"paragraph (a) -
(i) in English in at least one newspaper in the English language circulating daily in Hong Kong; and
(ii) in Chinese in at least 2 newspapers in the Chinese language circulating daily in Hong Kong.".
That clause 14(3) be amended, by adding "or published" after "given".
Clause 16
That clause 16(3)(a) be amended, by deleting everything after "cancellation under" and substituting
"section 14 -
(i) in English in at least one newspaper in the English language circulating daily in Hong Kong; and
(ii) in Chinese in at least 2 newspapers in the Chinese language circulating daily in Hong Kong;".
That clause 16(5)(a) be amended, by deleting "has been" and substituting "was".
Clause 19
That clause 19(2) be amended
(a) in paragraph (a), by deleting "is terminated" and substituting "ceases to be operated".
(b) by adding -
"(ca) the arrangement for payment and refund of the fee charged for a registered course is changed;".
(c) in paragraph (e), by adding "or of the claimed purpose referred to in section 2(2)(b)(ii)" after "that qualification".
Clause 21
That clause 21 be amended, by adding
"(4) The Registrar may -
(a) send a copy of any informaiton or document received by him pursuant to subsection (1) to such persons as he thinks fit; and
(b) make such information or document available for inspection by the general public at the office of the Registrar during normal office hours free of charge.".
Clause 23
That clause 23(3) be amended, by deleting "A prescribed" and substituting "A police".
Clause 27
That clause 27(a) be amended, by deleting "has been" and substituting "was".
Clause 39
That clause 39(1) be amended
(a) by deleting "Registrar" and substituting "Secretary for Education and Manpower".
(b) in paragraph (a), by deleting "exempted courses or registered courses" and substituing "regulated courses and courses which, but for the operation of section 2(5) or (6), would have fallen within the definition of "regulated course" in section 2(1) by virtue of section 2(4)".
(c) by deleting paragraph (c) and substituting -
"(c) providing for collection of fees charged for exempted courses or registered courses and refund of such fees in prescribed circumstances;".
(d) in paragraph (d), by adding "exempted or" before "registered".
Clause 40
That clause 40 be amended, by deleting "" and substituting "参膚".
Question on the amendments proposed.
〆眎▆某璓勉畊ネи硂兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ祇ē兵ㄒ〆穦や現┎〆穦糵某顶琿矗┮Τタㄆ龟兜タ常琌現┎讽Ы莱〆穦眏疨璶―τ矗
毙▅参膚疭矗ㄒ材10兵タ琌闽ㄇ揭祘い硚氨快┮孔"年Ю"┪瞷"砯ぃ癸快"τいゎ爹斗厩祇临厩禣┪砏﹚快诀篶Μ箇煤厩禣﹚ぃ禬禫ㄤる莱煤厩禣羆肂硂ㄇ常琌パ兵ㄒ〆穦獶盽跌眖禣玂毁àσ納硂兵ㄒτ現┎矗и-
贾ǎ竒筁產礷癚阶現┎讽Ы钡兵ㄒ〆穦某
妓兵ㄒ材8兵の材9兵癸ㄇ莉僚揭祘┮玂毁珹Τ闽癸快盡皘┮矗ㄑ靡ず甧糵琩の甧砛カチ璶―琩綷ㄇ僚爹揭祘┮矗ユ厨┪戈硂ㄇ常Τ眏禣の厩癸Τ闽揭祘粄醚
и-
粄現┎癸兵ㄒ┮タ玂毁禣よǐ玡˙и兵ㄒ〆穦セЫㄆ崩滤Τ闽タ
谅畊ネ
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネ兵ㄒ〆穦畊眎▆某㎝〆穦┮Τ〆冈灿糵某獶セ蔼单の盡穨毙▅砏恨兵ㄒ矗腳禥種ǎ兵ㄒЧ到и略璓谅
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21, 23, 27, 39 and 40, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clauses 4, 7, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28 to 38, 41 and 42 were agreed to.
New clause 21A Registrar may obtain advice
New clause 40A Transitional
Clauses read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某弄矗ユ︗某肚綷ゅン┮更穝糤材21A兵の材40A兵
穝糤材21A兵甭舦矪Τ惠璶︑翠厩砃蝶糵Ы┪ㄤΤ闽舱麓莉種ǎ獽龟パ竒爹揭祘快矗ユ㏄ビ厨ゅン┪戈揭祘快斗矪干临紉高種ǎτ┷璓秨や
穝糤材40A兵倒ぉ斗才兵ㄒΤ闽爹┪僚砏﹚獶セ揭祘快せる糴戳и笆某癸兵ㄒ材1兵┮ㄢ兜タ硂兜穝糤兵ゅ盢穦ㄏΤ瞷タ秈︽揭祘快Τ戈莉眔糴戳硂兜砏﹚ヘ琌荷秖搭ぶ穝猭ㄒネ癸竒秨快獶セ揭祘┮硑Θ紇臫某猭ㄒネら戳癬璸せるず硂ㄇ揭祘快ご膥尿翠秨快揭祘㎝祅┷ネ約快Τ種膥尿翠秨快揭祘獽莱硂琿糴戳ずΤ闽揭祘ビ叫爹┪僚
よ快璸购某猭ㄒネ讽ら┪翠秨快獶セ揭祘ゲ斗才爹┪僚砏﹚硂兜兵ゅㄏ穝揭祘翠秨快玡借莉眔玂靡
畊ネи略矗某
Question on the Second Reading of the clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses read the Second time.
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某盢穝糤材21A兵の材40A兵兵ㄒ
Proposed additions
New clause 21A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"21A. Registrar may obtain advice
(1) The Registrar may obtain, from the Accreditation Council or such other person or organization as he thinks fit, such advice as is reasonably required to enable him to verify -
(a) the content of any annual return sent under section 20(1); or
(b) any information or the content of any document received by him pursuant to section 21(1).
(2) Where the Registrar incurs any expenses in obtaining an advice under subsection (1) in respect of a course -
(a) the operator of the course shall pay to the Registrar a sum of money equal to such expenses;
(b) such sum, if unpaid under paragraph (a), shall be recoverable from the operator as a civil debt.".
New clause 40A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"40A. Transitional
During the period of 6 months after the day appointed under section 1(2), sections 3(1), 33(1), 41 and 42 shall not apply in relation to any regulated course which has commenced before such day.".
Question on the addition of the new clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
Schedule 1
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某ㄌ酚︗某肚綷ゅン┮更タ兵ㄒ1и秆睦惠璶タ1
畊ネи略矗某
Proposed amendment
That Schedule 1 be amended, by deleting the Schedule and substituting
"SCHEDULE 1 [SS. 2(1) & 40]
LOCAL INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ItemInstitutionExecutive head
1.Hong Kong Shue Yan College registered under the Post Secondary Collegues Ordinance (Cap. 320)
The President of Hong Kong Shue Yan College.
2.Lingnan College incorporated by the Lingnan College Ordinance (Cap. 422).
The President within meaning of section 2 of the Lingnan College Ordinance
(Cap. 422).
3.The Hong Kong Institute of Education established by The Hong Kong Institute of
Education Ordinance (Cap. 444)
The Director within the meaning of section 2 of the
Hong Kong Institute of Education Ordinance
(Cap. 444).
4.University of Hong Kong established by the University of Hong Kong Ordinance
(Cap. 1053)
The Vice-Chancellor of the University.5.The Hong Kong Polytechnic University established by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University Ordinance
(Cap. 1075)
The President of the University.6.The Chinese University of Hong Kong established by The Chinese University of Hong Kong Ordinance (Cap. 1109)
The Vice-Chancellor of the University.7.Hong Kong Baptist University established by the Hong Kong Baptist University Ordinance (Cap. 1126)The President and Vice-Chancellor within the meaning of section 2 of the
Hong Kong Baptist
University Ordinance
(Cap. 1126)
8.City Unveristy of Hong Kong established by the City University of Hong Kong Ordinance (Cap.1132).The Vice-Chancellor within the meaning of section 2 of the City University of Hong Kong Ordinance (Cap. 1132).
9.The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts established by The Hong Kong academy for Performing Arts Ordinance
(Cap. 1135).The Director within the meaning of section 2 of The
Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Ordinance (Cap. 1135)
10.The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology established by The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Ordinance (Cap. 1141).
The President of the University.11.The Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong established by The Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong Ordinance (Cap. 1145).The Director within the meaning of section 2 of The Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong Ordinance (Cap. 1145).".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on schedule 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
Schedule 2 was agreed to.
FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1, 4 and 5 were agreed to.
Clause 2
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary for Education and Manpower and Mr Edward HO and Mr Ronald ARCULLI have separately given notices to amend the proposed section 9C in clause 2. The order of moving amendments is determined in accordance with Standing Order 25(4).
Mr Edward HO has given notice to move an amendment to the proposed section 9C in clause 2, by adding subsection (1A). Mr Ronald ARCULLI has also given notice to move an amendment to the same proposed section 9C by adding subsection (1A) and to add a related new clause 4A. I propose that the amendments proposed by Mr Edward HO and Mr Ronald ARCULLI be debated together in a joint debate.
Committee shall debate the amendments proposed by Mr Edward HO and Mr Ronald ARCULLI in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr Edward HO to move his amendment by virtue of his seniority.
〆︙┯ぱ某璓勉и笆某タ材2兵ず某材9C兵タず甧祇癳倒︗某ゅンずи┮更
畊ネи璶ビи硂兜タ琌兵ㄒ〆穦τ矗и兵ㄒ〆穦矗硂兜タ┮Τ〆常璓や⊿Τ矗は癸иョず叭〆穦厨讽⊿Τは癸碞ㄆτēи癸ッキネ程厨彻㎝ㄇ某┮祇ē阶稰ぃ骸谋眔讽い盿Τ粇旧Θだ厨彻矗"ッキ程村弧苸某は癸︑パ囊タ"ゅずΤ矗のи钩弧и┮笆某タ碞琌︑パ囊タ倒そ渤禜︑パ囊ぃや眏拜肈ㄤ龟タは祔и穦秆睦或иタㄏ矪Τ磅猭Τ眏и粄Τ惠璶硂よ秆睦
ッキネ矗瞶パは癸иタ材現┎粄⊿Τゲ璶矗タ現┎讽Ы種р讽ЫΤ種祇既氨硄硄骋矪祘ま场だ碞τē瘤礛現┎粄⊿Τ惠璶琌兵ㄒ〆穦玱粄Τ惠璶讽σ納琌セ兵ㄒ狦服诡祇瞷Τ繧獽璶繷硄狥礛骋矪矪叫ボ膥τ祇既氨硄兵ㄒ〆穦玱谋眔硂逼ぃ蛾骸琌繷硄螟ユ╯澈弧ㄇ或弧簗或临琌セ或常⊿Τ弧筁┮и-
㊣苸讽Ыр繷硄э硄τ讽Ы粄Τ硂妓惠璶種帽祇硄硂衡琌兜秈˙ぃ筁и-
玱ぃフ或琂礛種祇硄種盢ㄤ祘まず或玱ぃ猭ㄒず爹硂翴㎡
材ッキネ粄狦やи硂兜タ獽穦ま璓讽Ы磅︽艶┦и-
矗タи弧"и-
"琌讽〆穦璓やи某睲贰弧硂琌種硄莱赣ぃ穦現┎艶┦硂琌種癸現┎讽Ы繦︽笆琌ぃ莱赣Τи-
璶―讽Ы祘硂翴
材ッキネ弧硄ず甧穦骋矪矪ㄤ祇既氨硄и璶眏秸硄琌種硄ぃ莱赣癸矪繦蹦︽笆Τよ狦紅服诡粄Τ闽薄猵獶盽腨 и-
讽礛戳辨-
琌腨德盡穨àㄓ耞祇既氨硄穦癸Τ闽紅Τ腨紇臫 τ-
莱赣琌沮ㄤ盡穨膀娄耞琌Τ硂種祇既氨硄琂礛-
ㄣΤ盡穨膀娄ê或┤或叫ボ穦Τ跑㎡讽礛跑舦程沧常琌矪も穦筁厨ボ薄猵獶硂或腨礚斗帽祇硄よボ璶祇硄τ埃紅服诡矗瞶パ临Τㄤ瞶パ旧璓璶祇硄и粄現┎讽Ы┮矗阶翴ぃΘ瞶┮孔種硄琌荡癸ぃ穦讽Ы︽笆
畊ネ兵ㄒ〆穦〆ぃ琌稱矪籹硑砛毁锚ㄏ螟沮兵ㄒ磅︽ㄤτ紇臫はи-
某琌辨祘眔猭﹚︗獽Τ眏穨и粄祔┮秈︽臛阶ぃ琌や┪は癸眏絃臛阶τ琌臛阶妓程Τ笷硂ヘи琌и盡穨泊ㄓτ祔甃ㄎ瞶某ョ︑盡穨泊ㄓ硂拜肈и粄и某┪甃ㄎ瞶某某常琌龟ㄆ―琌辨镑龟悔翴暗硂ㄆ┮и辨︗某やи笆某タ谅谅
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, in the proposed section 9C, by adding
"(1A) Immediately upon discovery of any matter which warrants the issue of a suspension notice under subsection (1), the Commissioner for Labour shall issue to the proprietor of the industrial undertaking a notice in writing, stating his intention to issue a suspension notice and the matters which will be specified in the suspension notice."
Question on the amendment proposed.
CHAIRMAN: I now call upon Mr Ronald ARCULLI to speak on the amendment moved by Mr Edward HO as well as his own proposed amendments, but will not ask Mr Ronald ARCULLI to move his amendments unless Mr Edward HO's amendment has been negatived. If Mr Edward HO's amendment is agreed, that will by implication mean that Mr Ronald ARCULLI's proposed amendments are not approved.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I completely agree with every word that the Honourable Edward HO has said in support of his amendment. The difference between Mr HO's amendment and mine is that mine is a little bit more extensive because mine includes, Mr Chairman, a form that would be issued to the proprietor of an industrial undertaking, indicating to him the areas which the factory inspector will consider issuing a suspension notice.
The origin of that form has found its way from the Administration. During our deliberations, we were given a guideline by the Administration who enumerated a number of possibilities and circumstances under which a suspension notice might be issued, and to be fair to the Administration, it concludes by saying that the list is not exhaustive and there could be other circumstances which might occur that could bring about the issue of a suspension notice. So, all I did was copied the form, included an extra paragraph to say "others", which means other situations or circumstances. So, within the form that I have proposed to be added to the Ordinance, there is complete flexibility on the part of the Labour Department to indicate what were the reasons for a possible suspension notice.
Now, why did the Labour Department give us that guideline setting out those instances? For a very simple reason. We were told that even with a verbal warning to the proprietor of an industrial undertaking, the proprietor would be told the reasons and what was wrong with the set-up and what needed change. We were then further told by the Labour Department that the factory inspector will go away and try and get the suspension order issued, maybe within a short time but not more than at that time 48 hours, now 24 hours. He will then come back to the industrial undertaking with the suspension order in his pocket. If the offending processes or circumstances were rectified, the suspension notice would be kept in his pocket and he would go away. It will not be served.
The whole reason why we asked for it to be in writing is so as to give the proprietor of the industrial undertaking the first possible opportunity, the first possible opportunity, Mr Chairman, of rectifying what might be a dangerous process, a danger to the workers, a danger to life, limb or indeed perhaps even property. So, we were hoping that the Labour Department officials would actually tell the proprietor, "Look, listen, that process is wrong and that is why it is wrong", and whilst they are in the process of sorting out the possible suspension notice, the proprietor could call in help or whatever and rectify the process. That is the whole purpose, Mr Chairman, of the form.
Now, the Administration says, "Oh, no, that is too cumbersome. We are not going to give a form because it will tie our hands." Well, I will ask the Secretary for Education and Manpower, in that written notification that he intends to use by administrative measure, does the Labour Department propose to be helpful, to tell the proprietor what is wrong so that the proprietor can rectify or indeed stop that process so as not to expose any workers to any danger? If he does not then I would like him to explain why. If he does, what is the difference between the two forms? Is he afraid that the factory inspectors or indeed the Labour Department will specify wrong reasons or inadequate reasons?
As Mr HO has explained, this is intended to help remedy situations that nobody wants to exist, but we need the help of the Labour Department to do that. We need to be given the opportunity, and that is why the form is suggested in my amendment, and I think I would urge my colleagues in this Council to actually make the requirement of serving a notice a legal requirement rather than an administrative measure. If the proprietor gets some wishy-washy notification to say, "oh, I am going to go away and get a suspension notice", without any reason, how does that help anybody?
We have similar situations, Mr Chairman, in the Building Ordinance. If there is a dangerous slope which we have been talking about this afternoon which requires remedial work, the Building Authority quite often serves on the owner of the property a notice to say, "I think your slope is dangerous. Please put in proposals for remedial works." That is what happens. It is a prescribed statutory form. He do not write a little letter and by administrative measures, and in those circumstances it may not be an immediate danger to anybody in the property or indeed in the vicinity. Even then there is a prescribed statutory form. So, I really cannot understand why there is this incredible objection by a move on my part to ask the Labour Department actually for help, to help rectify the situation.
Mr Chairman, I think in terms of that particular amendment, I would say to Members that, if they decide not to support Mr HO's amendment because they prefer to have a prescribed form, then I would ask them to vote against Mr HO's amendment which, I believe, is indeed an amendment of the Bills Committee. If they wish to have this prescribed form in a statutory manner because of a statutory duty imposed on the Commissioner for Labour, they can vote for my amendment and they will give exactly the same remedy except that there will, in fact, be the addition of a form.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Members may now debate the amendment moved by Mr Edward HO as well as the amendments proposed by Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
〆朝胞糭某璓勉畊ネи耕Ν玡钮兵ㄒ〆穦畊︙┯ぱ某種ǎи稱弧睲贰и-
硂〆穦ノ祏丁秨Ω穦某龟悔и-
Τㄇ種ǎゼ参獶︙某┮弧妓硄琌莱猭ㄒず獽琌ㄒ癸既氨硄よи-
種盢繷硄э硄硂琌钡τ現┎讽ョ钡и-
種ǎ︓盢硄ョ猭ㄒぇずи-
粄礚惠璶〆穦ず瞷ぃ種ǎи-
ぃ種盢硄ョ猭ㄒず琌и-
粄だ候薄猵璶╯兜猭ㄒ穦锚俱筁祘祇甶и-
ョ踞み瞷縱絃砆Θ癬禗ゑ瞯耕τ沮ㄇ籃玥矗癬禗Θ瞯ョぃ蔼и-
だ踞みス硄ョ猭ㄒ惠璶猭畑糵Τㄇ波┛穨τ莱砆胓籃眔叉ō硂琌兵ㄒ〆穦场だㄆ種ǎи稱莱耕Ν玡︙某┮矗Τ闽〆穦種ǎи粄矗獶场〆種ǎτ琌场だ〆種ǎ
癸甃ㄎ瞶某笆某タи-
ョΤ猭碞瞷現┎┮矗のΤ闽祇既氨硄ず场まㄓ弧龟悔現┎瞷兜┪计兜まи-
胔好琌痷璶盢Τ闽逼ョ猭ㄒぇいτ硂翴タи耕Ν玡┮弧妓иョ獶盽踞みр硄猭ㄒず穦旧璓猭畑Θ癬禗瞯熬筁矪瞶穨ㄆ﹜筁祘いи-
ㄇ薄猵τ絃ヴのㄇョ癸и-
弧︙瞷猭ㄒ┮璹籃蹿琌20窾じ龟悔猭畑矗癬禗キА琌籃蹿窾じ硂タ琌パ讽いΤ祘舼单薄猵瞷ま璓癬禗跑眔螟膀硂翴羛穦㎝и常は癸︙┯ぱ某の甃ㄎ瞶某┮笆某タ
谅谅
〆某璓勉畊ネи祇ēは癸︙┯ぱ某の甃ㄎ瞶某タ
︙┯ぱ某弧現┎┮笆某琌︑パ囊タ癸ㄓ弧ぃそキи獺硂弧猭癸琌ぃそキぃ筁拜肈琌︙┯ぱ某弧ê琌兵ㄒ〆穦某タи玥谋眔讽┣程Ω穦某⊿Τ矗兵ㄒ〆穦盢穦矗タи癘眔讽弧猭琌現┎種盢繷硄跑硄и临拜肈竒Ч秆∕ョ钮弧甃ㄎ瞶某穦矗タ讽и-
临ゼΤ闽惫勉睲贰癘眔兵ㄒ〆穦セō⊿Τ矗盢穦笆某タр硄跑猭ゅン
︓и-
は癸盢硄跑Θ兜猭﹚砫ヴ璶琌и粄硂妓穦ま璓ㄢぃ▆狦材琘祘穦現┎紅服诡碞琌êㄇ玡帹ㄆ紅服诡笿兜ヘ┪斗э獽璶︽эΤ闽硄琌杠碞ぃΤ24薄猵瞷ㄒ玡帹紅服诡琘矪ǖ琩ノ糶ΤぃТぇ矪厨玱祇瞷临Τㄤ拜肈狦硂兜厨祘琌猭﹚杠êソ璶眖繷糶ゅンэㄓゅン硂或ㄓぃ琌24ずτ琌璶禬筁24祇硄硂妓繧薄猵獽穦膥尿иだ闽猔硂""拜肈
よ癸︗玡帹紅服诡τē璶祇硄砫ヴ琘祘琌贺溃現┎種琌盢俱砫ヴパ捌畊紅服诡羆菏程"р闽"τぃ琌パ玡帹璽猭砫ヴ∕﹚琌祇既氨硄程莱パ街璽癬猭砫ヴ㎡莱赣琌捌畊紅服诡羆菏璶盢硄跑Θ猭砏﹚杠ê或玡帹獽璶璽硂砫ヴ硂蛤現┎┮﹚砫ヴ┯踞玥琌Чぃ
よи粄甃ㄎ瞶某┮矗ㄤ龟獂璝沮匡拒兜ヘㄤ龟ぃㄣ砰弧糷加よ⊿Τ逆琌虫虫匡拒⊿Τ逆硂兜ヘ獽衡狦ê琌︽現硄莱ㄣ砰弧よの糷加⊿Τ逆и粄硂ゑ耕獂癸┯坝⊿Τ或腊
甃ㄎ瞶某矗兜タ碞琌┯坝璝宽眖既氨硄砏﹚盢ㄓ猭畑ぃ篶Θ兜粄竜靡沮甃ㄎ瞶某纯弧矗硂兜タヘ琌躬纘┯坝宽砏﹚иぃは癸躬纘┯坝宽砏﹚ヘ玡薄猵竒ネ㏑я闽繧˙Τ現┎稲ノ炮匠┪匆よ猭癸硂繧薄猵и粄﹚璶ノ匆莱睲贰璶氨τぃ琌躬纘┯坝蛤碻既氨硄︽ㄆ絋ボ璝ぃ蛤碻獽穦綝胓籃硂琌ノ匆
よиは癸甃ㄎ瞶某闽ぃ猭畑绑靡沮タ硂兜タ琘祘穦Τ捌ノ碞琌搭讽ㄆ竜诀穦猭畑ぃ宽硄砏﹚┮э到τ跌ぇ靡沮琌琘祘猭畑ぃ钡┮Τ瞅露êンㄆ靡沮穦癸ê笻ㄒ沟┪┯坝Τ
и-
猭臮拜纯兵ㄒ〆穦穦某氮滦и-
粄璝猭璶―快ㄆぃ莱Θ猭畑﹚竜ㄤいぇ兜夹猭臮拜睲贰ぃゲ踞み程и粄程璶琌ぃ璶猭畑辨猭畑把σ┮Τ靡沮
谅谅畊ネ
〆︙庇古某璓勉畊ネチ囊は癸甃ㄎ瞶某㎝︙┯ぱ某だ(1A)㎝(1A)(a)兵蹿и-
舧現┎盢ㄓ繷硄よΑ锣硄и-
粄現┎さぱ┮┯空︽現逼竒ì镑и-
钡硂︽現逼и-
粄ぃ﹚惠璶盢硂︽現逼猭ずи-
辨Τ程紆┦程е程よ獽薄猵祇既氨硄玂毁ネ㏑и-
ョ穦妓瞶パは癸祔甃ㄎ瞶某┮矗某材4(A)兵タ谅谅畊ネ
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I shall try and be very brief. I think despite all the reasons advanced by my colleagues for not supporting my amendment and for supporting the Government's position, I am still at a loss to understand what their objection is. In terms of a form, my colleague, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, says that, well, you know, it is inflexible, it does not specify which particular area. Look at my form! There is space to fill it in. If they want to do it, they can do it. But the whole idea is for the factory inspector who now the original proposal was to give a verbal warning to give it in writing. So, even the letter, however informal, that is going to be issued will be issued by the factory inspector or certainly as a result of what he has seen, not by his superior who is not going to go there to have a look at it just to issue a notice that they intend to go for a suspension notice.
On the second point regarding danger, we are not just talking about dangerous situations, we are talking about situations which call for improvement notice. And I still maintain that, in terms of encouraging proprietors of industrial undertakings to act speedily, to co-operate, you have to use carrot and stick. As I said earlier, the fact that the form or the compliance with the notice should not be adduced in court as evidence, does not preclude a prosecution. Clearly the factory inspector, when he goes to a site, he will see something that is not right. It is based on what he sees that the improvement notice or suspension notice will be issued.
Compliance with that does not take the offence away. If an offence has been committed he will see it, so on his evidence there is evidence for the court to act on, but what we want is for the proprietor to act speedily. What we want to do is not just to punish, we want to encourage him to act speedily. We want him not to dispute whether or not the factory inspector is right. We just want him to do as the factory inspector requests. So, if you want people to do that, and yet you tell them that they run the risk of being in court, obviously it is not the perfect solution. So, it really is up to you. If you choose not to support that sort of approach, fine, but I do not want to stand here in a year's time and say, "I told you so", if in fact the scheme does not work out as well as all of us hope.
Mr Chairman, I realize that I am probably speaking to deaf ears and I have not even heard the Secretary for Education and Manpower, but in view of his apparent success, I hope that he will be as brief as possible!
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи獺и璶︙┯ぱ某㎝甃ㄎ瞶某妓ア辨иぃ穦蝶阶厨彻Τ闽セ┪兵ㄒ厨笵ㄤΩи莱ぃ穦琌虏祏現┎粄︙┯ぱ某笆某タ琌ぃゲ璶㎝ぃ続穦玻ネ拜肈瘤礛и谅︙某沽刚蠢и秆睦現┎ミ初и辨Τ诀穦︑秆睦現┎ぃ種硂兜タ瞶パ
(a) 材硂兜タ某ミㄒ璹骋矪矪斗硄穨竒犁狥現┎览祇既氨硄硂兜タ琌ぃゲ璶現┎種骋矪祇既氨硄祘まい璹硄穨竒犁狥現┎览祇既氨硄祘まョ盢穦そガ㏄
(b) 材沮骋矪祘まτ祇硄ず甧妮┦借⊿ΤΤ繦祇既氨硄穦ㄏΤ闽狥タ某い硄斗瓃览祇既氨硄ㄆ兜硂盢穦ㄏ骋矪矪ㄤ祇既氨硄磜▂骋矪矪ぃ斗莱惠璶τ砏﹚ぃ┪肂ㄆ兜┪эㄆ兜笿硂ㄇ薄猵獽璶祇硄硂妓癸Τ闽狥㎝現┎常穦硑Θぃゲ璶璽踞τ璶琌Τ闽タ盢穦玠畓骋矪矪笿惠璶蹦箇ň惫琁の干毕︽笆薄猵艶ǔ硉莱
(c) 材ㄆ龟某タ穦р兜︽現祘跑Θ兜猭ㄒ砏﹚ヘ玡骋矪紅狥祇跌诡厨禗骋矪跌诡戳丁┮祇瞷笻ㄒㄆ兜碞琌兜︽現祘妓骋矪磅︽紅の穨竒犁兵ㄒ┮蹦ノ兜祘の現┎ㄤ场磅︽セō猭ㄒ┮蹦ノ兜祘ョ妮︽現祘璹︽現祘ヘ琌Τ闽讽Ы磅︽艶莱ノи-
粄硂兜タぃ钡
膀瓃贺贺и略叫某∕は癸︙┯ぱ某笆某タ
タ︙┯ぱ某某タ妓甃ㄎ瞶某矗某ョ琌璶―骋矪矪Τ闽穨竒犁狥祇硄ぃ筁甃ㄎ瞶某秈˙某硄莱璹Αの骋矪矪舅厨祅そэΑ硂ㄇタぃ虫р︽現祘跑Θ猭ㄒ猭ㄒず璹セ妮︽現┦借硄Α㎝ず甧
иゲ斗眏秸⊿Τ璹Α瞇籠穨竒犁い贺妓繧薄猵疭琌縱絃ê蹦ノ琌ㄣΤ肩繧杆竚砞称㎝巨祘ㄏノて厩珇и-
钡某タ穨竒犁薄猵杆竚砞称巨祘┪ㄏノΤ跑獽斗舅厨祅そэ璹Α硂摸そ单妮猭ㄒゲ斗沮睦竡の硄玥兵ㄒ材1彻材34兵砏﹚秈︽ぃ∕┪ぃ矗璹糵祘硂ㄇ惠璶丁盢穦玠畓骋矪矪伐惠璶艶莱跑獽莱㏑я闽薄猵硂ㄇ薄猵丁㎝ǔ硉莱︓璶
膀瓃のи耕Ν莱︙┯ぱ某矗某タ┮秆睦и略叫某ョ∕は癸甃ㄎ瞶某笆某タ
谅谅畊ネ
〆︙┯ぱ某璓勉畊ネи璶莱ッキネи⊿Τ沽刚秆睦現┎は癸и瞶パи琌沮さぱ倒–︗某獺ず┮更瞶パ祇ē瞷丁竒边┮иぃ稱弧眔びиョぃ稱籔セ兵ㄒ〆穦某阶╯澈街癸街岿ぃ筁矪ョ莱赣Τ魁㎝掸癘单
и稱莱ㄢ翴朝胞糭某弧祘竒ì镑礚斗璹猭ㄒぇず┕璶Θ癬禗琌螟и粄碞琌硂拜肈Τデ猭碞莱赣р硂兜祘猭ㄒず硂琌猭弘狦Τデ猭讽Ы獽Θ癬禗ê琌狦螟Θ癬禗–妓ㄆ薄ぃノミ猭êぃノ祘衡и粄硂ぃ才ミ猭弘┪猭弘
よ某弧莱パ玡帹紅服诡璽癬猭砫ヴи粄紅服诡莱赣ㄌ猭暗ㄆㄏ硂祘猭ㄒず-
常琌沮猭㎝-
戮舦絛瞅и粄-
惠璶璽癬ê砫ヴ琌ぃ惠璶禬筁ê贺砫ヴи-
ρ琌弧璶現┎カチ璽砫碞琌ぃ稱現┎ㄆㄆ綼︑祘絃糶瞶パ琌ヒ竒吭高碞ノコ瞶パ硂タッキネ┮弧矪ぃ薄猵ぇ穦ノぃ瞶パ㈱フ弧и粄常ぃΘ瞶パиぃ稱ǎΤ硂贺薄猵祇ネи稱и竒弧眔び產ョΤ∕﹚谅
Question on the amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr Edward HO claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: May I remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendment to the proposed section 9C in clause 2 moved by Mr Edward HO be approved? Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below.
CHAIRMAN: Members may wish to check their votes. Are there any queries? I think I see one short of 56. I think we are one short of the head count. The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN and Mr Paul CHENG voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
Mr Ronald ARCULLI abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 12 votes in favour of the amendment and 43 against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN: Now that Mr Edward HO's amendment to the proposed section 9C in clause 2 has been negatived, I now call upon Mr Ronald ARCULLI to move his amendment to the proposed section 9C in clause 2 and the addition of a related new clause 4A.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, since Standing Order 46(5) stipulates that any proposed new clause shall be considered after the clauses of a Bill have been disposed of, may I seek leave to move that Standing Order 46(5) be suspended in order that my proposed new clause 4A may be considered ahead of the other amendments to clause 2 and the amendment to clause 3?
CHAIRMAN: Mr Ronald ARCULLI, as only the President may give consent to move, without notice, a motion to suspend Standing Orders, your request cannot be dealt with in Committee. I therefore order that Council shall now resume.
Council then resumed.
PRESIDENT: Council is now resumed. Mr Ronald ARCULLI, you have my consent.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I move that Standing Order 46(5) be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider my proposed new clause 4A ahead of the other amendments to clause 2 and the amendment to clause 3.
Question proposed, put and agreed to.
Council went into Committee.
New clause 4A Schedule added
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I am grateful to Members for prolonging my agony! If they had voted "no", I should not be standing here, but since I am, Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 4(A), as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members, be read the Second time.
〆︙庇古某璓勉タи祇ēは癸甃ㄎ瞶某┮矗材1A(a)蹿妓и-
ぃ種Τ猭ㄒ砏﹚┮и-
癸材4A兵タョ穦щは癸布谅谅畊ネ
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネиさΩぃ穦甃ㄎ瞶某ア辨и竒冈灿秆睦и-
︙は癸甃ㄎ瞶某某иぃ穦狡иぃ筁琌略叫某∕は癸甃ㄎ瞶某笆某タ
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Very briefly, Mr Chairman. I am grateful for the Secretary for Education and Manpower for his brevity, but he simply used that as an occasion to stab me yet again!
Question on the motion put and negatived.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Ronald ARCULLI, as your proposed new clause 4A has not been agreed, it is not possible for you to move your proposed amendment to the proposed section 9C, as they are related.
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某ㄌ酚矗ユ某肚綷ゅン┮更и某タ兵ㄒ材2兵某材9C兵
現┎某兵ㄒ某材9C(6)兵い"赣狥钡莉赣硄"τ"赣硄沮材9D兵癳笷赣狥"硂兜タヘ琌埃┮Τ籔既氨硄癳笷穨竒犁狥ら戳の硄┮更ボネら戳Τ闽好拜の某иフ兵ㄒ〆穦種兜タ
畊ネи略矗某
Proposed amendment
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, in the proposed section 9C(6) by deleting "received such notice" and substituting "been served with such notice under section 9D".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment proposed in paragraph (b) of my amendment to clause 2 as set out in the paper circularized to Members. Mr Chairman, I have already given my reasons and I hope Members would reconsider their position despite some very clear indications. I hope they will support the amendment.
Proposed amendment
That clause 2 be amended, by adding
"9E. Compliance with notices not
admissible in proceedings
In any criminal or disciplinary proceedings against a proprietor of an industrial undertaking, the fact of compliance with any requirement in an improvement notice issued under section 9B or any direction in a suspension notice issued under section 9C shall not be admissible in evidence against the proprietor.".
Question on the amendment proposed.
〆︙庇古某璓勉畊ネи-
チ囊穦は癸甃ㄎ瞶某矗璹材9E兵и-
は癸瞶パ琌糵某筁祘いミ猭Ы猭臮拜倒и-
獶盽睲捶種ǎ碞琌硂兜タㄤ龟琌ぃ惠璶璶琌и-
種狦狥蛤繦祇既氨硄種ゅン┮矗の兜ヘτㄇэ到ぃ单硂ㄇ狥┯粄笻猭琌甃ㄎ瞶某矗材9E兵矗の窗玃э到硄璶―ㄆ龟┪既氨硄ボㄆ龟ぃ钡皐癸赣狥靡沮
畊ネи-
粄э到ぃ单粄竜琌钡琌Τ闽ㄆ龟ぃ绑靡沮玥琌ㄢㄆタи-
ぃ種硂兜タミ猭窽ゎ琘ㄇノ浪北靡沮ㄆ龟绑и-
獺猭畑糵ぃ靡ㄑΤそキ矪瞶и-
は癸甃ㄎ瞶某硂兜タ
チ囊ぃ辨硂兜タτㄏノ浪北靡沮搭ぶ┪跑丁钡躬纘ㄇぃ璽砫ヴ狥狡笻は穨猭ㄒ
и略朝勉
〆某璓勉畊ネиぃ辨┑甃ㄎ瞶某礹璚琌矗闽窗玃э到硄拜肈и耕Ν祇ēい⊿Τ矗の
闽硂翴и睲贰現┎纯竒兵ㄒ〆穦ボ狦Τ闽狥蛤繦窗玃э到硄璶―暗杠タ盽薄猵琌ぃ穦砆浪北窗玃э到硄セō糷Ω耕ぃ琌㏑я闽薄猵窗玃э到硄琌ぃ穦篶Θ浪北ㄤ龟產礚斗踞み蛤繦窗玃э到硄璶―暗盢单猭畑穦癸Τ闽狥ぃセ琌ぃ穦矗浪北
谅谅畊ネ
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネ現┎粄甃ㄎ瞶某某タ琌ぃ钡硂兜タ穦Ы靡狥笻は兵ㄒ斗猭畑穿ま靡沮絛瞅猭畑τ礚猭眔兜Τ掉﹚狥琌笻は砏﹚靡沮硂兜某盿ㄓ兜ぃ紇臫琌穦躬纘笻は狡笻は兵ㄒ砏﹚иョ璶某タ璝莉眔硄筁盢穦紇臫現┎璓ゴ阑腨笻ㄒ狥
膀瓃瞶パи略叫某∕は癸甃ㄎ瞶某笆某タ谅谅畊ネ
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I am not surprised that the Secretary for Education and Manpower did not refer to the legal advice received by his office because there were two different opinions. Mr Michael HO, in referring to the opinion given by the Legal Adviser of this Council, again omitted those two references to the legal advice given to this branch. So it was really with that somewhat mixed legal opinion as Members can understand when you ask lawyers for an opinion, the chances of your winding up with different opinions is actually very high so, my amendment was actually intended as an avoidance of doubt position and not to preclude, as I said earlier and I repeat, prosecution of offending proprietors who deserve of prosecution, or indeed any other action.
But be that as it may, Mr Chairman, those are the reasons for which I hope Members will support this particular amendment.
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
Question on clause 2, as amended by the Secretary for Education and Manpower, put and agreed to.
Clause 3
毙▅参膚璓勉畊ネи略笆某ㄌ酚矗ユ︗某肚綷ゅン┮更и某タ兵ㄒ材3兵
硂琌ㄢ兜虏虫м砃タ材兜某タ琌兵ㄒ材3兵某材(8)蹿い"闽赣穨竒犁窗玃э到硄┮戳ず宽眖赣"τ"宽眖闽赣穨竒犁窗玃э到"パ宽眖窗玃э到硄┮戳琌硄兵蹿ぇ某惫勉龟妮緇
材兜タ琌兵ㄒ材3兵某材(9)蹿い"场┪场だ"狥笻は砏﹚ぃ阶琌场┪场だА妮デ竜某タぃゲ璶惫勉
兵ㄒ〆穦種硂ㄢ兜タ某
畊ネи略矗某
Proposed amendment
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended
(a) in the proposed subsection (8) by deleting "within the period specified in that notice".
(b) in the proposed subsection (9) by deleting "the whole or part of".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 3, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
AVIATION SECURITY BILL
Clauses 1, 3, 6 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 48, 50 to 57 and 59 to 65 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 4, 5, 12, 15, 49 and 58
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments put forward are technical in nature. Amendments to clauses 4, 5, 49(2) and 58 will remove several minor inconsistencies between the English and Chinese texts of the Bill. Amendments to clauses 15 and 49(4) seek to rectify two clerical errors. Amendments to clauses 2 and 12 will clarify the scope of several provisions relating to explosives.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2(1) be amended, in paragraph (a) of the definition of "act of violence", by adding "or 54" after "53".
Clause 4
That clause 4(4)(a) be amended, by deleting "琌ぉ" and substituting "ぉ".
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended, by adding "篶Θ" before "瓣悔".
Clause 12
That clause 12(1) be amended, by adding "or 54" after "53".
Clause 15
That clause 15(2) be amended
(a) in paragraph (b), by deleting everything after "an aerodrome,".
(b) by adding after paragraph (b) -
"in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons in the aerodrome.".
Clause 49
That clause 49(2)(a) be amended, by deleting "︑赣磅︽硄癳笷ら戳癬璸" and substituting "赣磅︽硄癳笷ら戳ぇ".
That clause 49(2)(b) be amended, by deleting "︑赣ら戳癬璸" and substituting "赣ら戳ぇ".
That clause 49(4) be amended, by deleting "" and substituting "".
Clause 58
That clause 58(4) be amended, by deleting "Τ闽".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 4, 5, 12, 15, 49 and 58, as amended, put and agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 were agreed to.
IMMIGRATION SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1, 3 and 6 to 11 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 4 and 5
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members
These amendments contain the proposed changes to the Immigration Service (Amendment) Bill 1996 which I have already referred to in the Second Reading debate and also some technical amendments. They have been discussed in detail by the Bills Committee and have received the Committee's endorsement.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2(b) be amended, by adding
""designated place" means any place designated under section 13A(10) as a designated place;".
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended
(a) in the proposed section 12 -
(i) in subsection (1)(b) and (d), by adding "subject to subsection (3A)," at the beginning;
(ii) in subsection (3), by adding "at the request of a member of the Service" after "his aid";
(iii) by adding -
"(3A) A person shall not be detained under subsection (1) (b) or (d) for more than 12 hours.".
(b) in the proposed section 13 -
(i) in subsections (1), (2) and (3), by adding "at the request of a member of the Service" after "his aid";
(ii) in subsection (1), by deleting "appearing to him to have control of the place or to be residing therein" and substituting "residing in or in charge of the place";
(iii) in subsection (2), by deleting "appearing to a member of the Service to have control of a place referred to in subsection (1) or to be residing therein" and substituting "residing in or in charge of a place referred to in subsection (1)".
(c) in the proposed section 13A -
(i) in subsection (2)(a), by deleting "any other place" and substituting "a designated place,";
(ii) in subsection (3) -
(A) by deleting "deposited" and substituting "been released on bail on his depositing";
(B) in paragraph (b), by deleting "such a member" and substituting "any such member";
(iii) in subsection (4), by deleting "entered" and substituting "been released on bail on his entering";
(iv) in subsection (7), by deleting "at an office of the Service under subsection (2)(a) shall be charged and brought before a magistrate within the period of 48 hours immediately following his arrest unless" and substituting -
"under subsection (2) (a) shall be charged and brought before a magistrate -
(a) subject to paragraph (b), within the period of 48 hours immediately following his arrest; or
(b) where he has immediately before his arrest been detained under section 12(1)(b) or (d) or both, within the period of 48 hours immediately following the time when he began to be detained under section 12(1)(b) or (d) or both, as the case may be,
unless";
(v) by deleting subsection (8);
(vi) by adding -
"(10) The Secretary for Security may, by order published in the Gazette, designate any place as a designated place for the purposes of this section.".
(d) in the proposed section 13D, by adding "at the request of a member of the Service" after "his aid".
Clause 5
That clause 5 amended, by adding
"(c) in the proviso to subsection (2), by repealing "be destroyed forthwith or delivered to such person" and substituting "as soon as reasonably practicable be destroyed or, if the person prefers, delivered to that person".".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 4 and 5, as amended, put and agreed to.
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1995
Clauses 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, 16, 19 to 23, and 26 to 29 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 24 and 25
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.
Clause 2(e) is amended to clarify the definition of the terms "Registration Committee" and "specialized works", and to define the term "supervision plan" as a plan setting out the plan of safety management of building works or street works lodged by the Authorized Person with the Building Authority prior to or at the time of application for consent to commence works or as a result of carrying out urgent works.
Clause 4(2), (3), (4) and (5) are deleted, and substituted by the new clause 4(2) to: (a) establish two panels with sufficient members from whom the Building Authority may appoint more than one Authorized Persons Registration Committee or a Registered Structural Engineers Registration Committee at the same time; (b) set out the functions of the Registration Committee; (c) change the quorum for a meeting of the Authorized Persons Registration Committee from six to five, and that of the Registered Structural Engineers Registration Committee from five to four; (d) allow the Building Authority to invite such bodies as he may think fit to nominate persons for his consideration for appointment to each of the respective Registration Committees; and (e) empower the Building Authority to direct the Registration Committee to hold meetings in order to prevent any unreasonable delay in the consideration of applications for inclusion in the relevant register.
Clause 4(11) is amended to ensure that the registration of an Authorized Person or Structural Engineer will continue to be in force despite any delay in the processing of his application for retention in the Register.
A new clause 4(11A) is added to require the Building Authority to inform an Authorized Person or Registered Structural Engineer before removing the latter's name from the relevant register.
Clause 4(18) is amended to clearly specify that the registration of an Authorized Person or a Structural Engineer will cease once his name is removed from the relevant register.
A new clause 4(19) is added to ensure that an applicant is informed by the Building Authority of the reasons for rejection of his application for inclusion, retention or restoration of name in the relevant register.
Clause 5 is renumbered as clause 5(1) and is amended to oblige the chairman of an Authorized Persons and Registered Structural Engineers Disciplinary Board to appoint a legal adviser to assist in the conduct of the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings, and to advise the Board on points of law that arise during the hearing.
Clause 7 is amended for several purposes, including establishing a panel of members from whom the Building Authority may appoint more than one Contractors Registration Committee, setting out the functions of the Contractors Registration Committee, and reducing the number of lay members in the Registration Committee so as to better effect the principle of self-regulation by the building industry.
A new proposed section 3A is added to allow the Building Authority to direct the Contractors Registration Committee to hold meetings in order to help prevent any unreasonable delay in the consideration of applications for registration.
The proposed section 8A(4)(a) is amended to ensure a contractor who does not carry out any building works or street works but remains in the building business will not have his name removed from the relevant register.
The proposed section 8B is amended to: (a) set out the factors which the Building Authority will consider in deciding whether or not an applicant is suitable to register as a General Building Contractor or a Specialist Contractor or both; (b) ensure that only an applicant with the necessary experience and qualification to undertake a particular category of works is allowed to register as a Specialist Contractor for that category of works; and (c) allow the Building Authority to take relevant local experience as a substitute for academic or technical qualifications in considering an application for inclusion in the register for General Building Contractors.
Under the proposed section 8B, the Building Authority may refer an application back to the Contractors Registration Committee for reconsideration if he does not agree with the latter's recommendation.
The proposed section 8C is amended to ensure that the registration of a contractor will continue to be in force despite any delay in the processing of the application for inclusion, retention or restoration of his name in the relevant register. The Building Authority is also required to inform a contractor before removing the latter's name from the relevant register.
A new proposed section 8DA is added to ensure an applicant is informed by the Building Authority of the reasons for rejecting his application for inclusion, retention and restoration of name in the register for General Building Contractors or Specialised Contractors.
The proposed section 8F is amended to ensure the registration of the existing registered contractors and registered ventilation contractors will continue to be in force for two years after the Bill commences unless a disciplinary board orders otherwise.
Clause 9(4) is added to oblige the chairman of a Contractors Disciplinary Board to appoint a legal adviser to assist in the conduct of the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings and to advise the Board on points of law that arise during the hearing.
Clause 11 is amended to: (a) make deviating in a material manner from the supervision plan, drawing up a supervision plan that does not comply with the material requirements under the Buildings Ordinance and repeatedly drawing up supervision plans that do not comply with the requirements under the Ordinance by Registered General Building Contractors or Registered Specialist Contractors, a misconduct and be subject to investigation of the Disciplinary Board; (b) empower the Disciplinary Board to impose a fine not exceeding $250,000; and (c) remove the power of a judge in dismissing an appeal against a decision of the Disciplinary Board if he considers no substantial miscarriage of injustice had actually occurred, even if he was of the opinion that the point raised in the appeal might have been decided in favour of the appellant. This further protects the rights of appellants.
Clause 12 is amended to make failure in lodging the supervision plan a ground for the Building Authority to refuse to give consent to commencement of works.
Clause 15 is amended to empower the Building Authority to order works to cease if there is a material deviation from the technical memorandum for the preparation of the supervision plan, which may lead to a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation or if a condition attached to the approval or consent given by the Building Authority has not been or is not able to be complied with.
Amendments to clauses 24 and 25 are technical and consequential to the recent authentication of the Chinese version of the regulations made under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2(e) be amended
(a) by deleting the definition of "Registration Committee" and substituting -
""Registration Committee" means an Authorized Persons Registration Committee, a Structural Engineers Registration committee or a Contractors Registration Committee, as the case requires;"
(b) in the definition of "specialized works", by deleting "a registered specialist contractor must carry out" and substituting "are required to be carried out by a registered specialist contractor".
(c) by deleting the definition of "supervision plan" and substituting -
""supervision plan" means a plan setting out the plan of safety management of building works or street works lodged by an authorized person with the Building Authority -
(a) prior to or at the time of application for consent to the commencement of building works or street works; or
(b) as a result of carrying out urgent works,
and includes a revised supervision plan lodged as a result of any amendments necessary under this Ordinance;".
Clause 4
That clause (4) be amended, by deleting subclauses (2), (3), (4) and (5) and substituting
"(2) Section 3(5) is repealed and the following substituted -
"(5) The Building Authority is to establish 2 panels with sufficient members from whom he is to appoint committees to be know respectively as Authorized Persons Registration Committees and Structural Engineers Registration Committees. The Building Authority may appoint more than one Registration Committee of each type at any one time.
(5A) The function of a Registration Committee is to assist the Building Authority in considering applications for inclusion in the relevant register by -
(a) examining the qualifications of applicants;
(b) inquiring as the relevant Registration committee considers necessary to ascertain whether an applicant has the relevant experience;
(c) conducting professional interviews with applicants; and
(d) advising the Building Authority to accept, defer or reject applications for inclusion in the relevant register.
(5B) An Authorized Persons Registration Committee consists of -
(a) 4 authorized persons nominated by the Architects Registration Board from the list of architects in the authorized persons' register;
(b) 2 authorized persons nominated by the Engineers Registration Board from the list of engineers in the authorized persons' register;
(c) 1 authorized person nominated by the Surveyors Registration Board from the list of surveyors in the authorized persons' register;
(d) an Assistant Director of Buildings nominated by the Building Authority; and
(e) 1 person selected by the Building Authority from among the persons nominated in accordance with subsection (5E).
(5C) A Structural Engineers Registration Committee consists of -
(a) 3 registered structural engineers nominated by the Engineers Registration Board;
(b) 1 authorized person nominated by the Architects Registration Board from the list of architects in the authorized persons' register;
(c) 1 authorized person nominated by the Surveyors Registration Board from he list of surveyors in the authorized persons' register;
(d) an Assistant Director of Buildings nominated by the Building Authority; and
(e) 1 person selected by the Building Authority from among the persons nominated in accordance with subsection (5E).
(5D) The Building Authority is to appoint an officer of the Buildings Department as the secretary of each Registration Committee, who is not a member of either Registration Committee and may not case a vote.
(5E) For the purpose of subsections (5B) and (5C), the Building Authority is to invite such bodies as the Building Authority may think fit to nominate persons for the Building Authority to consider for appointment to each of the respective Registration Committees.
(5F) A person appointed to be a member of the Authorized Persons' and Registered Structural Engineers' Disciplinary Board Panel under section 5A must not be member of a Registration Committee.
(5G) The quorum for a meeting of a Registration Committee is -
(a) the Chairman of the committee;
(b) the Assistant Director of Buildings nominated under subsection (5B)(d) or (5C)(d); and
(c) 3 other members for an Authorized Persons Registration Committee and 2 other members for a Structural Engineers Registration committee.
(5H) At least one member of the Registration Committee at a meeting hearing an application for inclusion in a register must be -
(a) for an Authorized Persons Registration Committee, on the same list in the authorized persons' register as that on which the applicant wishes to be included; and
(b) for a Structural Engineers Registration Committee, a registered structural engineer.
(5I) The Chairman of a Registration Committee is elected by its members.
(5J) A Registration Committee is required to meet as often as the Building Authority directs.".".
That clause 4(11) be amended, by adding after proposed subsection (9D)
"(9E) The registration of an authorized person or structural engineer will continue to be in force if he makes an application for rentention within the time limit and pays the retention fee until has application for retention is finalised by the Building Authority, subject to any decision of the relevant Disciplinary Board.".
That clause 4 be amended, by adding
"(11A) Section 3(11) is amended by adding ", after sending by post notice of his intention to the last known address of the person," after "structural engineers' register".".
That clause 4(18) be amended, by deleting "whether or not the person's name is removed from the relevant register" and substituting "unless the person's name is removed from the relevant register by order of a disciplinary board".
That clause 4 be amended, by adding
"(19) Section 3 is amended by adding -
"(16) The Building Authority is required to give reasons in writing for a decision not to include, retain or restore a person's name in a register at the time of giving notice of the refusal.".".
Clause 5
That clause 5 be amended
(a) by renumbering it as clause 5(1).
(b) in subclause (1), after the end of proposed section 5(2)(a), by adding "and".
(c) by adding -
"(2) Section 5(2) is amended by repealing "and" at the end of paragraph (b) and by repealing paragraph (c).
(3) Section 5 is amended by adding -
"(2A) The chairman of a disciplinary board shall appoint a legal adviser to assist in the conduct of the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings and to advise the disciplinary board on points of law that arise during the hearing. The disciplinary board may confer with the legal adviser after the conclusion of the hearing and before it hands down its decision but only after giving the person who is the subject of the hearing and his legal representative, if any, the right to be present while the legal adviser gives advice to the disciplinary board and the right to comment on the matters raised by the legal adviser to the disciplinary board.
(2B) An authorized person or a registered structural engineer, against whom disciplinary proceedings are taken, is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner at disciplinary proceedings.".".
Clause 7
That clause 7 be amended
(a) by deleting proposed section 8(1), (2) and (3) and substituting -
"(1) The Building Authority is to establish a panel with sufficient members from whom he is to appoint committees to be known as Contractors Registration Committees. The Building Authority may appoint more than one Registration Committee at any one time.
(2) The function of a Contractors Registration Committee is to assist the Building Authority in considering applications for inclusion in a register by -
(a) examining the qualifications of applicants;
(b) inquiring as the relevant Registration Committee considers necessary to ascertain whether an applicant has the relevant experience;
(c) conducting interviews with applicants; and
(d) advising the Building Authority to accept, defer or reject applications for inclusion in the relevant register.
(3) A Contractors Registration Committee consists of -
(a) the Building Authority's representative;
(b) 3 persons, 1 of whom is nominated by each of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers from the lists of authorized persons and registered structural engineers;
(c) 3 persons nominated by The Hong Kong Construction Association Ltd.
(d) 1 person nominated by the Hong Kong E & M Contractors' Association Limited;
(e) 1 person selected by the Building Authority from among persons nominated by such bodies as the Building Authority may think fit.
(3A) a Contractors Registration Committee is required to meet as often as the Building Authority directs.".
(b) in proposed section 8A(4)(a), by adding "the business of" after "engage in".
(c) in proposed section 8B, by adding -
"(1A) An applicant must satisfy the Building Authority on -
(a) if it is a corporation, the adequacy of its management structure;
(b) the appropriate experience and qualifications of his personnel;
(c) his ability to have access to plant and resources;
(d) the ability of the person appointed by the applicant to act for the applicant for the purposes of this Ordinance to understand building works and street works through relevant experience and a general knowledge of the basic statutory requirements.
(1B) An applicant for registration as a specialist contractor must satisfy the Building Authority that he has the necessary experience and, where appropriate, professional and academic qualifications, to undertake work in the specialist category.".
(d) in proposed section 8B, by adding -
"(6A) The Building Authority may take into account relevant experience in Hong Kong as a qualification in considering an application for inclusion in the register of general building contractors.".
(e) in proposing section 8C, by adding -
"(2A) The registration of a contractor will continue to be in force if he makes an application for renewal within the time limit and pays the renewal fee until his application for renewal is finalised by the Building Authority, subject to any decision of the Registered Contractors' Disciplinary Board.".
(f) in proposed section 8C(5), by deleting "(with or without notice to the person concerned)" and substituting ", after sending by post notice to the last known address of the person,".
(g) by adding -
"8DA. Building Authority to give reasons
The Building Authority is required to give reasons in writing for a decision not to include, retain or restore a contractor's name in a register at the time of given notice of the refusal.".
(h) in proposed section 8E(2), by deleting ", whether or not the contractor's name is removed from the relevant register" and substituting "unless the contractor's name is removed from the relevant register by order of a disciplinary board".
(i) by deleting proposed section 8F and substituting -
"8F. Transitional
(1) A registered contractor who is registered as at the date of the commencement of section 8 as enacted by section 7 of the Building (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1995 ( of 1995) is taken to be a registered general building contractor and the registration will continue to be in force for 2 years after the date of the commencement of this section.
(2) A registered ventilation contractor who is registered as at the date of the commencement of this section is taken to be a registered specialist contractor in the appropriate category and the registration will continue to be in force for 2 years after the date of the commencement of this section.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not prevent a disciplinary board appointed under section 11(1) from ordering that the name of the contractor be removed from a register for disciplinary reasons.
(4) On the first registration of a general building contractor or a specialist contractor after the commencement of this section, the Building Authority may register the contractor for such period less than the 3 years as applied for so as to make the renewal date correspond with the renewal date that would have occurred but for the enactment of the Buildings (Amendment (No. 3) Ordinance 1995 ( of 1995) and may only require the applicant to pay a fee proportionate to the period of registration.".
Clause 8
That clause 8 be amended
(a) in proposed section 9(5)(a) and (6)(a), by deleting "the prescribed manner" and substituting "accordance with his supervision plan".
(b) by deleting proposed section 9A(3).
Clause 9
That clause 9(3) be amended, by adding
"(c) by repealing "and" at the end of paragraph (c) and by repealing paragraph (d).".
That clause 9 be amended, by adding
"(4) Section 11 is amended by adding -
"(3A) The chairman of a disciplinary board shall appoint a legal adviser to assist in the conduct of the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings and to advise the disciplinary board on points of law that arise during the hearing. The disciplinary board may confer with the legal adviser after the conclusion of the hearing and before it hands down its decision out only after giving the person who is the subject of the hearing and his legal representative, if any, the right to be present while the legal adviser gives advice to the disciplinary board and the right to comment on the matters raised by the legal adviser to the disciplinary board.
(3B) A registered general building contractor or a registered specialist contractor, against whom disciplinary proceedings are taken, is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner at disciplinary proceedings.".".
Clause 11
That clause 11 be amended
(a) in proposed section 13(1), by deleting "that a registered general building contractor or a registered specialist contractor has been convicted by a court of such an offence, or has in the carrying out of building works or street works been guilty of such negligence or misconduct, as" and substituting "the matters set out in subsection (1A) in relation to a registered general building contractor or a registered specialist contractor if the conduct referred to the disciplinary board may".
(b) in proposed section 13(1)(a), by deleting "renders" and substituting "render".
(c) in proposed section 13(1)(b), by deleting "makes" and substituting "make".
(d) by deleting proposed section 13(1)(c) and substituting -
"(c) render the contractor deserving of suspension from the register, a fine or a reprimand.".
(e) in proposed section 13, by adding -
"(1A) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are that the person -
(a) has been convicted by any court of an offence relating to building works or street works;
(b) has been negligent or has misconducted himself in building works or street works;
(c) has deviated in a material manner from a supervision plan without reasonable cause;
(d) has drawn up a supervision plan that does not comply with the material requirements of this Ordinance;
(e) has repeatedly drawn up supervision plans that do not comply with the requirements of this Ordinance.".
(f) in proposed section 13(3), by deleting "or has been guilty of the negligence or misconduct" and substituting ", has been negligent or has misconducted himself in building works or street works or has deviated in material manner from a supervision plan without reasonasble cause or has drawn up a supervision plan that does not comply with the material requirements of this Ordinance or has repeatedly drawn up supervision plans that do not comply with the requirements of this Ordinance, in the manner referred to in subsection (1A)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e)".
(g) in proposed section 13(3)(b), by deleting "under section 33 as though it were the cost of works carried out by the Building Authority" and substituting "as a debt due to the Government".
(h) by deleting proposed section 13(8).
Clause 12
That clause 12 be amended
(a) by deleting subclauses (1) and (2).
(b) in subclause (3), by adding -
"(bc) the authorized person has not lodged a supervision plan for the works;".
Clause 13
That clause 13 be amended, by deleting the clause.
Clause 15
That clause 15 be amended, by deleting the clause and substituting
"15. Building works, etc. to cease on
order of Building Authority
Section 23 is amended
(a) by renumbering it as section 23(1);
(b) in subsection (1)(b) -
(i) in subparagraph (ii) by adding "or" at the end;
(ii) by adding -
"(iii) are in dangerous conditions within the site of the building works,";
(c) in subsection (1) by adding "general building contractor or registered specialist" after "registered";
(d) by adding -
"(2) The Building Authority may by order in writing served on the registered general building contractor, registered specialist contractor or other person carrying out building works or street works require that the works cease if there has been a material deviation -
(a) from the technical memorandum for the preparation of a supervision plan for the building works or street works; or
(b) from the supervision plan for the works,
which in the opinion of the Building Authority may lead to a dangerous or potentially dangerous situation.
(3) The Building Authority may by order in writing served on the registered general building contractor, registered specialist contractor or other person carrying out building works or street works require that the works cease if he is satisfied that a condition imposed on the giving of his approval or consent has not been, or is not able to be, complied with.
(4) If the Building Authority orders that the works cease, the person carrying out the building works or street works shall cease to continue the works as quickly and as safely as possible.
(5) The Building Authority may in withdrawing an order that works cease make the withdrawal subject to reasonable conditions.".".
Clause 18
That clause 18 be amended, by deleting the clause.
Clause 24
That clause 24 be amended, by deleting everything after "is" and substituting
"amended -
(a) in the definition of "authorized person" by repealing paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and substituting -
"(a) as an architect therein; or
(b) as an engineer therein; or
(c) as a surveyor therein;";
(b) in the Chinese text, in the definition of "粄" -
(i) in paragraph (a), by repealing "材I";
(ii) in paragraph (b), by repealing "れ祘畍┪挡篶" and "材II";
(iii) in paragraph (c), by repealing "材III".".
Clause 25
That clause 25 be amended, by deleting everything after "is" and substituting
"amended -
(a) in the definition of "authorized person" by repealing paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and substituting -
"(a) as an architect therein; or
(b) as an engineer therein; or
(c) as a surveyor therein;";
(b) in the Chinese text, in the definition of "粄" -
(i) in paragraph (a), by repealing "材I";
(ii) in paragraph (b), by repealing "れ祘畍┪挡篶" and "材II";
(iii) in paragraph (c), by repealing "材III".".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 24 and 25, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause 17
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move the amendments proposed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of my amendments to clause 17 as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members, so that the Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers, Registered General Building Contractors and Registered Specialist Contractors will not be criminally liable for failure to supervise in the prescribed manner.
After lengthy discussion with the professional institutes and in the Bills Committee, the Administration believes that there should be a three-tier sanctions system. Minor deviations from the supervision plan should attract administrative warnings. More serious deviations or repeated minor deviations should attract disciplinary proceedings. Criminal sanctions should only apply when works were carried out contrary to a supervision plan to the extent that the contravention constitutes a material deviation from the plan resulting directly in injury to persons, damage to property or a risk of injury or damage.
After Members have agreed to the deletion, I will move amendments to give effect to the Administration's intention. Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
Clause 17
That clause 17 be amended
(a) by deleting subclause (2)(a).
(b) by deleting subclause (2)(c).
Question on the amendment proposed.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I just want to briefly remind Members of the slightly complicated clause 17. The motion by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands to delete subclauses 2(a) and 2(c) of the existing clause 17, as he says quite rightly, simply removes what was the original suggestion in terms of the criminal sanction. So, I would urge Members to support the deletion of those two paragraphs.
In terms of the amendment to be proposed by the Honourable Edward HO, that is simply a tidying up exercise in terms of deletion of the existing clause 17(3)(b) in the present Bill. That should really go along with subclause 2(a) and subclause 2(c).
The Administration will later introduce a further amendment to bring in a different form of criminal sanction. The form of criminal sanction as it stands in the Bill, therefore, will not be very sensible or operative, in fact, with all the other amendments that have actually gone through. So Members should actually support the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands in his present motion and support Mr Edward HO in his motion to delete clause 17(3)(b) and vote against the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands when he introduces the new criminal sanction if they are not minded to support criminal sanctions.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
〆朝岸穨某璓勉畊ネチ囊や現┎碞材17(a)㎝材17(b)兵矗タ材17(c)兵闽ㄆ砫ヴτ耕碔阶┦场だ穦筐˙矪瞶碞材17(a)㎝材17(b)兵и-
や現┎矗某
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 17 be further amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members, and I would like to thank the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI for explaining to Members the technical nature of this particular amendment, and I think on this one, the Administration actually agrees with my amendment.
So, for those Members who wish to make a decision on the question of criminal sanction, it will be a little bit later, when the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands moves his amendment under paragraph (c), and I will also speak on that subject at that time. Thank you.
Proposed amendment
Clause 17
That clause 17 be further amended, by deleting subclause (3)(b).
Question on the amendment proposed.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, the Administration supports the Committee stage amendment moved by the Honourable Edward HO.
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I further move the amendment proposed in paragraph (c) of my amendments to clause 17 as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members, so that the carrying out of works contrary to a supervision plan to the extent that the contravention constitutes a material deviation from the supervision plan, resulting directly in injury to persons or damage to property or a risk of injury or damage will be a criminal offence.
On conviction, the maximum penalty is a fine of $250,000 plus imprisonment for three years. The proposed offence is necessary to deter failure in providing proper supervision which is essential to site safety.
To allow both the industry and the Government to gain experience with the new system, provisions relating to criminal offences will come into effect one year after the commencement of the Bill.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
That clause 17 be further amended, by adding
"(6) Section 40 is amended by adding -
"(2BA) Any person directly concerned with building works or street works who -
(a) carries out building works or street works, or authorizes or permits building works or street works to be carried out contrary to a supervision plan to the extent that the contravention constitutes a material deviation from the supervision plan and as a direct result injury to any person or damage to any property occurs; or
(b) carries out building works or street works, or authorizes or permits building works or street works to be carried out contrary to a supervision plan to the extent that the contravention constitutes a material deviation from the supervision plan and as a direct result injury to any person or damage to any property is likely to occur,
is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of $250,000 and to imprisonment for 3 years.".".
Question on the amendment proposed.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr Chairman, I should state at the outset that it is the unanimous decision of the Bills Committee formed to study the Buildings (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1995 that the provision regarding criminal sanction should be deleted, and I am sure that this time no one will challenge me on that because the written report by the Chairman of the House Committee, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, has been fully discussed in the Bills Committee.
The Bills Committee has had intensive and extensive discussion on the merits of applying criminal sanction to persons engaged in the building industry. There is no dispute that safety at construction sites should be improved but both members of the Bills Committee and the professional institutions cannot agree with the Administration that criminal sanction is the right way to do it. It is worth to note that under the existing provision of the Buildings Ordinance, any person, including Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Contractors, who allows the carrying out of building works in such a manner as to cause injury or risk of injury to any person or damage to any property is liable on conviction to imprisonment for three years. So, it is there already.
Under the common law, the building professionals will be liable as a professional person if they are found to be negligent. The professionals will face various consequences for professional negligence that causes an accident. Apart from that, professionals will have to compensate for any loss incurred due to delayed completion of a project under commercial obligations.
Given that the building professionals are already subject to severe penalty for professional misconduct under the existing system, it is highly doubtful as to how the proposal about criminal sanction will help enhance safety standards at construction sites.
I need to point out that the proposed criminal sanction will be applied only to building professionals working for the private sector. Public officers and professionals engaged in public projects are exempted and will not be subject to criminal liability. Such a disparity in treatment and double standard arrangements can hardly be justified. Should the Administration's proposal be enacted, it will discourage building professionals from joining the private sector and dampen the morale of the whole building industry.
Members may wish to note that to ensure that the building professionals will perform their supervisory duties, the Bills Committee, the professional institutions and the Administration have jointly worked out a proposal on the sanction system to deter deviations from the supervision plans deposited with the Building Authority and submitting a plan that does not comply with the Technical Memorandum.
Under the graduated sanctions system, for minor offences, the Building Authority will give an administrative warning. For more serious offences, the responsible AP, RSE or RC will be subject to investigation of the Disciplinary Board established under the Buildings Ordinance. The Building Authority will also be empowered to order works to cease whenever there is a breach of the conditions of consent to commence works, including material deviations from a supervision plan.
Members of the Bills Committee are of the view that these measures will have sufficient deterrent effect to ensure the following of supervision plans, coupled with the improvement made to the registration of and disciplinary proceedings for professionals. The Bills Committee and the professional institutions considered that there is no urgent need to improve criminal sanction at this stage. The need for criminal sanction should be reviewed after the coming into operation of the new Bill for a certain period of time. As such, the Bills Committee arrives at the decision that the clause about criminal sanction should be repealed.
With these remarks, Mr Chairman, I object to the amendment.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, the Administration recommends a three-tier sanctions system because we believe these different levels of sanctions will provide a flexible and effective system of deterrent against breaches of site safety requirements.
The disciplinary procedures will allow the professional bodies and Contractors' Association to exercise self-regulation, while criminal prosecution is required to deal with serious breaches. At the early stage, the Building Authority will, where appropriate, issue warnings instead of initiating disciplinary action.
The following reasons have been cited for not supporting any form of criminal sanction: (a) the proposed criminal sanction would, in many cases, fall on junior site staff; (b) disciplinary sanctions on the professionals will suffice; and (c) it would be unfair to apply criminal sanction to private sector projects and not to government and Housing Authority projects.
Now, in response to the first one, I must point out that site safety requires the joint efforts of all concerned parties, including Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers, building contractors and the technically-competent persons. The supervision plan, which I agree with the Honourable Edward HO, is an improvement on the existing system because the supervision plan will set out the duties of the concerned parties and reflect their roles on site. The Technical Memorandum will set out the circumstances in which a person's supervision duty may be delegated or assigned to another person. So, all parties' responsibilities for the site management and safe management of construction works will be clearly set out in the supervision plan. These measures will prevent any abuse, including junior staff being used as scapegoats.
As to the second reason, that is, that disciplinary sanctions would be enough because we are dealing with professionals, the Administration does not agree that disciplinary sanction is sufficient nor appropriate in the case of serious deviation from the supervision plan. We do not see why a person should be exempted from criminal liability when his fault directly causes death or injury or damage to property or danger to the public. Under the existing Buildings Ordinance, many less serious offences already entail criminal sanction. For example, a person is currently criminally liable for material deviation from the approved building plan, whether or not injury or danger is caused.
Moreover, disciplinary proceedings are not applicable to all people engaged in building works. There is therefore a vacuum in the system where those responsible for supervising or executing certain works are not subject to sufficient sanctions for non-compliance with the supervision plan.
As regards the third reason, that is, while the private sector engineers and Authorized Persons may be liable while the government architects and engineers are not, the Administration has clearly stated at the Bills Committee that it is willing to look into the matter of extending the scope of the Buildings Ordinance to cover public sector projects, so we are willing to act, but it is only a question of time.
Why time? Members will appreciate that the existing dual control system of building works, one for private sector and one for the public sector, has been in place for decades, many, many years. To apply the Buildings Ordinance to public sector projects will entail far-reaching policy and resource implications. The procedures and organization structures and the division of responsibility among many government departments will need major changes. Furthermore, we need to consider the implication on civil servants' immunity to criminal liability in the course of performing public duties. All these are very complex issues and must be thoroughly considered first. We will examine the matters expeditiously and discuss it with this Council's Planning, Lands and Works Panel.
In 1995, the overall accident rate in private sector projects is three to four times higher than that in government projects. Some claim that such statistics are misleading, but they have failed to substantiate their claim. The safety record of government and Housing Authority projects is far better than that of the private sector projects. While the Administration is not complacent with its own performance and agrees that there is still room for further improvement, the significant difference in the accident rate does indicate that the improvement of safety control in private sector projects is an urgent matter and should be tackled first. This is the reason for the timing, and this is the principle aim of the Bill. Members should not be side-tracked by the proposal to extend the scope of the Buildings Ordinance which the Administration will, as I said, consider in depth and intends to come up with a recommendation on the way forward.
The Administration firmly believes that the three-tier sanctions system is reasonable and workable and necessary for safety assurance. The public is concerned with the high accident rate in building projects and hope that tighter and effective sanctions could be provided so as to improve the situation. I therefore look forward to Members' support for the Administration's Committee stage amendments.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands' further amendment to clause 17 put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: Members may wish to be reminded that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendments proposed in paragraph (c) of the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands' amendments to clause 17 be approved. Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: We are still three short of the head count. Will Members please check their votes? Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Martin LEE, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr Henry TANG, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr James TIEN, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 10 votes in favour of the amendment and 45 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
Question on clause 17, as amended, put and agreed to.
New clause 4A Appointment and duties of
authorized person or registered
structural engineer
New clause 6A Disciplinary proceedings for
authorized person or registered
structural engineer
New clause 11A Section added
New clause 11B Section added
New clause 13A Provision for urgent work
New clause 16A Section added
Clauses read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clauses 4A, 6A, 11A, 11B, 13A and 16A, as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members be read a Second time.
The new clause 4A is added for two purposes. First, it is to remove the status of a Registered Structural Engineer as the consultant to the Authorized Person. This is to reflect the distinct role of the Registered Structural Engineer in site supervision during particular phases of building works or street works. The amendment does not change the duties of the Authorized Person under the Buildings Ordinance, including that of acting as the co-ordinator of works. Second, this new clause is to require Authorized Persons or Registered Structural Engineers to provide supervision in accordance with the supervision plan.
The new clause 6A is added to empower the disciplinary board to investigate cases such as permitting a material deviation from the supervision plan, drawing up a supervision plan that does not comply with the material requirements under the Buildings Ordinance and repeatedly drawing up supervision plans that do not comply with the requirements under the Ordinance by Authorized Persons or Registered Structural Engineers. This is to deter submission of defective supervision plans or non-compliance with supervision plans, both of which may lead to inadequate site supervision and thereby affect safety.
The new clauses are added also to empower the disciplinary board to impose a fine not exceeding $250,000.
The new clause 11A is added to allow an applicant to appeal to the High Court when his application for inclusion, retention or restoration of his name in the register for General Building Contractors or Specialized Contractors, or both, is rejected.
The new clause 11B is added to: (a) make clear that the Building Authority is not deemed to have consented to the commencement of works if the Authorized Person has not lodged a supervision plan; (b) require the supervision plan to be prepared in accordance with the Technical Memorandum current at the time of lodging the supervision plan and make clear that the person who prepares the supervision plan is himself responsible for the content of the plan.
The new clause 13A is added to permit deviation from the supervision plan when urgent works are required for safety reasons, provided the Building Authority is notified and a revised supervision plan is prepared as soon as possible.
The new clause 16A is added to empower the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands to issue technical memoranda which will be subject to the executive vetting of this Council. The memorandum will set out the required format and content of the supervision plan, such as the manpower and level of supervision to be provided, the site safety management structure, the qualifications and specific tasks of the personnel involved, and so on. Furthermore, the memorandum will cover the procedure for the submission and amendment of the supervision plan.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses read the Second time.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that new clauses 4A, 6A, 11A, 11B, 13A and 16A be added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
New clause 4A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"4A. Appointment and duties of authorized
person or registered structural engineer
(1) section 4(1)(b) is amended by repealing "as a consultant to the authorized person on" and substituting "for".
(2) Section 4(3)(a) is amended by repealing "the prescribed manner" and substituting "accordance with the supervision plan".
(3) Section 4(4) is amended by repealing "as a consultant".".
New clause 6A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"6A. Disciplinary proceedings for authorized
person or registered structural engineer
(1) Section 7(1) is repealed and the following substituted -
"(1) The Building Authority may bring to the notice of a disciplinary board appointed under section 5 the matters set out in subsection (1A) in relation to an authorized person or a registered structural engineer if the conduct referred to the disciplinary board may -
(a) render the person unfit to remain on the relevant register;
(b) make further inclusion of the person on the relevant register prejudicial to the due administration of this Ordinance; or
(c) render the authorized person or registered structural engineer deserving of suspension from the register, a fine or a reprimand.
(1A) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are that the person -
(a) has been convicted by any court of an offence related to carrying out his professional duties;
(b) has been negligent or has misconducted himself in a professional way;
(c) has permitted a material deviation from a supervision plan for which he is responsible without reasonable cause;
(d) has drawn up a supervision plan that does not comply with the material requirements of this Ordinance;
(e) has repeatedly drawn up supervision plans that do not comply with the requirements of this Ordinance.".
(2) Section 7(2) is amended
(a) by repealing "or has been guilty of such negligence or misconduct, such" and substituting ", has been negligent or has misconducted himself in a professional way or has deviated in a material manner from a supervision plan without reasonable cause or has drawn up a supervision plan that does not comply with the material requirements of this Ordinance or has repeatedly drawn up supervision plans that do not comply with the requirements of this Ordinance, in the manner referred to in subsection (1A)(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), the disciplinary";
(b) by adding -
"(ba) order that the authorized person or registered structural engineer be fined a sum not exceeding $250,000, which is recoverable as a debt due to the Government; or".
(3) Section 7(4)(a) is amended by repealing the proviso.".
New clause 11A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"11A. Section added
The following is added -
"13A. Appeal against Building
Authority's decision
(1) An applicant for registration, renewal of registration or restoration of his name to a register who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Building Authority may appeal to judge of the High Court.
(2) On an appeal the judge may confirm, reverse or vary the decision of the Building Authority.
(3) The practice for the appeal is subject to any rules of court made under the Supreme Court Ordinance (Cap. 4).
(4) The decision of the judge is final.".".
New clause 11B
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"11B. Section added
The following is added -
"14A. Building Authority not deemed to
consent if supervision plan not lodged
(1) The Building authority is not deemed to have consented under section 15, if the authorized person has not ledged a supervision plan for the building works or street works.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply where the Building Authority does not require a supervision plan.
(3) The person preparing a supervision plan must comply with the technical memorandum current at the time of lodging the supervision plan.
(4) The person preparing a supervision plan is responsible for the content of the supervision plan.".".
New clause 13A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"13A. Provision for urgent work
Section 19 is amended by adding -
"(3) Any person may deviate from a supervision plan if urgent works are required to ensure safety of building works or street works to which the supervision plan relates.
(4) The authorized person is required to give to the Building Authority as soon as practicable after the urgent work arises notice of -
(a) any material deviation from the supervision plan;
(b) the urgent work;
(c) a revised supervision plan prepared by the registered general building contractor, the registered specialist contractor, the registered structural engineer or the authorized person, as the case may require, detailing the procedures adopted to meet the urgent work; and
(d) any further amendments to any supervision plan arising out of the urgent work.".".
New clause 16A
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"16A. Section added
The following is added -
"39A. Technical memorandum
(1) The Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands may issue a technical memordandum dealing with -
(a) the circumstances in which a supervision plan is not required for building works or street works;
(b) the classes of supervision that the Building Authority identifies as appropriate to various types of building works and street works having regard to the complexity of the building works or street works, the manpower required and level of supervision required for each of the classes of supervision;
(c) detailed supervision requirements for various types of building works and street works including the management structure required to ensure site safety, the manpower required for each element of the management structure, the qualifications and experience of the personnel involved and the specific tasks to be associated in each element of the management structure;
(d) the method statement of various types of building works and street works, the types of precautionary and protective measures required to be undertaken for the safety of the site, the workers and the public, and such other details relating to site safety as the Building Authority may consider necessary;
(e) the qualifications and experience required for technically competent persons to be appointed for supervisory work under supervision plans;
(f) the circumstances in which an authorized person, registered structural engineer, registered general building contractor or registered specialist contractor is permitted to notify in retrospect for minor deviations from a supervision plan;
(g) the method and timing of notification of, and the amendment procedures for, a proposed or actual deviation from a supervision plan, including deviations caused by an emergency;
(h) the form and content of a supervision plan;
(i) the general responsibilities of the site supervision personnel for the various types of building works and street work for the various types of building works and street works;
(j) the procedure, timing and sequence for the submission of supervision plans.
(2) The Secretary must publish a technical memorandum issued under this Ordinance in the Gazette and cause it to be laid on the table of the Legislative Council at the next sitting after publication.
(3) Where the Secretary has caused a technical memorandum to be laid on the table of the Legislative Council, the Legislative Council may, by resolution passed at a sitting of the Legislative Council held before the expiry of a period of 28 days after the sitting at which it was laid, provide that the technical memorandum be amended in any manner consistent with the power to issue the technical memorandum.
(4) If the period for passing a resolution would, but for this subsection, expire -
(a) after the end of a session of the Legislative Council or after a dissolution of the Legislative Council; but
(b) on or before the day of the second sitting of the Legislative Council in the next following session of the Legislative Council,
the period is deemed to extend to and expire on the day after that second sitting.
(5) Before the period for passing a resolution, or that period as extended, expires, the Legislative Council may, for a particular technical memorandu, extend, by resolution, the period or the period as previously extended to the next sitting.
(6) A resolution passed by the Legislative Council under this section must be published in the Gazette not later than 14 days after the resolution is passed or within such futher period as the Secretary may allow in any particular case.
(7) A technical memorandum issued under subsection (1) is not subsidiary legislation.
(8) In this section, "sitting", when used to calculate time, means the day on which the sitting commences and only includes a sitting at which subsidiary legislation is included on the order paper.
(9) Unless the Secretary appoints a later date either in the memorandum or by notice in the Gazette, a technical memorandum commences to have effect -
(a) if the Legislative Council does not pass a resolution amending the technical memorandum, upon the expirty of the period, or the period as extended, as the case may be, for passing an amending resolution; and
(b) if the Legislative Council passes a resolution amending the technical memorandum, at the beginning of the day of the publication in the Gazette of the resolution.
(10) If the Secretary issues a technical memorandum under this Ordinance, he must make available a copy of the technical memorandum for inspection by the public free of charge at such offices of the Government as the Secretary directs during business hours.".".
Question on the addition of the new clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
Clauses 1, 3 to 6 and 8 were agreed to.
Clauses 2, 7 and 9
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR RONALD ARCULLI, took the Chair.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 2, 7 and 9 be amended as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members.
Clause 2 is amended to add a definition to the term "water pipe" which means any water-carrying pipe and fittings thereto, other than a drain or sewer, but does not include any pipe or fitting maintained at the cost of the Water Authority.
Clause 7 is amended for several purposes. First, the Building Authority is empowered to order owners to carry out investigation into water pipes as well as drains and sewers for slope safety reasons. Second, provisions regarding action to be taken following investigation, which are similar to those provisions in existing section 27(a) on dangerous hillsides, are added.
The Building Authority is empowered to order the submission of proposals by owners for remedial works based on the investigation results within the specified time. On giving approval to the proposals, the Building Authority may order the owners concerned to carry out such approved works within the specified time. All investigations and works specified in the order must be carried out to a standard acceptable to the Building Authority and in compliance with regulations under the Buildings Ordinance.
Where the owners cannot be found, the Building Authority's orders are not complied with or the proposals for remedial works are refused, the Building Authority may carry out all or any part of the investigation or remedial work as he considers to be necessary or expedient and recover the cost incurred from the owners concerned.
Third, the Building Authority is not allowed to serve orders requiring the investigation into water pipes, drains or sewers when he is of the opinion that no leakage, defect or inadequacy of the water pipes, drains or sewers is likely. In forming his opinion, he should take into account all relevant matters including the age of the water pipes, drains and sewers and records of previous investigations and maintenance works. The Building Authority's decision is subject to appeal to an Appeal Tribunal under Part VI of the Buildings Ordinance.
Clause 9 is amended to make, failure to comply with the Building Authority's orders to carry out within a specified time work to remedy the leakage, defect or inadequacy of the water pipes, drains or sewers without reasonable excuse, a criminal offence. Anyone who is convicted will be liable for a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for one year, and a daily fine of $5,000 in the case of a continuing offence.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, by adding
""water pipe" means any water carrying pipe and fittings thereto other than a drain or sewer but does not include any pipe or fitting forming any part of a fire service or inside service within the meaning of the Waterworks Ordinance (Cap. 102) the costs of maintenance of which shall, under section 17(2)(b) of that Ordinance, be borne by the Water Authority.".
Clause 7
That clause 7 be amended, by deleting the proposed section 27C and substituting
"27C. Water pipes, drains or
sewers laid in slopes, etc.
(1) If -
(a) a water pipe, drain or sewer of any building is laid in, on or under the ground in or in the vicinity of any natural, formed or man-made land, or any earth-retaining structure; and
(b) subject to subsection (12), in the opinion of the Building Authority any leakage, defect or inadequacy of the water pipe, drain or sewer may result in a landslip of the land or a collapse of the structure, either totally or partially, and such landslip or collapse may cause, or may be likely to cause, a risk of injury to any person or damage to any property,
the Building Authority may make and serve on the owner of the building such order as referred to in subsection (2).
(2) The order shall be in writing and may require the owner of the building -
(a) to appoint an authorized person to carry out such investigation in relation to the water pipe, drain or sewer as may be specified in the order;
(b) to cause such investigation to be commenced and completed within such times as may be specified in the order;
(c) to cause a written report on the findings of such investigation to be prepared by the person appointed to carry out the investigation, and to submit such written report to the Building Authority within such time as may be specified in the order; and
(d) to submit for approval by the Building Authority proposals for work to be done to remedy any leakage, defect or inadequacy of the water pipe, drain or sewer, based on the findings of such investigation, within such time as may be specified in the order.
(3) Where proposals for work are submitted pursuant to an order under subsection (1), the Building Authority may -
(a) approve the proposals;
(b) require amendments to or substitution of the proposals; or
(c) refuse the proposals
(4) On giving approval to proposals for work required to be submitted under subsection (2), the Building Authority may by order in writing served on the owner referred to in subsection (1) require the carrying out of such approved work within such time as may be specified in the order.
(5) All investigation and work specified in an order under this section shall be carried out to such standard acceptable to the Building Authority and in compliance with regulations.
(6) The Building Authority may, upon the service of an order under subsection (1), cause the order to be registered by memorial in the Land Registry against the Building to which the order relates.
(7) Where the owner referred to in subsection (1) cannot be found or fails to comply with the requirements of an order served under this section or any part of the order or where there is a failure to comply with the requirement of subsection (5) or where proposals submitted under this section are refused, the Building Authority may, without further notice, carry out or cause to be carried out -
(a) all or any part of the investigation or work specified in the order;
(b) such other investigation as he considers to be necessary or expedient; and
(c) such work as he considers to be necessary or expedient to remedy the leakage, defect or inadequacy, having regard to the findings of the investigation in relation to the water pipe, drain or sewer, whether such investigation is carried out by the owner referred to in subsection (1) or by the Building Authority,
and, subject to subsection (8), the Building Authority may recover the costs of such investigation and work from that owner.
(8) If the order has been registered with the Land Registry in accordance with subsection (6), the cost of the investigation or work that the Building Authority carried out or caused to be carried out under subsection (7) shall be recoverable from any person who, as at the date of completion of the investigation or work (as the case may be), is the owner of the building to which the order relates.
(9) A certificate purporting to be under the hand of the Building Authority and stating the date of completion of the investigation or work carried out under subsection (7) shall be prima facie evidence of that fact.
(10) In cases of emergency, the Building Authority may carry out or cause to be carried out such investigation and work in respect of any leakage, defect or inadequacy of the water pipe, drain or sewer referred to in subsection (1) as may appear to him to be necessary by reason of the emergency either with or without notice to the owner referred to in that subsection, and the cost of such investigation and work shall be recoverable from that owner.
(11) The decision of the Building Authority that an emergency exists shall not be subject to an appeal under section 44.
(12) (a) If the Building Authority is of the opinion that no leakage, defect or inadequacy of the water pipe, drain or sewer referred to in subsection (1)(b) is likely, no order shall be served under subsection (1).
(b) In forming his opinion under paragraph (a), the Building Authority may have regard to all matters which he considers relevant and on which information is available to him, and such matters include but are not limited to -
(i) the age of the water pipe, drain or sewer; and
(ii) records of investigation and maintenance works in respect of the water pipe, drain or sewer.".
Clause 9
That clause 9 be amended, by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting
"(a) in subsection (1B) -
(i) in paragraph (b), by adding "27C(1) or (4)," before "28(2)(a)";
(ii) in paragraph (ii), by adding ", 27C(1) or (4)" before "or 28(3)";".
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2, 7 and 9, as amended, put and agreed to.
New clause 10 Exemptions
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause 10 as set out under my name in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
The new clause ensures that an owner will not be exempted from the duty under the new section 27C to carry out investigations or remedial works of the water pipes, drains or sewers serving their building merely because they are laid in government land or that of other parties referred to in section 41(1) of the Buildings Ordinance. Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause read the Second time.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 10 be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 10
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"10. Exemptions
Section 41 is amended by adding -
"(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) shall exempt an owner of any building that is not a building referred to in paragraph (a), (aa) or (b) of that subsection from the operation of section 27C merely by reason of the fact that any water pipe, drain or sewer of the building is laid in, on or under -
(a) any land vested in the Housing Authority or in any person behalf of Her Majesty's naval, military or air force services;
(b) any unleased land within the meaning of the Crown Land Ordinance (Cap. 28); or
(c) any street or access road vested in and maintained by the Crown or the Government.".".
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
Clause 1 was agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr Deputy, I move that clauses 2 and 3 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
The amendment to clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill seeks to add the term "United Exchange" to the section and the term will have the same meaning as that in the Stamp Duty Ordinance for the sake of consistency.
The amendment to clause 2(1)(b) seeks to ensure that the term "specified securities" under the Bill will cover Hong Kong stocks the sale and purchase of which in Hong Kong are not subject to the rules and procedures of the United Exchange.
The amendment to clause 2(2), by amending proposed section 15E(9) and adding a new subsection 10, seeks to ensure that "specified securities" under the Bill would be covered by provisions on stock borrowing and lending in the Inland Revenue Ordinance. For consistency purpose, the meaning of terms involved in the definition of "specified securities", that is, "Hong Kong stock", "unit" and "unit trust scheme" will be the same in the relevant provisions of the Inland Revenue Ordinance and the Stamp Duty Ordinance.
The amendment to section 20AA(3) in clause 3 seeks to ensure that under the Bill, transactions of a non-resident investor arising from the activities of an approved investment adviser will be taken as "carried out through" the adviser.
The amendment to section 20AA(6) in clause 3 seeks to remove the reference to section 20AB in the proposed section 20AA and extends the meaning of broker and approved investment adviser under the Bill to include dealers and investment advisers exempt from registration under the Securities Ordinance.
The remaining amendment to clause 3 seeks to delete section 20AB which is to be replaced by the new clause 4. I will explain the operation of the new clause later on when I deal with the Committee stage amendment for adding a new clause to the Bill.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
Proposed amendments
Clause 2
That clause 2(1)(a) be amended, by deleting ", "unit" (虫︗) and "unit trust scheme" (虫︗獺癠璸购)" and substituting "and Unified Exchange" (羛ユ┮)".
That clause 2(1)(b) be amended, in the proposed definition of "specified securities", by adding "the sale and purchase of which in Hong Kong are subject to the rules and practices of the Unified Exchange" after "stock".
That clause 2(2) be amended, by deleting the proposed subsection (9) and substituting
"(9) For the purposes of construing a term by reference to the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117) in subsection (8) a reference in the corresponding term in the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117) to "Hong Kong stock" or to "Hong Kong stock the sale and purchase of which in Hong Kong are subject to the rules and practices of the Unified Exchange", is construed as including a reference to specified securities that the Commissioner has specified under subsection (8).
(10) For the purpose of the definition of "specified securities" in subsection (8), the terms "Hong Kong stock", "unit" and "unit trust scheme" have the same meanings as in the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap. 117).".
Clause 3
That clause 3 be amended
(a) by deleting -
"Sections added
The following are added -"
and substituting -
"Section added
The following is added -".
(b) in the proposed section 20AA(3) by adding "to have been carried out through the approved investment adviser and" after "(the "taxable profits"),".
(c) in the proposed section 20AA(6) -
(i) by deleting "and section 20AB";
(ii) by deleting the definition of "approved investment adviser" and substituting -
""approved investment adviser" (粄щ戈臮拜) means -
(a) a person registered as an investment adviser under part VI of the Securities Ordinance (Cap. 333); or
(b) a person who would otherwise be required to be registered as an investment adviser under the Securities Ordinance (Cap. 333) but is exempted from registration as an investment adviser under that Ordinance, to the extent that the person carries on business as an investment adviser only;";
(iii) by deleting the definition of "broker" and substituting -
""broker" (竒) means -
(a) a person registered as a dealer under Part VI of the Securities Ordinance (Cap. 333); or
(b) a person exempted from registration as a dealer under Part VI of the Securities Ordinance (Cap. 333), to the extent that the person carries on business as a dealer only;".
(d) by deleting the proposed section 20AB.
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 2 and 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
New clause 4 Exclusion of certain
profits from tax
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 4 as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.
The new clause seeks to amend section 26A(1A) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance to provide that sums received by or accrued to a mutual fund corporation or trustees of a unit trust established outside Hong Kong or a similar collective investment scheme, where the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is satisfied that it is a bona fide widely held investment vehicle which complies with the requirements of a supervisory authority within an acceptable regulatory regime, will not be included in the profits of the corporation or trustees or the person chargeable to tax for the profits of the collective investment scheme, as the case may be. As I undertook during the debate on the resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue will issue a Practice Note to clarify the interpretation of such terms as "supervisory authority" and "acceptable regulatory regime" under the new clause.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to.
Clause read the Second time.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 4 be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 4
That the Bill be amended, by adding
"4. Exclusion of certain profits from tax
Section 26A(1A) is repealed and the following substituted -
"(1A) For the purposes of this Part, sums by way of -
(a) gains or profits arising from the sale or other disposal or on the redemption on maturity or presentment of securities;
(b) gains or profits under a foreign exchange contract or futures contract; and
(c) interest,
received by or accrued to -
(i) an authorized mutual fund corporation;
(ii) trustees of an authorized unit trust;
(iii) a mutual fund corporation established outside Hong Kong where the Commissioner is satisfied that the mutual fund corporation is a bona fide widely held investment corporation which complies with the requirements of a supervisory authority within an acceptable regulatory regime;
(iv) trustees of a unit trust established outside Hong Kong where the Commissioner is satisfied that the unit trust is a bona fide widely held investment unit trust which complies with the requirements of a supervisory authority within an acceptable regulatory regime; or
(v) any other similar collective investment scheme where the Commissioner is satisfied that the collective investment scheme is a bona fide widely held investment scheme which complies with the requirements of a supervisory authority within an acceptable regulatory regime,
shall not be included in the profits of the corporation, trustees or person chargeable to tax in respect of the profits of the investment scheme (as the case may be).".".
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to.
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (1995-96) BILL 1996
Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
PREVENTION OF BRIBERY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (NO. 2) BILL 1995 and
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to.
Bills read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER reported that the
NON-LOCAL HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (REGULATION) BILL and
FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to.
Bills read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
AVIATION SECURITY BILL and
IMMIGRATION SERVICE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendments. She moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to.
Bills read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS reported that the
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1995 and
BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to.
Bills read the Third time and passed.
THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY reported that the
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendments and the
SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (1995-96) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee without amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to.
Bills read the Third time and passed.
MEMBER'S MOTIONS
HONG KONG ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS 1917 TO 1993 (NOS. 1 AND 2)
MR RONALD ARCULLI to move the following motion:
"That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong be amended by adding thereto the text in the Chinese language of the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong set out in the Annex to this resolution."
(The Annex to resolution and subsequent amendments to the Annex were circulated on 27 June 1996 and 8 July 1996 under LegCo Paper No. CB(3) 976/95-96 and LegCo Paper No. CB(3) 1038/95-96 respectively. For details, please refer to the published Chinese text of the Standing Orders.)
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I move the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. The resolution seeks to add the Chinese version to the Standing Orders of this Council so that our Standing Orders will be both in English and in Chinese. I hasten to add that I am no expert in the Chinese language. I am moving the motion in my capacity as the Deputy Chairman of the House Committee as the Chairman who normally moves such motions is out of town and cannot attend this sitting.
Soon after his election to the Chair of this Council, the President appointed an internal working group consisting of staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat to translate the Standing Orders of this Council. The working group has held as many as 25 meetings, and in the course of its work, it has consulted numerous reference works, not the least, English dictionaries, Chinese dictionaries, English/Chinese dictionaries and Chinese/English dictionaries.
I understand from authority in this area that the Chinese version of Standing Orders now before Members has been prepared in a professional way. The Chinese draft before Members has been considered by the Subcommittee on Procedural Matters and also endorsed by the House Committee.
With these remarks, Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
MRS SELINA CHOW to move the following motion:
"That the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notice No. 224 of 1996 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 5 June 1996, be repealed."
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊ネセ略宽酚某ㄆ祘┮矗セ某某ヘ琌璶紀埃1996繻穨禣ノ璹砏ㄒ
パセヴ畊╯Τ闽砏ㄒ舱〆穦,せせるらΘミ〆穦籔讽Ы羭︽筁ㄢΩ穦某钡ǎ翠皊┍穨羛穦㎝翠笴穨猾繻羛穦
冈灿╯讽Ы某穝璹礟酚Μ禣钮刮砰種ǎ舱〆穦∕﹚赣砏ㄒ莱ぉ紀埃舱〆穦闽猔礟酚禣碩矗蔼疭琌皊┍よの俱Μ禣ぃそキ挡篶
沮現┎某Μ禣だ单τぃ琌瞷︽せ单埃︓き丁┬安ㄤ单繻㎝皊┍常璶癸碩糤礟酚禣疭癸500丁┬皊┍糤碩ぷㄤ佩だр瞷ΤΜ禣矗蔼11沮礟酚ㄆ叭矪戈Τ阀ㄢΘ皊┍琌祇礟龟琁秨穨硂ㄇ皊┍常莱Ч才兵ㄒ璶―礛τ硂ㄇ皊┍玱璶癸程Μ禣ど碩㎝璽踞程场だ祇礟Θセ
舱〆穦〆粄現┎┬丁计秖ぶ硂虫ㄓ璸衡礟酚禣癸礟琌ぃそキ–丁皊┍㎝繻祇礟Θセ羆肂莱跌ㄣ砰薄猵τ﹚斗σ納–丁繻砞琁舱〆穦〆ョ借好磅︽繻穨兵ㄒ┮惠笲Θセ讽Ы祇礟钉ヮの菏恨籔浪北钉ヮがΤ舼
翠皊┍穨羛穦闽猔碩糤礟酚禣穦秈˙癸竒犁Θセ篶Θ↖璽踞紇臫皊┍穨祇甶赣穦埃璶宽皊┍礟酚兵ン皊┍竒犁临璶莱皊┍ずぃ徊砞琁τ璶才贺祇礟砏﹚ㄒ籖穦芔村猘潦坝初单场だ繻竒犁斗璶烩禬筁20礟酚讽Ы皊┍紉Μ5%┬祙パ皊┍㎝猾繻┦借Τ┮ぃ羛穦粄讽Ы癸硂ㄢ摸繻莱Τぃ矪瞶羆τēぇ璶皊┍穨┯踞场だ祇礟Θセ皊┍穨よ粄琌ぃそキ
翠皊┍穨羛穦ョ粄現┎穝Μ禣琌癸猭皊┍竒犁ぃそキ璶-
┯踞現┎计璸礚礟竒犁猾繻羛剿穦の安祇礟┮疉の胑禣ノ
翠笴穨猾繻羛穦は癸穝﹚礟酚Μ禣讽Ы⊿Τ蹦︽笆癸礚礟竒犁猾繻τ璸衡礟酚禣よΑョ眔坝篹
舱〆穦〆常粄ㄢ羛穦種ǎи-
癸瞷︽祇礟Τ┮玂痙τ粄莱穝浪癚硂現郸и-
粄Ω帽祇礟酚籔礟酚尿戳ㄢΜ禣莱Τぃи-
粄現┎莱赣╯帽祇贺"侯"礟酚盢皊┍┮Τ砞琁犁笲ㄤい羭現┎场ぃ穦狡戈方禣τ皊┍ョ礚斗煤蛮禣ノ讽Ы帽祇摸礟酚皊┍竒犁礚斗ぃ莱ぃ現┎场搭癸竒犁逮耑㎝篶Θ睼睹薄猵
讽Ы秆睦-
络璹-
某Μ禣Ч⊿Τ盢菏恨の浪北獶猭竒犁禣ノ璸衡ぃ礟繻瑉禟礚礟繻拜肈ぃ皊┍穨瑉禟猾繻穨┪瑉禟玡薄猵挪穨ず瞷︽ビ烩ぃ礟酚疉の羉壕も尿讽Ы竒秨﹍╯Τ闽帽祇"侯"礟酚︽┦
讽Ы碞穝﹚Μ禣璸衡よ猭┮矗瞶沮ゼ眔舱〆穦獺狝〆穦ぃや現┎矗Μ禣砏ㄒ
畊ネиタ琌瓃τ矗某
畊ネи舱〆穦畊竒碞舱〆蹲厨и稱弧︑パ囊猭
現┎矗某秸俱皊┍の繻礟酚禣矗1996繻穨禣ノ璹砏ㄒまㄓ穨糓礛タ舱〆穦畊厨い現┎碞场だ单繻礟酚禣某常琌疭碩Τ蔼笷仓縩瞷Τ禣ノ11ぇ
и粄舱〆穦矗紀埃禣砏ㄒ琌程瞶稱逼斑いぃì碞琌砏ㄒず矗の︓き┬丁安穦莉搭Μ禣ノ璝琌紀埃杠穦ま璓搭基ぃΘ現┎稱矗蔼Μ禣碞眔矗ㄑ冈荷戈㎝ㄣ弧狝瞶沮σ納癸穨竒犁兵ン紇臫穝矗禣某ㄑミ猭Ы糵某и獺狦現┎荷秖笲Θセ搭ぃゲ璶戈方禣璹瞶Μ禣璸衡よ猭琌璽砫ヴτ酚臮坝穨竒犁叭龟暗猭
堡舱〆穦紀埃現┎┮矗砏ㄒ某ゼ眔チ囊Ч種-
辨硄筁璹ㄏき┬丁┪繻笷璓搭基ヘτㄤ緇常穦皍秖糤礟酚禣琌碩耕現┎某菠放㎝︑パ囊吭高皊┍穨羛穦㎝ㄤ穨-
常粄狦碩ぃ禬筁硄等-
粄临玧眏钡琌и-
盢種ǎ睲贰锣笷倒チ囊τ蔼砍ǎ虫ヲ昂某沧蹦種ǎ矗穨ず钡程沧璹рチ囊セ┮σ納碩秸и稱坚睲翴︑パ囊種璹碩ぃボи-
粄現┎硂ぃ瞶Μ禣現郸иョ禭瞷璶―璽砫現叭冈浪癚璹瞶τ才Θセ痲祇礟の尿礟
и-
や現┎ΜΘセ玥и-
眖戳ㄆㄒい硂玥砆現┎琘祘垒ノ﹛ぇドЧぃσ納癸︽穨紇臫碞荷е计Μぃ堡碩矗蔼Μ禣繻穨Μ禣セㄓ矗某碞澈礛Τ糤碩
и-
粄玥辅龟羆ぃ叉瞒カチ㎝坝穨┯踞現┎デ岿粇は琈琌現┎セ⊿Τ╒毙癡ご礛ぃэ-
﹛贡祑篈и-
ぃフ現┎︙璶祏戳ず碞Μ┮ΤΘセ︙ぃ舥ㄇ丁笷︓ヘ夹
圾て現┎ぃ瞶チ丁痚璚﹛贡常穦まㄓカチк某紇臫現┎港獺籔そ獺ぃゲ璶珼癬穦ぃ㎝癸硂穦Τ︙痲㎡
Question on the motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: Mr SIN Chung-kai has also given notice to move a motion under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance to amend the same Regulation, that is, the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1996. Mr SIN Chung-kai's motion has been printed in the annex to the Order Paper. As the contents of Mrs CHOW's and Mr SIN's motions relate to the same subject, the two motions are cognate. I propose to have them debated together in a joint debate.
The two motions shall now be debated together in a joint debate. Members may now speak on either or both of the motions. At the end of the debate, we will first vote on Mrs Selina CHOW's motion. If Mrs Selina CHOW's motion is agreed, that will by implication mean that Mr SIN Chung-kai's motion is not approved. If Mrs CHOW's motion is not carried, Mr SIN Chung-kai will be called upon to move his motion, but the question on Mr SIN's motion will be put without further debate.
Mr SIN Chung-kai, you may speak on both your motion and Mrs Selina CHOW's motion but you are not to move your motion yet.
虫ヲ昂某璓勉畊ネи璶谅甧砛и笆某硂兜璹ョ璶谅㏄辩睶┥某舱〆穦ㄏ〆穦镑瞏秆硂︽穨薄猵иョ璶產笵簆и琌舱〆穦程Ω穦某ぇ矗硂兜璹某и獺璝и舱〆穦い矗ョ莉眔〆穦や
и矗璹ず甧璶Τ翴蝴現┎某盢︓き丁┬丁繻禣ノ秸︓2,800じ盢局Τせ丁︓100丁┬丁繻禣ノ蝴瞷キ盢100丁┬丁繻禣ノきせㄢ26る硄等瞯18%τ秸俱и盢秆睦и瞶パ
チ囊や舱〆穦種ǎ㏄辩睶┥某┮矗癸砏ㄒセō㎝祇礟单借好現┎瞷┮某祇礟Θセ璸衡よΑΤぃぶ瑈国ㄒぃ莱盢Ω帽祇礟酚籔尿礟皊┍籔繻Μ禣单ぃ莱虫┬丁璸衡Μ禣и-
璶―現┎穝浪癚俱祇礟の璸衡ΘセよΑ璹瞶ヘ夹Θセ硂翴иぃ冈灿哪瓃耕Ν玡㏄辩睶┥某竒冈灿酵の
チ囊矗硂某程沧ヘ琌辨镑ㄏ礚阶琌局Τ┪琌ㄏノ︓き丁┬安镑荷е眔搭基Μ痲ョ硄筁100丁┬繻ㄓ辣干搭基穕ア
チ囊矗璹某ぃボ璶は癸現┎ΜΘセ玥チ囊琌や現┎ΜΘセ暗猭ぃ筁チ囊粄現┎莱臮の穨璽踞τ璹ΜΘセ丁ㄆ龟現┎ΜΘセ丁だ︓き秈︽現┎硂Ω琌ノ程祏丁丁ΜΘセ糤碩ョ獶盽エ虫硂Ωㄓ璸衡Θセ糤碩パ30%︓ぃ单チ囊辨現┎钮舱〆穦種ǎ穝浪癚俱祇礟のΜ禣現郸
程иョ辨莱㏄辩睶┥某種ǎ辨產镑钡セ璹
谅谅畊ネセ略朝勉
朝篴篱某璓勉畊ネセ琌Τ闽1996繻穨禣ノ璹砏ㄒ某舱〆穦Θぇ現┎穝璹礟酚Μ禣埃"┬计ヘパ︓き丁"安ぇㄤ┮Τ单Μ禣常碩糤ㄤいぷ┬计ヘ禬筁500丁皊┍硂ㄇ皊┍┮斗煤礟酚禣ノ穦患糤︓讽瞷︽Μ禣11ぇ
畊ネ皊┍穨礟酚碩糤穦癸皊┍穨篶Θ↖璽踞㎝竒犁Θセκょ眖τ皊┍穨竒犁癸糤碞穨诀穦⊿Τ矪┮舱〆穦矗は癸種ǎ瞷チ囊虫ヲ昂某矗璹ㄤ璹だ场だ︓き丁┬安搭Μ礟禣せ︓100丁┬丁挡碩101丁︓500丁┬丁┪玥硄等糤Μ禣
ぃ笵チ囊琌ǎ戳現┎兜糤Μ禣А砆∕τ矗璹琵現┎ΤㄇΜ狦硂Ω璹眔硄筁現┎莱赣谅チ囊種
セ皊┍の都某╯筁璹某ず甧谋眔璹搭淮场だ皊┍竒犁璽踞ョ纯竒紉高翠皊┍穨羛穦種ǎ-
粄"玧眏"钡セ㎝羛穦のチ羛盢穦щ布や璹某
ぃ筁セ璶現┎さミ猭Ы矗禣某ぃ璶繦獽璹基碩ぃ璶矗碩㎝ぃ瞶基玥現┎ぃ钩硂Ω硂妓┋笲
畊ネセ略朝勉
毒浪膀某璓勉畊ネ癸さΩ某и膀セ琌や虫ヲ昂某璹瘤礛и琌や硂璹某琌иΤ碭翴稱矗矗玥иョ種現┎矗某碞繻祇礟Μ禣ΜΘセ琌и-
╯砏ㄒ筁祘い祇谋Τм砃拜肈и-
癸瞷矗某Τ玂痙璓ぃ種ㄤい珹ΜΘセ丁Τê或祏丁︑礛穦碩伐蔼и-
踞み癸穨ず穦Τ紇臫
材碞琌祇礟よ猭瞷祇礟よ猭琌–祇礟и-
踞み狦讽Ыさ癸琘丁繻┪皊┍矗種ǎ璶ㄤ蝴のэ到琌êㄇ蝴э到祘硄盽ぃ穦さЧΘ碞胊┪年璶讽Ы琩Ωê或材琌璶ノ妓も丁琩诡妓ㄆ薄㎡琌璶Μ妓︓禥礟禣㎡и粄硂祇礟よΑ琌Τ拜肈
材翴碞琌璸衡礟禣よ猭и㎝チ祇谋硂礟禣ㄤ龟琘ㄇよ籔繻穨璶烩ㄤ礟酚琌舼ㄒň拜肈祇礟讽Ы㏕礛璶琩Τ闽薄猵ㄤ龟ň矪ョ璶琩ㄒ皊┍┪繻ずㄇ竩礟酚祇礟讽Ы︑礛璶琩蒥現Ыョ妓穦琩┮и-
粄現┎莱赣碞硂ㄇ狡ㄆン俱瞶璸衡Μ禣よΑ
羆挡ㄓ弧礚阶琌㏄辩睶┥某某┪虫ヲ昂某某ㄤ龟и-
常種種ヘぃ╯澈琌ぃ琵現┎禣临琌ぶ砛τ琌璶現┎甅и-
粄讽瞶礟禣璸衡よ猭ㄓ┮и-
さぱや虫ヲ昂某某璶ヘ碞琌辨現┎镑荷е矗浪癚礟禣よ猭谅谅畊ネ
法У地某璓勉畊ネ皊┍琌笴穨ず絛氓翠–Τ1 000窾笴砐畉ぃㄤだぇ禣常琌禣皊┍笴и癸1996繻穨禣ノ璹砏ㄒ┮碭兜璹矗種ǎ
笴穨㎝皊┍穨蒳盙だ谅硂Ωチ︑パ囊チ囊の羛穦单ㄤ某羛も癸硂Ω現┎矗基莱琌硂翴ぃボ皊┍穨ぃ種ノ︑玥-
稰は稰琌硂玥璉Τ-
粄ぃそキぃТ讽よ︑眖繻穨兵ㄒき玡セЫ硄筁皊┍穨ぷㄤ琌皊┍穨羛穦纯Ω籔現┎钡ㄤいΤ笲㎝夹非Τ獶盽ぃそキよ
皊┍穨琌だ胑ㄆ穨惠璶筪щ戈璝礛⊿Τ皊┍穨翠笴穨ㄤ絛氓常穦螟祇甶皊┍穨常粄現┎莱赣躬纘щ戈皊┍よщ戈硂妓癸翠俱砰竒蕾㎝翠碞穨薄猵常Τ痲矪讽礛и-
ョ┯粄現┎ㄓョΤㄇ莱ㄒ┮縩ゑ瞯璹盢筁┕︘稨よΑ蝶︳皊┍縩ゑ瞯э坝穨稨よΑㄓ蝶︳よ現┎ョ篗讽琘ㄇ纔磃ㄏ琘ㄇ皊┍稰腊ぃ
さ癩現箇衡い癩現ョ纯癸皊┍穨琘ㄇ惫琁ㄒ杆чΙㄇ穝璸衡よ猭硂ㄇ常Τㄇ躬纘┦ノ硂よи-
┯粄現┎纯暗ㄇㄆ薄よ皊┍穨ㄓА祇礟惠璶粄痷э到羭ㄒㄓ弧皊┍秨辊玡┪砍秈︽腨糵琩硂翴琌瞶秆皊┍穨常粄讽礟酚祇薄猵莱赣摸緍緋σ莉ó礟–尿戳礚斗竒筁穝糵﹚┪獶盽腨︓э夹非糵獽尿戳讽礛緍緋ó进㎝砍皊┍獶ㄆぃ筁琂礛現┎瞷竒Τ兜Τ闽祇礟兵ㄒ矗ユミ猭Ы单秨兵ㄒ〆穦╯и-
辨現┎畊癚阶硂ㄇ兵ㄒ穦某σ納妓ㄏ祇礟笲そキ㎝Τ瞯τΜ禣礚斗糤┮癸硂Ω璹琌既硄等ㄓ糤Μ禣τ癸猾繻玥ご琌搭ぶΜ禣某и粄膀セ琌舦﹜ぇ璸琵現┎Τ丁ㄓ╯︙过┏浪癚硂兜Μ禣琂环ㄓ弧笷︓ノ︑ヘτよョ玻ネ躬纘щ戈щ戈皊┍穨┪笴ㄆ穨ノ
谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: Does any more Member wish to speak? If not, I will give leave for Mr SIN Chung-kai to speak for the second time as he will not be given the opportunity to speak after the conclusion of the joint debate.
虫ヲ昂某璓勉и㊣苸產祔щ布镑∕㏄辩睶┥某某礛やセ笆某某ㄤ龟產ヘ琌妓常琌辨現┎穝浪癚ê癸ぃ癬㏄辩睶┥某и璶―產∕﹑某礛やи某谅谅︗
PRESIDENT: Mr SIN Chung-kai, you are not supposed to address other Members. You should only address the President.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, I urge Honourable Members not to repeal the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1996 and not to support the proposed amendments to the Regulation as moved by the Honourable SIN Chung-kai.
The Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance was enacted in May 1991 to provide for a licensing scheme to regulate fire and building safety, health and hygiene of hotel and guesthouse accommodation. Under the Ordinance, any person operating a hotel or guesthouse is required to obtain a certificate of exemption or a licence.
As the purpose of the Ordinance is to regulate the safety of temporary accommodation for tourists and local people, both hotels and guesthouses are subject to the licensing scheme. Annual inspections are essential before licence renewal to ensure that the premises continue to comply with the licence conditions. The vigorous enforcement of the Ordinance by the Licensing Authority has contributed to the reputation of our hotels and guesthouses in the context of safety. The Licensing Authority has taken, and will continue to take, robust enforcement actions against unlicensed establishments. I should stress that there is no duplication of work between the Licensing Authority and other government departments, as the Licensing Authority is the one and only agency in the Administration responsible for the licensing of hotels and guesthouses.
It is government policy that fees should in general be set at levels sufficient to recover the full cost of providing the services from the users. This is an important principle which forms an integral part of our revenue structure and which underpins our low tax economy. The Public Accounts Committee in 1994 recommended that the Secretary for Home Affairs should devise an action plan as soon as possible to achieve full cost recovery for the licensing of hotels and guesthouses.
Our proposed fee scale for licensing hotels and guesthouses seeks to reflect the costs of licensing establishments of different sizes more accurately. The proposed scale is more equitable than the existing scale to operators of small guesthouses/holiday flats. Over 600 such establishments will enjoy a 31% reduction in licence fees under the proposed scale.
The cost of operating the licensing scheme is $20.6 million per annum. Under the existing fee scale, we only recover about $9 million or 43% of the cost if all establishments are licensed. Although our proposal seeks to achieve full cost recovery over three years, in the first year, the cost recovery is only about 70%, which means taxpayers are still subsidizing the hotel/guesthouse business by about $6 million.
I wish to stress that the Regulation has little, if any, impact on livelihood and no inflation as local customers account for a very small share of the business turnover of hotels and guesthouses. The proposed fee increases would only have a very mild impact on the operating costs of the industry.
I urge Honourable Members not to repeal the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1996, otherwise, our taxpayers will have to continue to subsidize hotels and guesthouses, which are private, profit-making and non-welfare organizations. Clearly, this is against the "user pays" principle and is unreasonable and unfair. The repeal would run counter to the Public Accounts Committee's recommendation and prevent the Administration from rationalizing the fee structure.
I further urge Honourable Members not to resolve to amend the Regulation as moved by the Honourable SIN Chung-kai. The fee scale under the Resolution has little, if any, regard to full cost recovery. Neither could it implement the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. It would prevent the Administration from rationalizing the fee structure and cause unacceptable delay in achieving full cost recovery. Under this Resolution, if passed, our taxpayers would continue to subsidize hotels and guesthouses, which I reiterate is unreasonable and unfair.
Thank you, Mr President.
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊ネи稱硄筁虫ヲ昂某弧ぃゲ弧"癸ぃ癬"岿э到馋瞛渤Ω叫Ν
舱〆穦畊иㄤ龟琌⊿Τㄤ匡拒Τ〆穦∕﹚暗矗紀埃砏ㄒ瘤挡Μ禣ぃ安搭基ぇ磃挪〆穦程穦某ぇ穝祇甶㎝笷眔よ常钡よ︑パ囊盢穦抖現叭種ぃや舱〆穦某璶癴現叭種や虫ヲ昂某某
Question on Mrs Selina CHOW's motion put and negatived.
PRESIDENT: Now that Mrs Selina CHOW's motion has been negatived, I will call upon Mr SIN Chung-kai to move his motion.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI to move the following motion:
"That the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1996, published as Legal Notice No. 224 of 1996 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 5 June 1996, be amended in paragraph 3 of the Amendment Regulation by repealing everything after "2,800" and substituting
"6 - 94,06510 - 207,41021 - 3012,07031 - 4016,01541 - 5020,79551 - 10024,740101 - 20029,400201 - 30029,400301 - 40029,400401 - 50029,400Over 50029,400"."
虫ヲ昂某璓勉畊ネи笆某硄筁某ㄆ祘ず┮更и某
Question on the motion proposed put and agreed to.
PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 8 July. The movers of the motions will each have 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies, and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendments, where applicable. Other Members, including the movers of the amendments, will each have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech.
REVIEW OF SEWAGE SERVICES TRADING FUND
DR JOHN TSE to move the following motion:
"セЫ玃叫現┎ミ浪癚γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀"膀"眖τ膀箂箂箂ΜΘセヘ夹┑膀笷璓Μやキ颗戳の糤癸膀猔戈τゼЧΘ浪癚玡現┎ゲ斗挡逼γ禣のγ禣糤カチの坝穨璽踞斗虏て瞷︽γ禣禗も尿搭ぶ禗┮惠璽踞禣ノ"
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊ネи笆某硄筁某ㄆ祘ず更и某
畊ネ琍戳セЫ∕現┎糤逼γ禣のγ禣某Τǎの現┎程矗穝Μ禣某┑γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀セ戳箂箂きセㄓチ囊癸現┎"岿э"暗猭ボ舧堡現┎"暗"ゼ镑暗┏穝Μ禣よ琌传傣ぃ传媚ゑ耕侣よ临璶畉临璶禥瘤礛临セ戳┑┮Τ↖γ矪瞶禣ノご礛パカチ虫縒┯踞
1. 穝よ"盢︰В苯乐┏"
現┎穝某犁笲膀セ戳瘤礛┑︓箂箂きパ┑セ戳íぃ耞仓縩逼γ禣–碩瞯蔼笷20%︓箂箂き逼γ禣盢穦︓–5.16じ仓縩碩蔼笷330%︓ゑ侣よ4.47じ禥チ囊粄瞷–1.2じ竒琌だ禥盢逼γ禣糤︓5.16じ琌ぃ钡ョ借好犁笲膀Θセ痲チ囊癸現┎┮矗–ㄢΘ某碩眏疨は癸璶痙種琌瞷某Μ禣ぃ荷ぃ龟ゼ盢戳γ璸购笲Θセ璸衡ず讽顶琿嘲尿辅龟逼γ禣ど碩盢穦佩
睝礚好拜硂妓逼琌"盢︰В苯乐┏"癸カチのミ猭Ы暗ㄢ癚琂ぃノ猔戈ョ逼γ禣礚斗ミ鰐ど龟悔玱ぃ搭淮カチ逼γ禣よ璽踞チ囊粄璶ち龟秆∕拜肈埃┑セ戳Τゲ璶癸膀猔戈
2. ┶荡猔戈狦腨
癸現┎┶荡猔戈チ囊ボア辨の禣秆現┎┶荡猔戈狦獶盽腨τ膀璶笷︑璽莲獽Τ兵隔琌闽и獺⊿Τ翠カチ稱ǎ琌玠搭逼γ狝叭硂妓盢穦笻は膀┮┯空э到吏挂ヘ琌碩糤逼γ禣竒蕾ぃ春ア穨瞯蔼薄猵盢穦腨紇臫カチネカチ璽踞ㄆ龟現┎瞷Г局秖緇箇衡纗称獽Τ1,500货じご礛硓筁犁笲膀紉Μ禥逼γ禣孔"碔ぃく""簔跌チネ"
3. 璶―猔戈ぃ笻は"γ琕︑"
畊ネ現┎竒盽ボ膀猔戈盢穦笻は"γ琕︑"玥や"γ琕︑"ぃ单璶κだぇκΜ场Θセタ厩厩禣妓や"ノ︑"玥ぃ单璶厩ネユκだぇκΘセ刚拜Τぶ厩ネΤや–20窾じΘセ㎡猵措叭祘贺そ砞現┎硂よ┯踞セ琌砫礚禪碞さぱΝ叭舱穦某ㄒ現┎ノ3货じそ┊备屡ぺ扒甽の秈笵τ妓琌备祘硄措狝叭のγ措蝴单禣ノ玱璶カチや妓祘ㄢ贺非玥借好現┎ノ犁笲膀Τみ砫
ㄤ龟筁┕現┎ョΤ挤蹿措叭竝ノ矪瞶のΜ栋γ虫︓き硂掸挤蹿獽笷6货じΜ逼γ禣翠┎獽ぃや硂掸竒盽┦禣ノэパカチ场やチ囊璶―現┎膀セ┯踞程ぶ膥尿盢赣掸蹿兜猔戈膀籔カチ┯踞砫ヴ搭ぶカチ璽踞
4. 筁虏て吏玂阀├┛菠吏玂種醚
璶浪癚拜肈琌現┎盢"γ琕︑"吏玂阀├筁虏てΜΘセ穦璸阀├璓膀猔發Θセ┛菠程璶ヘэ到吏挂の矗蔼吏玂種醚Μ逼γ禣現┎⊿Τ矗ㄑ惫琁眏カチ吏玂種醚の︽跑ΘΜ禣τΜ禣眔ぃ紉Μ逼γ禣τカチ吏玂挡狦ㄆ龟Μ逼γ禣カチ⊿Τ搭ぶノ陪Μ禣︓糤逼γ禣ぃ琌秆∕拜肈虫┪程Τよ猭
5. 膀ろ硓
膀"︑璽莲"基瞶パ笲玱腨ろ硓癸膀︙竒犁琌続讽北Θセ┪琌到ノ戈方单炊筂カチ礚眖菏诡硂贺钡超笲薄螟胔好膀Θセ痲ョ借好現┎琌ォミヘ吏玂寥窥龟
6. 膀砯ぃ癸快
ア辨琌カチ煤γ禣セ翠借捣睝⊿Τэ到箂セ翠Τ猘舮砆"畉"の"獶盽畉"き计ヘぃ搭はΤ19猘舮砆"畉"の"獶盽畉"–ら┮Μ栋γΤΘ琌ゼ竒矪瞶τ逼い–らごΤ100窾ミよμゼ竒Μ栋γ︑笆瑈蝴ㄈ翠ゼ竒Μ栋讽礛琌ゼ竒矪瞶讽カチもユ窥現┎玱ぃもユ砯刚拜硂妓砯ぃ癸快犁笲膀︙嘿眔"э到狝叭借"
7. γ禣Μ痲︳璸ア粇
碞坝穨γ禣τē現┎ョゼ秆カ初ㄑ―眖τ矗蔼厨瞯Θミ戳︳璸Μ笷2.7货じパ嘲尿龟琁γ琕恨跋の场だノ產磷煤ユγ禣τ搭ぶノ膀龟悔ΜΤ7,000窾じ沮措叭竝戈陪ボγ禣Μ痲碞パきる︓る1.08货じ禴︓せ材﹗6,900窾じ硂ㄇ靡沮常陪ボ犁笲膀ㄇ膀セ笲ア粇
8. 瞷︽щ禗诀羉狡
瘤礛現┎ボ坝め粄セōγ緻砆蔼︳┪現┎岿粇︳璸逼ゑ瞯Τ闽场禗現┎砏﹚禗刮砰惠璶竨叫﹚て喷畍﹚戳┾ノめγ妓セτ竨叫て喷畍禣ノ笆怀璶窾じ刚拜禗禣ノ禥筁γ禣穦Τ碭坝め穦禗㎡场だ坝めョу蝶現┎щ禗诀筁羉狡圭腀煤ユ禣ㄆせ材﹗祇窾眎禣眀虫い獽Τ89﹙щ禗チ囊璶―現┎荷硉虏てΤ闽も尿の禗禣ノㄏΤ好拜ノめ現┎矗禗磷岿粇紉Μ逼γ禣のγ禣
羆珹τēチ囊粄瞷琌癸膀浪癚Θミ犁笲膀セ種琌辨(1)э到狝叭借(2糤硓㎝菏诡膀笲の(3糤戈方笲ノ紆┦竒筁钡タΑ笲膀ぃぃ笷﹚ヘ夹琌拜肈"芛芛"
程チ囊某現┎縩伐浪癚膀セ笲(1┑膀セ戳(2禪蹿よ猭猔戈膀(3τゼЧΘ浪癚玡挡逼γ禣のγ禣(4虏てγ禣禗も尿の(5糤膀硓甧砛カチΤ菏诡膀現┎ゼ笷璶―碞"粪秨"璶―碩基チ囊盢穦膥尿は癸基
畊ネи略朝勉矗某
Question on the motion proposed.
璣某璓勉畊ネ程現┎肚碈硓臩種┑犁笲膀ΘセΜパ箂箂箂┑︓箂箂き–碩碞璶矗蔼︓20%現┎ボ粆璶绊"γ琕︑"玥ぃ穦σ納犁笲膀ヴ︙猔戈癸セ稰螟瞶秆иセぃフ現┎穦粄パ琍戳и-
崩陆15%瞷弧璶︓20%τи-
琌穦钡︑パ囊琌ぃ穦钡
и稱拜現┎安瞷翠竒蕾絯薄蒥チ硈15%碩常ぃ璽踞癚基临基ぇ現┎澈礛临璶20%硂琌秨蒥チ㎡螟笵現┎某穦璉斌そ渤種腀钡硂籔チ種熬畉伐环よ盾畊ネ現┎篕ミ猭Ыや"γ琕︑"琌Τㄤē玱礚龟悔︽笆и禗現┎ミ猭Ы讽礛腀種┯踞Τ闽猭┮ま祇ㄓ基ぃ筁タ琌и-
チ種菏诡現┎┮и-
┮щ–布常斗そ渤ユи-
ぃ繦獽钡現┎ぃ瞶某и-
琌や"γ琕︑"玥ぃи-
⊿Τ┏帹┪礚秖や現┎┻ㄓヴ︙よ玥и-
碞Τ璽蒥チ┮癠
畊ネ琍戳иそ秨︑パ囊癸Τ闽猭ミ初㎝某さらиぃ非称朝瓃Ωи辨現┎Νら莱и-
赣兜某钡┪ぃ钡瞶沮︙иョ辨現┎秆睦┑临セ戳︓箂箂き惠璶–基20%冈灿计沮の狦┑20Τ闽Μや计︙︑パ囊┏帹琌и-
ぃ穦σ納や–禬筁10%碩ヴ︙璸购
現┎绊ぃ猔戈粄硂Τ笻"γ琕︑"玥よボ現┎癸逼γ祘щ戈и┤現┎硂ンㄆベよ現┎纞某弧璝璶現┎猔戈碞Τ璶蒥チ祙畉昏ㄓ糤Μ畊ネи-
常琌眖纞и借好現┎咎或祙畉昏現┎畐┬Г局胑纗称и-
ぃ筁璶措叭竝盢┕ノ逼γ货じ犁笲膀硂琌瞶ぃ筁ㄆ狦硂妓獽璶祙临Τそ瞶盾
盢场だ畉昏挤膀Τ︙ぃТиσ納翴琌и-
Τ舦菏诡現┎︙笲ノㄓ︑祙砋いそ┊琌ノ眔ㄤ┮临琌掸纗称畐┬ぃノ玱肂穋蒥チ﹀窥ㄆ龟蒥現ЫΤ逞緇窥琘祘ㄓ弧窥禦猳礶ㄓ矗蔼蒥チ美砃糷Ω┪砛琌惠璶璝眏璶蒥チの坝絛瞅エ肂τ旧璓Τ紅┪竩τ超硈仓ア穨┪崩蔼硄砯勘等и獺猳礶籔逗窲ぇ丁彼琌陪τǎ
畊ネセ略朝勉や某
朝篴篱某璓勉畊ネさるらセ瞯ミ猭Ы矗Τ闽"逼γ禣"某臛阶璶―現┎"既絯紉Μ逼γ禣の禣の穝络﹚Μ禣夹非"現┎垒Μ逼γ禣紇臫皊┍の都穨竒犁笲疭ゴ阑都穨璓竩超ㄏア穨
さぱ琌さミ猭Ы穦戳程ぱ谅ッ闹某妓矗㎝逼γ禣Τ闽某臛阶弧"逼γ禣"拜肈狡馒┦カチ闽猔㎝某┦耕钡紇臫チネ
セΩ某臛阶い現┎崩綪"γ矪瞶狝叭Μ禣璸购"ぇΤ粇旧讽ミ猭Ы某Θの蹦"е辟睹陈"も猭硄筁硂兵猭ㄒ硑Θら某蔼砍琍戳ミ猭Ы某璓挡現┎逼γ禣㎝逼γ禣基︑パ囊璣某のさΩ矗某臛阶チ囊谅ッ闹某現┎ミ猭筁祘い粇旧讽ミ猭Ы某
琍戳挡現┎矗逼γ禣㎝坝穨γ禣基某セぃ幢﹡セミ猭ЫΤ闽某臛阶のΩ逼γ禣の坝γ禣癸都穨㎝約カチ紇臫┪┪ぶΤ﹚ノ眖τㄏ某Τ醚セ翠竒蕾絯ア穨墩┮镣┮ミ猭Ы某瞡е璓や挡逼γ禣の逼γ禣糤
畊ネ翠┎讽ぇ玡ЧΘγ矪瞶郸菠翴祘璸购璶γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀眀ヘ笷Μやキ颗碞Γ崩硂紿κふγ矪瞶狝叭Μ禣璸购称よ腨糉у蝶
τ讽耕Ν玡翠┎ボ璶穝络璹碭逼γ禣碩糓礛篕現┎現┎秆睦琌讽蔼︳坝穨ノめ┮璶煤ユ肂︳禗Θ眔璓現┎羆搭ぶΜ1货じ"粇畉"現┎ゼ笷┏箇戳Τ8货じΜヘ夹τ璶穝络璹逼γ禣碩
陪贺贺常琌パ現┎璹現郸瞷"璸衡粇畉"┮璓翠┎戳璹坝γ禣膀非の璸衡よ猭Τろそす场だ禗眔坝ノめ搭ぶ煤ユ禣ノ
ㄤ龟ビ禗盡セきるそガ秸琩挡狦ョ翠┎崩︽坝γ禣璸购デア粇珹癸紇臫程繺繻穨吭高ぃìの络璹Μ禣Τろそす
パǎ現┎崩︽硂璸购龟ろ㏄冈灿盞癩現箇衡ョ礚だ吭高㎝そキ瞶Μ禣夹非
現┎璶―カチ┯踞硂ㄇ岿粇┮ま癬拜肈龟ぃ璽砫ヴ瞷琎ぱ翠┎羘ぃ穦σ納猔戈犁笲膀セ癸現┎篈瞏稰ア辨и稱翴翠カチ筁┕硓筁煤ユ畉昏禣㎝贺祙兜や玡逼γ砞琁笲禣ノ現┎︙ぃ盢硂ㄇ︽盽秨や挤膀玱盢硂钓Ч┻倒カチもい璶и-
縒璽踞膀瓃ㄢ瞶パ羛穦璶―現┎–犁笲膀猔戈┯踞癬场だ秨や秆∕膀瞷瞷莲穕拜肈現┎龟⊿Τ瞶パ崩砫ヴ
セ碞碭翴某
1. 璶穝络璹坝穨γ禣Μ禣夹非辅龟ビ禗盡そ竝厨某
2. 虏て禗祘搭坝穨ノめ禗禣ノ
3. 現┎莱赣猔戈璽踞癬场だ逼γ砫ヴ
4. 秈˙┑Μやキ颗ヘ夹戳眖τ覸絯ゼㄓ逼γ禣碩
程眔矗琌翠┎崩︽逼γ璸购郸菠┛菠甅Ч到惫琁
畊ネ繦逼γ祘ぃ耞辅Θ逼γ狝叭犁笲秨やョ盢ぃ耞糤カチ璽踞逼γ禣钓盢穦現┎莱ち龟浪癚
讲蚌某璓勉畊ネ玂毁翠吏挂睲间絋玂セ翠借纔▆琌–翠カチ腀辨┮⊿Τ穦は癸щ戈γ矪瞶祘拜肈琌窥眖︙ㄓ街Μ硂掸戈Τ北Θセ痲の才"ノ︑"玥砞ミγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀琌眔やパ翠︽祙瞯現郸τ祙膀疷蹦犁笲膀ΑΜ场だ┪场Θセぃア糤そΜ▆よ猭硂弧琌耎糴祙膀摸よ猭セぃ粄現┎カチ┪そ紉祙碞⊿Τ瞶パ紉Μ逼γ禣犁笲膀Α笲镑Τ皐癸┦ノΜΘセ
"ノ︑"┪"γ琕︑"玥膀セ琌钡ぃ叉瞒龟悔薄猵τ酵玥讽и-
酵"ノ︑"玥ぃぃ臮の街琌"ノ"の︙ㄏノㄒ砍皑隔琌秨倒┮Τカチㄏノ螟笵и-
碞璶–笵隔ㄏノΜ笵隔ㄏノ禣盾妓瞶パネノ琌–カチ┮ゲ惠τ-
タ盽逼γ琌ゲ惠翠カチ紉Μ逼γ禣暗猭龟眔坝篹τ璝犁笲膀ノ秖τ紉Μγ禣玥ㄏㄏカチτ搭ぶノぃ-
搭ぶ逼γ秖現┎Τゲ璶碞瞷︽璸衡逼γ禣よ猭秈︽瞏浪癚癸坝τē逼γ禣莱璸衡-
竒犁Θセぇず┮現┎磅︽硂玥ご斗σ納ㄢよ拜肈
ヘ玡坝γ禣琌瞶㎡
沮筁薄猵ㄓ瞷γ禣紉Μ瞯Τ拜肈ぷㄤ琌癸都穨よτē祙㏕礛⊿Τ砫ヴ瑉禟坝穨璶琘ㄇ坝︽穨癸翠逼γ矪瞶秨やぃΘゑㄒ┯踞妮ぃそキ
σ納癸俱砰穦の竒蕾紇臫
ノ祙叭のそΜや現┎琌琘祘玃秈竒蕾祇甶┪磷竒蕾菲℡ヘ玡竒蕾絯薄猵現┎碩糤坝穨γ禣龟Τ闽︽穨竒犁撤流都穨ㄒ硂︽穨妮骋盞栋秖ゅてキのм砃キ璶―耕璝︽穨超盢セ翠ア穨瞯碿て┮络璹γ禣獽ぃㄨ狾臮Μやキ颗τ┛菠ㄇ穦竒蕾
膀瓃翠秈羛癸γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀琌莱赣笷︓Μやキ颗Τ┮玂痙翠秈羛粄犁笲膀い场だΜ莱パ現┎–猔干禟矪瞶カチ逼γ秨や翠秈羛だ借好γ矪瞶祘щ戈斗きず场ΜΘセ現郸γ琕拜肈ぃ琌さぱ祇ネ琌筁┕戳縩仓ㄓ碿狦ぃ莱パヘ玡γ琕场やτ逼γ璸购ЧΘョㄏノ珿ぃ莱パ硂场┯踞秨や某犁笲膀笷︓Μやキ颗戳莱
畊ネセ略朝勉
霉不瓣某璓勉畊ネ眖玥チ種"γ琕︑"ヘ夹蒥チら盽癬﹡ネノ玥ぃ莱砆跌γ琕蒥チ紉Μ逼γ禣琌搭ぶ產畑ノτ搭ぶγ琕ㄤΘ琌獶盽好チ粄癸蒥チ紉Μ逼γ禣┦借琌单"繷祙"琌兜Τ仓癶祙┦借ぃ瞶Μ禣珿チ璶―現┎ミ篗綪產畑︘め紉Μ逼γ禣τΤ闽や莱パΜ璽踞
チ種坝莱┯踞ㄤ┮硑Θγ琕砫ヴ煤現┎砍㎝竒犁逼γ砞琁Θセパさ竒蕾ご礛ゑ耕癵ㄇ︽穨都穨簘琕穨Θセどゑ耕еτ北竒犁吏挂ョぃ甧逼γ禣穦场だ坝め竒犁螟穦ㄏア穨Τǎのチ種さ挡逼γ禣の坝穨γ禣
チ璶―現┎盢措叭竝γ犁笲膀ΘセΜ戳┑︓15┪э到竒犁瞯搭逼γ禣基碩τ現┎ョ莱σ納糤猔戈赣犁笲膀干蝴玂緄瞷胑や眀やの恶干膀┮瞷í
ヘ玡逼γ禣禗祘狡馒Θセ蔼ぃぶい坝めㄏ禗眔穦瞷眔ぃ纕ア薄猵チ粄現┎莱虏て禗も尿璶琌璹甅Ч俱㎝そキγ禣璸衡非玥眖セ搭ぶ禗ゲ璶┦
セ略朝勉や谅ッ闹某某谅谅畊ネ
眎▆某璓勉畊ネ現┎ㄓ常嘿膀"γ琕︑"玥γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀璶"ΜΘセ"┮璶糤逼γ禣и-
ぃは癸吏玂"γ琕︑"玥и-
ぃは癸疭﹚兵ン現┎"ΜΘセ"Μ禣阀├и-
ぃは癸"犁笲膀"阀├琌現┎瓃阶翴陪盢篒礛ぃ阀├"γ琕︑""ΜΘセ"の"犁笲膀"睼酵购单腹硑Θ琌τ獶阶翴狦ㄏ蒥チ癸吏玂拜肈玻ネ粇秆
"γ琕︑"玥﹍︑紈瓣吏挂玂臔璸购ㄤ硂璸购眔稼瑆羛幅や琌稼瑆羛幅皑兵ョΤ璶―稼幅瓣蹦ノ硂吏玂玥羛瓣瞴蔼畃穦瓣硄筁ń荐ず縞ē材せ腹玥絋絣瓣ゲ斗龟︽"γ琕︑"玥龟︽斗璶酚臮そ渤痲ぃ璶τ穕甡瓣悔丁禩籔щ戈
"γ琕︑"玥眖ㄓ琌γ琕璶-
γ琕吏挂︽睲瞶禣ノ虏虫穦惠璶┾秸戈方ㄓ矪瞶吏挂瘆胊狦硂弧杠璉瞶├琌ぃ莱赣瞷穦碔肝脖τ甝硑Θ螟辣干吏挂瘆胊硂量猭碞琌吏玂某"尿祇甶"芠├
璝狦硂癟ぃ镑硄筁肚毙▅崩約ㄏ蒥チ瞶秆讽い種蒥チ穦癸"γ琕︑"玻ネ岿谋γ矪瞶ㄒ獽穦Τ窥璽踞眔癬獽ヴ種ㄏノ㎝逼γはぇ璽踞ぃ癬碞璶ノぶㄇぶㄇ瑍も丁硂玥┏Μ禣碞跑ΘΤ顶┦借祙兜
畊ネ羇ㄏ"γ琕︑"Τ"尿祇甶"阀├現┎玱礷Ω弧"γ琕︑"碞单"ΜΘセ"現┎弧パγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀ぃ寂や膀ΜΘセ玥琌獽璶糤逼γ禣蒥チΤ贺岿谋"γ琕︑"碞单"ΜΘセ"挪Μ禣筁蔼琌碞は癸"γ琕︑"玥
ê或"γ琕︑"琌单"ΜΘセ"氮琌﹚иま瓃ń荐ず縞ēい弧龟︽"γ琕︑"玥璶σ納そ渤痲传ēぇㄏ眖瓣悔猭芠翴龟琁"γ琕︑"玥ぇ璶σ納"赣玥"┏Μ禣Α㎝キ癸そ渤琌瞶琌Τσ納蒥チ璽踞琌Τ暗玂臔吏挂ヘ琌硄筁"γ琕︑"笷蒥チフ玂臔吏挂璶┦龟悔薄猵琌現┎琍戳矗Τ闽逼γ禣の禣碩环蔼硄等禣蒥チ眏疨は癸㎝セЫ挡現┎喘ē瞷ぃ禣玥ら碩蒥チ璽踞γ矪瞶璶眔"郸菠┦γ逼璸购"材戳ЧΘΤ龟借э到и-
ヘ玡薄猵琌現┎ゼ粄痷キ颗そ渤痲τ蒥チぃ"尿祇甶"瞶├琌現┎辣干ぃ耞どΘセτ惠ぃ氨禣
琂礛"γ琕︑"ぃ单ΜΘセê或"ΜΘセ"琌单"犁笲膀"阀├畊ネ硂璶络睲或琌"犁笲膀"タиㄢ琍戳玡セЫΤ闽诀筿祘竝Θミ犁笲膀∕某祇ēい∕﹚场琌Θミ犁笲膀璶σ納赣场琌妮坝穨┦借笲礛σ納硂坝穨┦借场Τ兵ン暗︑璽莲ΜΘセ璝狦笷瓃璶―莱σ納р赣场锣Θ犁笲膀笲倒ぉウ戈方秸皌紆┦笷矗蔼瞯ヘ
传ēぇ獶┮Τ現┎场常锣Θ犁笲膀狝叭ゲ斗琌ㄣΤ坝穨┦借狦ぃ琌杠玥┮Τ現┎场狝叭珹牡诡刁篒琩ōだ靡┪ň毕╝瞶阶磃┪紇臫Μ禣ノ辣干秨やㄤΩぃ琌┮Τ坝穨┦借场暗︑璽莲ΜΘセㄇ狝叭狦蒥初礚瓜礚ネ丁ㄏ琌坝穨┦借狝叭ぃ暗场ΜΘセτぃ莱赣禩礛Θミ犁笲膀埃獶現┎腀種ぉ﹚干禟
Τ"ΜΘセ"琌Θミ犁笲膀ㄤい璶玡矗現┎瞷Τ闽γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀玥рΘミ犁笲膀"兵ン"弧Θ"ヘ"琌ΜΘセτぃ琌γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀ΜΘセрウ锣Θ犁笲膀笲現┎弧猭狦睼瞔阀├
畊ネ現┎讽矗Θミγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀碞獺粆ススㄏ某やㄤΘミ讽γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀竒犁瞷ぃ秅Θセア北瞷í碞ノ"γ琕︑"硂玥溃ㄓ蒥チ秨璶ビ叫碩禣ㄆ龟現┎琌犁笲膀暗痷タ北┪搭Θセ㎡狦Θセど琌莱σ納ぃ璶暗场ΜΘセτЫ场ΜΘセ┪だ顶琿ΜΘセ酚臮蒥チ璽踞㎡
畊ネセ略朝勉や某
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネ常量―吏玂"γ琕︑"玥琌眔約獂やチ羛琌硂玥┚龟發繦и-
觅γ琕莱矪瞶︑┮玻ネγ琕и-
は癸現┎ノ︑玥︘め垒Μ逼γ禣は癸現┎竒蕾ぃ春薄猵ご╣逼γ禣現┎羭穦"デ渤绩"琍戳ㄆ霍みΘ挡逼γ禣現┎繦"ē纞"挡逼γ禣盢穦翠┎戈э到逼γ砞琁ゴ睹膀璶きずΜΘセ箇衡程ㄏ犁笲膀癸"┰筯闽"㏑笲
叭㏄璓勉篕某酵や"γ琕︑"玥ぃ腀┯踞禣砫ヴ璶挡逼γ禣硂и稱硂Ч琌翠┎㏒パ︑狦讽翠┎某矗ㄑぃ非絋戈珹蔼︳坝穨ノめ煤禣计ヘ︳穨禗Θ计ョ┯空–碩ぃ蔼10%翠┎讽ョ⊿Τ璹Μやキ颗ヘ夹单某琌膀やΘミ犁笲膀ㄆ筳更ヘ獶碩–蔼10%琌璶―祏祏きず暗ЧΜΘセ癸и-
翠カチそキ盾硂龟琌某螟粄
畊ネΝさる朝篴篱某矗Τ闽逼γ禣某臛阶チ羛沮翠┎"γ琕︑"Μ禣玥狦ノめ逼γら亥搭ぶ逼γ禣龟眔Μョ︑礛搭俱砰逼γ禣Μ獽ぃЧ笷璓ΜΘセ翠┎﹚ゲ穦ぃ耞糤逼γΜ禣ΜΘセ讽チ羛矗牡狦翠┎ぃ粄痷秆∕癩現逼拜肈膥尿Μ场犁笲Θセヘ夹τΜ逼γ禣硂穦琌カチ礹璚"窾ぃ確"カチ璽踞"瞏ぃǎ┏"瑌┮チ羛玃叫現┎獺"空ē"癸犁笲秈︽浪癚
癩現拜肈翠┎浪癚よ莱σ納犁笲膀猔戈笷璓膀Μやキ颗チ羛は癸翠┎祏丁ずΜ逼γ璸购场笲Θセи-
粄璶环秆∕犁笲膀瞷莲穕拜肈莱琌翠┎膀糤猔戈癸硂篶叭さる某臛阶纯竒硂よ硂琌Τ笻"γ琕︑"玥硂穦瞷"祙璶戈γ琕"チ羛粄硂阶秸琌ぃΘミヘ玡紉Μ逼γ禣璸购ΤΘ︘め琌璶煤ユ逼γ禣传杠弧祙セōョ琌叭┮弧γ琕珿ㄏ璶―翠┎猔戈戈ㄓ方ョ琌ㄓ︑祙┮孔γ琕砋
よチ羛ぃは癸ΜΘセ笷璓Μやキ颗ヘ夹戳ゲ斗┑眖τ覸絯–逼γ禣碩搭淮カチ璽踞瘤礛現┎矗盢戳パき┑︓穝よ某癸覸絯基癸カチ耑腊ぃせ︓丁穝よ碩ご礛蝴程琌15%蔼畃戳笷37.7%┮и-
ぃ觅箂箂きヘ夹チ羛粄翠┎璹Μやキ颗ヘ夹﹚璶猔種盢逼γ禣–碩ぃ﹜璹眔び紇臫チネ
畊ネチ羛癑み戳辨現┎虑さΩ逼γ禣碩砆挡诀穦穝癸γ矪瞶犁笲膀癩現猵冈荷浪癚粄痷σ納埃–腤璶基ΤㄤΤэ到犁笲膀癩現よ猭珹猔戈㎝┑Μやキ颗戳玥沧Τぱ犁笲膀痷穦叭┮ē"┰筯闽"パヘ玡笲犁笲膀Αㄓチ羛┤"ノ︑"玥筿笵隔Μ禣璸购ら穦礚ゎ挂碩糤Μ禣ǐщ礚隔ア毖沧珿チ羛辨翠┎癸犁笲膀笲Α灿種秖
畊ネセ略朝勉や某
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR RONALD ARCULLI, took the Chair.
ヴ到圭某璓勉瞶畊ネ現┎眏秸"γ琕︑"玥膀セ琌钡"γ琕︑"弘膀セ摸"ノ︑"セЫさ穦戳い"ノ︑"玥ま癬Ω某現┎Μ禣玥璶―糤Μ禣ㄤ龟現┎現郸ぃ莱σ納玥ョ斗σ納よㄒ翠畄狥跋ǐ碮砍禣ノぃ滇琌璶═óΜ禣㎡ㄢ琍戳玡現┎璶―セЫ叭舱硄筁べ穝カ马祘┹甶璸购ㄤい隔獽璶ノ5,000窾じ︽ぱ爵琌盢ㄓ︽璶筁ぱ爵禣㎡琎ぱΝ現┎Ω璶―叭舱觅挤蹿瞏屡ぺ扒瞏砯耫差硄筁紇臫砯耫絏繷ネ種或現┎ぃぃゴ衡蹦"ノ︑"玥㎡現┎砫ヴ琌莱赣σ納よτぃ琌發―祑┦そキ玥タ現┎莱赣穿穦Τ惠璶玥ち穦褐璸购А
┮"γ琕︑"ぃ虫σ納沮玥τΘミγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀τ眔浪癚
ㄤ龟現┎竒盽眏秸逼γ禣糤都穨┪坝穨犁笲Θセκだゑ璝璸衡ㄤκだゑ碞讽蔼讽穦竒蕾ぃ春都穨Μ逼γ禣糤獽硑Θㄢ娩Μ罽┮ゴ阑ぃ┛跌い瓣Τ"κょ"Θ粂琌讽璉100ょ狥﹁谋眔ǒ璚ㄤ羬翴笷伐璝狦ょョ琌ぃ┮逼γ禣糤筁穦Θみ瞶溃τ丁钡旧璓ㄇネ種挡ア穨и-
伐は癸逼γ禣碩糤の璶―浪癚ㄤ璹γ琕计夹非セや硂某┑膀笷璓Μやキ颗戳辨荷秖搭–糤煤逼γ禣璝狦犁笲膀Τ竒蕾螟よ現┎莱赣猔戈犁笲膀よ赣膀乘猭臟そ羭杜眔ì镑戈膥尿竒犁
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉や某
At this point, Dr Samuel WONG indicated the lack of a quorum.
PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY: Can we count the Council?
Members were then summoned.
A quorum was then formed.
ぶ城某璓勉瞶畊ネミ猭Ы㏄∕現┎矗さ糤逼γ禣の坝穨γ禣50%某拜肈ゼ碞Ч挡ゼㄓ计ず箇璸γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀–盢穦瞷计货じ璸胑í俱逼γ璸购琌镑膥尿Τ笲盢穦琌獶盽雌も繷礹拜肈
讽砞ミ逼γ犁笲膀ヘ夹琌辨硓筁ラ乘坝穨笲家Α矗蔼γ矪瞶瞯硂セ琌眔и-
や琌瞷膀┮ぱ┦狙タタ琌熬瞒Τ弘カチみヘい現┎跌γ膀滥癩垦ㄣ膀︑璽莲ぇ現┎獽斌癸γ矪瞶┯踞はぇ︙絋玂俱逼γ璸购笲ㄣ痲竒跑眔Ω璶現┎埃弧筁措叭竝荷竊逼γ矪瞶よもぇиぃ現┎临暗筁ㄇ或ひ矗蔼逼γ膀竒蕾痲
現┎稱ゼㄓず荷еΜ逼γ膀Θセ珿ゲ斗硋碩矗蔼逼γ禣仓縩碩蔼笷168%癸チ丁は癸羘φぃ籇癸坝竒犁挂妓跌τぃǎㄓ現┎Ч盢逼γ膀跌絃ゲ﹚寥窥ネ種カチセ碞⊿Τ臮莱Τ匡拒舦τΤ酚虫Μ竡叭現┎璹﹚逼γ禣產白独浆ョ酚虫
吏臮龟琁逼γ禣瓣產-
現┎崩︽"γ琕︑"玥ョ臮躬纘カチ搭ぶγ琕玧э到吏挂程沧ヘ現┎ぃ琌Μγ矪瞶场Θセ紈瓣ㄒ現┎Μせ︓Θ矪瞶Θセ跌ノめ搭ぶγ琕祘τ搭ぶΜ逼γ禣︓场僚俱Μ戳笷ぇ現┎秨﹍崩︽逼γ禣璸购ぇ玡纯把σ筁硂ㄇ產腳禥竒喷㎡
瞶畊ネ瞷逼γ膀┮癸癩現螟场だョ琌パ現┎岿粇┮も┮硑Θ措叭竝程腨蔼︳斗璶煤ユ逼γ禣坝穨诀篶计ヘ┛菠繦借恨璸购龟琁γ逼緻挡狦膀Μ耕ㄓ︳璸ぶ2货じ硂薄猵タ陪ボ讽Ы㏄冈砏购獽盢璸购皑τま祇穦羘更笵︓Τぃぶ穨礚猭┯踞逼γ禣τ璶超иぃ窽璶拜現┎現郸琌璶チ┪琌璶穕チΤ⊿Τσ納硂贺薄猵瞷㎡
瞶畊ネ"γ琕︑"弘琌癸э到セ翠翠借逼γ璸购琌眔崩︽耚и-
玡縎もā琌︙秆∕逼γ膀癩現候惨螟肈硂よ現┎﹛︓さご来カチōゴ種叭ボミ猭Ыㄨ種挡逼γ禣穦ㄏ碩畐叭玥弧現┎璶浪癚琌膥尿竒犁逼γ膀τЧ┛菠眖Θセ痲à祇╯︙э到膀笲拜肈
瞶畊ネ璶痷タ秆∕逼γΜ禣璸购┮瞷拜肈セ粄現┎盢秈︽浪癚莱赣琌の㏄冈浪癚絛瞅埃ㄓм砃灿竊ㄒ琌て厩惠秖秖γ緻斑夹非の穝蝶︳︽穨γ逼秖ぇ璶琌現┎ゲ斗穝粄痷╯逼γ璸购痷タタ絋ヘ㎝砞ミγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀痷タノ
痷タ獀セぇ笵セ某現┎穝浪癚γ矪瞶犁笲膀厨瞯眖俱砰矗蔼犁笲膀瞯の╯γ矪瞶砞琁笲㎝も单よΤゲ璶┑ㄤ笷璓Μやキ颗戳箂箂箂Μ场Θセヘ夹現┎盢ㄓ浪癚逼γ禣碩埃跌膀癩現猵ぇ临璶σ納セ翠俱砰竒蕾吏挂琌镑璽踞硂妓甧穦┮钡癸讽玡笆某矗現┎糤癸膀猔戈セ癸Τ┮玂痙現┎猔戈┪覸秆膀縐ぇ膀や硈どΜ玱ゼ莱矗蔼薄猵現┎猔戈单飞弹ぃぃ癬"ゎ﹀"ノㄏγ膀繦跑Θ礚┏瞏兼Θ疭跋現┎↖癩現璽踞
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉
朝胞糭某璓勉瞶畊ネさぱи-
癚阶琌玃叫現┎ミ浪癚逼γ狝叭Μ禣犁笲膀拜肈のア粇穝络璹逼γΜ禣碩单拜肈иㄆ朝篴篱某竒哪睦и-
ㄇ猭㎝ミ初и盢ぃ狡
и稱矗琌瞷現┎︘ノめΜ逼γ禣ノ荡癸琌膀ぃ瞶瞶沮㎝Μ禣非玥ョゼ暗躬纘カチ竊ノ崩約吏玂ヘ夹︓さぱゎ瞋"カチΤ砫ヴ窥"胓籃┦よ︑逼γΜ禣龟琁ㄓ常Τカチиは琈種ǎу蝶現┎︘逼γΜ禣筁蔼粄Μ禣伐ぃ瞶
临癘眔Νる讽現┎璶崩硂逼γΜ禣璸购и-
ㄆ翠畄﹁纯竒拜秸琩砐拜跋ず400﹡チ讽秸琩挡狦陪ボㄤい禬筁Θ砆砐粄狦斗煤ユ–﹗130じ禣40じ逼γ禣硂ゑㄒ龟筁蔼
瞷產畑キА–﹗ノ80硂妓璸衡斗煤禣410じ逼γ禣玥璶81じ496じ畊ネ硂计癸ㄇ膀糷カチㄓ弧琌↖璽踞и獺カチ竒谋眔禥耕Ν玡現┎矗Ω穝络璹逼γ禣碩礚阶-
矗ヴよ︙よぃ阶琌璶き笷Μやキ颗┪琌и獺场だカチАぃ穦觅Θぉは癸
瞷и-
玃叫現┎璶癸硂"簗瑌κ"犁笲膀浪癚и穝璶―現┎璶浪癚"︘め紉Μ逼γ禣"種竡︙
ㄤ龟カチら盽ノ︙琌ノ礜逗瑍も獽单ノ硚龟悔γ琕祘だ淮稬籔坝穨γ琕祘耕琌稬ぃì笵
沮措叭竝ゼ竒计戈陪ボき︓せ羆Μ6.9货じ逼γ禣の坝穨γ禣讽いΤ1.8货じㄓ︑︘ノめ種き︓せ︘ノめ羆计26%τ現┎箇璸ゼㄓョ穦︘紉ΜΘ禣ノи獶盽借好琌︘ノめ琌俱砰逼γ祘Θ╯澈琌︘ノめ干禟坝穨ノめ薄猵
沮и┮現┎俱逼γ璸购祘┮蹦て厩矪瞶よΑ璶琌皐癸穨ノτ現┎眖ㄓゼΤ矗ㄑΤ闽︘めのㄤノめ俱逼γ╰参讽い┮"穕ゑㄒ"㎝︘ノめΘ瞶沮
瞶畊ネи稱拜現┎
1. ︘ノめγ琕祘琌淮稬┪腨
2. 狦虫琌矪瞶︘めγ琌惠璶砍硂妓胑戳戳の戳祘璸购
и辨現┎浪癚γ矪瞶犁笲膀秆睦︘籔坝穨ノめ︑┮硑Θγ琕祘计沮玥螟弧狝︙︘め斗璶璽踞筪肂禣ノ
и獺斑秆睦琌︘Μ禣琌ォミヘ翠カチ栋戈郸菠┦γ矪瞶璸购犁笲膀膚窥
琌Τ穦拜狦⊿Τカチ渤腊も膚窥︙犁笲膀笷Μやキ颗
瞶畊ネи稱翴陪現┎ㄤ龟琌盢硂"逼γそ狝叭"犁笲膀よΑ暗咀絙礟崩ㄇ現┎莱璽砫ヴи-
┕琌硓筁贺祙兜や逼γ砞琁禣ノ狦瞷現┎或そ狝叭常璶Μやキ颗ΜΘセи碞ぃ笵и-
祙蹿╯澈︙笲ノ現┎癸猔戈γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀崩積Чぃ腀種璽踞癬硂ㄇ"そ狝叭"场だ砫ヴи稰Чア辨
瞶畊ネ程и粄現┎浪癚γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀莱赣穝σ納琌ゲ斗盢︘紉Μ逼γ禣ぇ
セ略朝勉や某
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉瞶畊ネミ猭Ы琍戳∕Τ闽逼γ禣㎝坝γ禣基ビ叫讽らи竒睲贰は琈穨癸逼γ禣贺贺好拜ㄤ龟γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀贺贺拜肈ぃ琌硂Ω禣ビ叫癚疊瞷ㄆ龟Ν秨﹍紉Μ逼γ禣ぃ碞竒Τよ俱璸购ぃТぇ矪┮иや谅ッ闹某某
и獺γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀程惠璶浪癚琌俱挡篶竒蕾痲Τ┦㎝そキ┦瞷膀笲睼睹㎝ぃ耞Τ禗薄猵現┎龟莱赣荷еЧΘ浪癚沮続诀㎝Μ禣рΜ禣秸俱︓瞶キ
闽瞷坝穨γ禣и稱現┎秆睦ㄢ拜肈琌現┎︙络璹繺繻穨ΤΘノ穦程沧てΘγ硂ゑ瞯緿瑆厩て秸琩琌Θ繺繻穨ノ穦γㄓ逼現┎Τ⊿Τ暗筁秸琩妓秸琩临琌現┎琌獺慧独矗ゑ瞯ㄤΩ現┎︙﹚獶借恨跋㎝借恨跋竩γて厩惠秖
現┎瞷まノ逼γ沮秸琩琌崩︽借恨跋猽‵〤︓纒芖硂獶借恨跋ず暗筁γ秸琩硂秸琩セぃ琌璸衡逼γτ暗┾琩琌筳猳ずゼ竒矪瞶γ⊿Τ北吏挂跑计現┎虫よ"簿从"⊿Τ⊿Τ┦ぃ厩てτぃ闽秸琩セō竒ぃТ到佩琌赣Ω秸琩ぇずセтぃ惠秖–ミよμ3 600硂计現┎咎或璸衡獶借恨跋γ禣夹非㎡
抡琌現┎琌咎︳璸借恨跋ず繺繻穨γて厩惠秖–ミよμ2 000硈墩ぃ厩て秸琩常ろ現┎琌ぃ琌瞷Τ猭ㄒぇい穦胓籃êㄇ借恨跋ず逼惠秖–ミよμ2 000γ坝穨暗"簿从も砃"硂计ノ碞衡㎡
瓃ㄢ拜肈琌程膀セ拜肈и-
临Τ拜肈拜現┎ㄒ︙パ30︽穨璽踞坝穨γ禣挡狦琌繺繻穨︽穨碞┯踞羆Μ82%璶煤2.8货じΤ︗み睲穨纯璸衡產い礜逼γ禣琌翴き疉の逼γ禣ノ碞璶睝琌產い礜23螟笵硂ㄇ窥碞ぃ穦锣儿禣ō碞ぃ穦紇臫チネ
抡粇琌俱禗Ч琌蝴臔現┎靡璸衡岿粇ご礛ノ岿计沮ㄓΜ㎝膥尿Μγ禣
龟龟ㄒΤ丁竩るΜ禣虫きる矗禗現┎璶ㄢる逼戳矪瞶竒て喷る┏碞ガ禗眔現┎琌硂て喷挡狦ㄓ璸衡ゼㄓるγ禣癸パる︓る┮Μ窥澈ぃ癶临硂籔眏穖Τ或だ㎡
""琌禗眔Τ戳ぇ現┎穦ノ岿粇安砞ㄓ璸衡γ禣竩璶穝暗Ω禗
癸硂祘ぞノ窥τぃ發癚煤禣ノ禗現┎狦らぃэタ俱禗诀碞穦瞋現┎ノㄓ溃篰カチも琿τ
斗笵и-
┮弧–﹙禗ぃ琌碭じㄆτ琌璶ノ窾じㄓ暗て喷ㄏ禗眔現┎ぃ穦干纕坝穨竒犁靡現┎デ岿τま璓や硂╯澈琌或笵瞶現┎琌璶胓籃êㄇぃ狝矗禗狥
沮戈陪ボΤ90%竩–煤ユγ禣ぶ3窾じ現┎禗砞璸礚好穦ゴ阑硂ㄇ坝め禗種饼現┎琌セ碞Τみ-
砞螟闽-
ぃ幢矗禗㎡
и-
胔好現┎ΞΜ窥ㄒ靡﹟ぃゎ借恨跋兵ㄒぇ吏玂竝澈礛┶荡―竩矗ㄑヴ︙硚畖搭ぶγい猳Θ琌弧Τ快猭暗眔硈︙矪高拜冈薄吏玂竝常┶荡矗ㄑ戈
現┎ぃ砫┣и-
癸現┎у蝶ㄆ龟琌現┎セō吏玂虑笷鞬癩璙現τ澈礛ΤセЫ某碞ヘや硂璙現︓┣砫и-
琌み獶硂琌Ч簔跌セЫ莱Τ砫ヴ絋玂現┎瞶磅︽現郸玥現┎Ξ籃窥Μ窥セぃ琌眖搭ぶγ琕吏玂à硂▆種腀祇螟┣都穨常璶弧"娩Τ溯﹀蔦"
и纯竒稱碞硂γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀浪癚さ穦戳ずΘミ盡砫〆穦ㄓち龟蛤秈ぃ筁盡砫〆穦ヴ戳ゲ斗繦ミ猭Ыヰ穦τ沧ゎ現┎ボ臮拜そ穦碞Τ闽拜肈秈︽浪癚и辨矗硂妓某
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉や某
辩模┚某璓勉瞶畊ネ癸逼γ禣γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀の措叭竝ら瞷и稱矗碭翴種ǎ
材翴︘ノめγ琕拜肈現┎癸γ琕﹚竡ぃ阶︘┪坝め阀﹚γ琕霉不瓣某癸γ琕だ猂и琌だ觅疭癸︘めよㄆ龟и-
產瞶秆︘め逼γㄤ龟琌ゲ惠籔ㄇネ種Τ痲Μ琌Чぃ堡現┎⊿Τ眖硂à稱稱硂拜肈琌盢"γ琕"硂嘿窖︘ノめō獽紉Μ硂禣ノτ硂禣ノㄤ龟ョ跑Θ紉祙祙ㄤ龟琌繷祙狦痷跌祙兜杠иぃΤ或瞶パ現┎璶ォミヘ砞繷祙ㄤ龟現┎瞷临Τ緇或临璶疭糤兜祙Μ㎡┮硂琌ぃ瞶狦現┎膥尿"γ琕"瞶沮癸︘め紉Μ逼γ禣龟琌礚瞶暗猭и荡癸は癸硂妓暗
材翴Τ闽癸坝穨紉Μ逼γ禣ㄤ龟狦и-
睲贰硂暗猭杠и-
辨坝め逼ぶㄇγ琌現┎瞷暗猭セ⊿Τ贺躬纘ノτ琌笷胓籃ノㄤ瓣產癸紉Μ逼γ禣常Τぃ瞶秆ㄒ蝗︽程厨瓣竒喷陪ボ猠いだγ琕獶ㄓ︑硂ㄇт逼ㄓ方穨跋瘤礛坝穨逼"逼γ禣"ぃ獀俱砰γ琕拜肈"逼γ禣"癸吏玂ョ獶盽Τ猵坝穨紉Μγ禣熬ㄆ干纕セ笷ぃ箇ňγ琕Τ坝穨┕┕盢逼γ禣Θセぇい程沧锣儿禣ō┮ㄤ龟癸êㄇセ癬ぃヴ︙ノ礚阶眖吏玂à┪カチ禣àㄓ硂逼γ禣のγ禣現郸常琌Чア毖
材翴措叭竝ゴ衡ゼㄓ碩糤逼γ禣笷168%ㄏγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀Μ笲Θセи粄戈筪γ逼砞妮膀娄砞莱パ現┎璽砫砍ぃ莱パ︘め┪坝め舥ださΩパ現┎ゴ岿衡絃璶碩禣妮礚絔
材翴琍戳ミ猭Ы∕糤逼γ禣玡碭ぱ現┎羘盢きずΜΘセヘ夹戳┑︓и獺硂某癸俱逼γ璸购⊿Τ腊ㄤ龟程璶琌現┎碩糤猔戈秆∕拜肈璝眖硂àσ納杠はτ琌暗眔讽
材き翴現┎竒盽眏秸甀弧紉Μ逼γ禣琌ミ猭Ы某硄筁現郸绰э㎡ぃ筁現┎礚稱瞏糷ㄤ龟и-
畒砛ミ猭Ы某常ぃ琌某辨現┎跌硂ミ猭Ы某種ǎ埃ぇㄤ龟–ンㄆ穦ぃ耞э跑疭琌竒筁ㄇ丁σ喷ぇ辨現┎σ納ㄆ薄и-
ぃ茎Θ砏и-
璶ǎ穦秈˙и-
璶眖竒喷い眔ㄇ稱猭и-
ǎミ猭Ы–Τㄇ璹猭ㄤ龟琌或㎡碞琌ㄇ筁┪ぃ癸猭ㄒ莱璹筁ㄓ┮и辨現┎ぃ璶盽盽ノミ猭Ы硄筁某τ咀絙礟ぃ耞糤γ逼γ禣
ㄤ龟現┎さるΘミ阁场舱浪癚γ禣璶る〆竨臮拜そ碞赣璸购秈︽╯箇璸る┏ЧΘи谋眔┣琂礛現┎る弧穦Θミ阁场舱╯或璶т丁臮拜そ秈˙╯璸购㎡硂暗猭琌禣そ┊㎡ㄤ龟и辨現┎镑フンㄆ璶龟筋吏玂莱赣妓箇ňτぃ琌虑吏玂ㄆ篤禕┮и辨現┎╯妓箇ňγ琕τぃ琌妓癸и-
紉禣
瞶畊ネセ略朝勉
朝挪狶某璓勉瞶畊ネи獺さ贬и祇ē琌и︑ヴミ猭Ы某ㄓ程祏絞簍勉癸逼γ禣のγ矪瞶╰参拜肈チ羛ミ初睲捶チ羛や"γ琕︑"玥﹚γ琕и-
粄約カチら盽ネ逼γぃ莱γ矪瞶璶癸禜膀瞶パ現┎セぃ莱カチ紉Μ產畑ノ逼γ禣
タиㄆ朝胞糭某┮弧カチら盽逼γ馋獶痷惠璶200货じγ矪瞶╰参ㄓ矪瞶盾
琍戳セЫ挡逼γ禣ぇ現┎蔼﹛纯Ω羘ē穦糤祙Μㄓ辣干秨や笷ΜΘセ瞶畊ネ拜肈陪現┎璶―硄筁砞γ矪瞶╰参碞弧吏玂笵瞶獺粆スス某らカチ璽踞琌ぶ琌さぱ現┎竒癸吏玂硂拜肈弧ぶはτ纞カチ孔璝ぃ糤逼γ璽踞杠獽穦瞷ぶ秖γ琕瑉禟秖γ琕硂瞶阶
さぱ眖и-
臛阶い碞秆某ㄤ龟竒硋亥眶谋-
ら砆現┎┮籜腇礚好さぱカチ斗璶ら逼γ禣ノ璽踞だ↖┯踞現┎莱穝浪癚犁笲膀ㄤら笲莱妓矪瞶谅谅瞶畊ネ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
糕蚌┚某璓勉畊ネи秏朝挪狶某笷и種ǎ碞琌產蒥チ種ǎミ猭Ы倒и兵拜и琌稱祇ēи稱и稱弧笵瞶碞琌翠現┎癸產礚┮璶―笵瞶碞琌и-
璶宽翠猭碞琌ゼㄓちパ產磝搐產Г辨ぱぱ籔ち翠蒥チ癸產璶―碞琌そタ笷產種ǎゼㄓだ牧甃ㄎ瞶某瞒畒и璶―きだ牧ず都稱都皊碞琌痷薄ㄨ渤
PRESIDENT: Mr CHIM Pui-chung, please speak to the question. You are not suggesting that Mr Ronald ARCULLI drinks the sewage, are you?
糕蚌┚某纯胺Θ某е璶ㄓ癸к某碞琌癸-
溃碞琌ちぃ或碞琌產秨み絵璣瓣現┎碸﹚眃瞷タ何痸いи-
︙斗ê或候眎琌盾ゼㄓちゼㄓ疭跋現┎癸翠蒥チ璶―碞琌癸痷タゼㄓ痷タゼㄓ碞琌痷港ち痷港ち碞⊿Τ弧安弧杠и綤......ゼㄓ蒥チち碞琌и-
ッ环現烩旧и-
秨み畊烩旧秈˙и-
稱暗ㄆиぃ稱弧杠甃ㄎ瞶某稱弧叫癬ㄓи弧杠 What do you want to say?
PRESIDENT: May I remind Members to speak to the question?
叭璓勉畊ネи-
琍戳ミ猭Ы穦某竒臛阶糤Μ逼γ禣の坝穨γ禣某現┎Τ阶沮ㄒ癸都穨㎝產畑璽踞紇臫иぃ非称狡Τ某粄炊硄蒥チ礚斗璽踞逼γ禣ノ產ちづа癘–ぱΤ600窾逼γи獺現┎基よ竒σ納穦竒蕾璽踞框狙ミ猭Ы硄筁挡ㄢ兜Μ禣瞷Τキ羭祇岿粇癟倒蒥チ渤碞琌γ琕礚斗-
琕γ吏挂τ璽砫
さぱ谅ッ闹某矗浪癚γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀某倒и诀穦Ωユγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀ゼㄓよ
γ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀琌るノ∕某ΑΘミΘミ犁笲膀ボミ猭Ы種逼γΜ禣盢ノや犁笲膀场竒犁Θセи獺硂琌Ч才"γ琕︑"玥
沮Τ闽兵ㄒ犁笲膀斗璶ミ猭Ыのそ渤ユ┮ΤΜ㎝やΤ闽眀ヘパ计竝縒ミ┦絔るらи盢︓き犁笲膀眀ヘ矗ユミ猭Ы糵綷琵︗睲贰笵眀ヘずだ睝常琌ノγ狝叭犁笲禣ノ埃ぇ谅某璶―┕盢щ戈措叭祘禣ノ猔膀ㄤ龟現┎场猔戈砍硂ㄇ逼γ砞琁膀禣ノ僚硂ㄇ砞琁ч侣やγ琕┮禣ノ琌やγ矪瞶ら盽笲の砞琁蝴禣ノ
谅某さΩ某㎝琍戳璣某簍勉常矗の璶―┑膀笷璓Μやキ颗戳ㄆ龟せるら舱〆穦穦某現┎矗兜璹某犁笲膀竒犁Θセ篔埃ч侣セ戳パㄓゴ衡︓箂箂箂笷璓┑箂箂︓箂き笷璓谅某ョ矗の–キА糤20%ㄤ龟琌и-
ㄤい璸衡よ猭琌某癸и-
某⊿Τ冈灿癚阶のだ猂и港赖辨︗某㎝現┎癬坝癚т產钡よγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀笷璓Μやキ颗
猔戈犁笲膀ㄓや犁笲秨や琌ぃ才犁笲膀兵ㄒ璶―籔犁笲膀莱Μや╄玥ぃ才猔戈狦琌ノ祙窥ㄓ干禟γ琕硂ョ琌笻璉"γ琕︑"玥и-
龟螟秆睦︙璶祙γ琕┯踞矪瞶γ禣ノ
挡現┎逼γ禣の坝穨γ禣瞷Τキ盢ㄏγ矪瞶犁笲膀蹿兜さ┏︓荷τ旧璓き︓せ盢Τ6,600窾じí逼γΜ禣ぃ糤タ谅某┮弧埃癩現íㄤいよ猭碞Τ搭ㄇň縨┦蝴兜ヘ┪р穝ЧΘ砞琁┑筐щ狝叭讽礛硂薄琌и-
ぃ腀種ョ穦и-
э到翠借腨ゴ阑
闽虏てγ禣禗も尿и琍戳ミ猭Ы臛阶讽Ы穦〆臮拜そ浪癚瞷︽坝穨γ禣τㄤい穦珹浪癚瞷︽禗祘硂浪癚穦ЧΘτи-
穦ミ猭Ы舱蹲厨浪癚挡狦
畊ネ翠γ琕笷ㄨぃ甧絯˙γ矪瞶犁笲膀璝ぃ笲盢穦翠γ琕秈˙碿てи赖叫︗某膥尿や"γ琕︑"玥現┎舧籔︗某碝―︽よγ矪瞶狝叭犁笲膀︽よ笲谅谅畊ネ
PRESIDENT: Dr John TSE, you are now entitled to reply and you have four minutes 10 seconds out of you original 15 minutes.
谅ッ闹某璓勉畊ネи稱莱叭基秆∕γ琕拜肈Τカチ蛤и弧暗蔼﹛琌暗璶来眔基秆∕拜肈獽琌Τ蔼﹛и弧某常琌暗璶来は癸基獽秆∕拜肈
иさ边蔼砍莱弧さΝ蔼砍Τ硂或某やи硂ミ初伐ぶǎミ猭Ы璓や某ㄤ龟14︗某祇ēい埃糕蚌┚某弧秨みぇ埃Τ︗某弧現┎ぃ莱紉Μ逼γ禣и-
璓常Τ醚碞琌场だ某常璶―猔戈τ癸叭砮ミ初孔ぃ非称猔戈и稰ア辨埃ぶ城某ぇ畉ぃ┮Τ某常璶―猔戈
и┮ǎ材ミ初琌某粄ΜΘセ硉びе辨┑セ戳Τ某借好Θセ痲и獺硂翴㎝祔材翴矗阶琌某常や荷е浪癚膀笲產А粄膀瞷笲硓ㄏミ猭Ы螟菏诡ウ竒犁某矗のㄇ会種ǎ璣某某現┎秨方カ現Ыもゑ耕╯澈猳礶ы┪琌チネи稱硂よ琌眔現┎贝癚
朝篴篱某繺都穨矗êよ拜肈借高吭高ぃì拜肈霉不瓣某弧逼γ禣繷祙硂阀├眔ぃぶ某┮粄某伐璶―猔戈堡叭⊿Τ秆睦︙現┎ぃ猔戈ぃ猔戈杠產常笵狦琌讽腨ㄏΤí璝璶禪璶Τ""ê或иぃ種膀斗璽踞
и辨現┎σ納и矗某ㄤ龟и┮矗某琌会放㎝璝パㄤ某矗︓璶―ぃ紉Μ逼γ禣ê獽罺璓紉Μ逼γ禣程沧ヘ琌э到吏挂э到翠借玂臔辰摸偿ネ笆摸︓矗ㄑ笴栏笆丁翠Τ舮瞷ぃ村猘и辨現┎逼γ㎝睲间吏挂よ穦縩伐э到谅谅畊ネ
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
STATIONING OF CHINESE ARMED FORCES IN HONG KONG AFTER 1997
DR ANTHONY CHEUNG to move the following motion:
"セЫ玃叫い瓣現┎﹚猭ㄒ砏恨ゼㄓ翠疭︽現跋"疭跋"緉瓁莱
(a) 碞览いΤ闽猭ㄒ翠カチ秈︽そ秨吭高痷タ钮よ種ǎ
(b) 猭ㄒい兵蹿絋玂緉瓁ぃ箇疭跋ず场ㄆ叭τ穦疭跋︽現﹛タΑㄌ猭矗叫―秸蝴穦獀㎝毕╝の
(c) 猭ㄒい兵蹿絋玂緉瓁翠疉のチㄆ禗砠のㄆ竜︽А翠猭皘猭恨烈舦砏恨
笷璓だ砰瞷羛羘ず"瓣ㄢ""翠︑獀"の"蔼︑獀"弘"
眎▆某璓勉畊ネи笆某硄筁某ㄆ祘ず更и某
さぱ矗"い瓣秆瓁緉翠"某臛阶琌挪い瓣現┎瞷タ览猭砏恨ゼㄓ緉翠疭︽現跋秆瓁笆㎝︽Τ厨笵弧硂緉瓁猭穦さ┏览称Тユ倒疭跋膚〆穦癚阶矗ユ瓣硄筁箋ガチ囊粄瞷緉瓁猭ご览顶琿セЫ碞揭肈臛阶矗よ種ǎ虑盿癬蒥チ癚阶琌獶盽の㎝ゲ璶
и-
粄い瓣現┎览﹚緉瓁猭絑莱赣рよそガそ秨吭高翠痷タ钮よ種ǎ︙硓筁緉瓁猭ㄣ砰砏恨ソㄓ緉翠秆瓁à︹㎝︽︙络睲癸緉翠秆瓁猭恨烈舦癸翠龟Τちō闽玒览緉瓁猭筁祘いの箋ガ玡ぃ莱疭跋膚〆穦ず场吭高τ莱碞讽いず甧翠約獂㎝そ秨吭高穦種ǎ硂妓絋玂盢ㄓ緉瓁猭箋ガ約翠┮钡
畊ネ緉瓁い瓣舦禜紉硂翴и-
ぃ穦借好τ膀セ猭材兵ずΤ闽緉翠秆瓁璶玥緉瓁璽砫ň叭ぃ箇疭跋ず現のΤ疭跋現┎矗叫翠穦獀の毕╝и-
琌や絋﹚ゼㄓ緉翠秆瓁à︹緉瓁猭いΤゲ璶ビ瓃玥沮秈˙兵瓃㎝砏絛
ㄤい翠程闽み琌╯澈或薄猵穦秸笆瓁钉㎡膀セ猭材兵琌﹚膀セ玥"翠疭︽現跋現┎ゲ璶いァチ現┎叫―緉瓁蝴穦獀㎝毕╝甡"硂玥龟悔瞣疉ㄢ糷碞琌矗叫舦の秸瓁舦矗叫舦皐癸﹚︙Τ舦矗叫秸笆瓁钉の矗叫莱宽碻祘逼单τ秸瓁舦玥砏︙局Τ秸笆瓁钉舦㎝秸笆祘逼单膀ㄤ瓣Τ闽瓁钉矗叫常パ跋程蔼現┎烩旧篋盽暗猭и-
某矗叫舦ㄣ砰莱妮ゼㄓ疭跋︽現﹛︓秸瓁舦よи-
碙いァ現┎瞷Τ闽舦珿莱パゼㄓいァ現┎钡︽現﹛タΑㄌ猭矗叫竒ㄌ猭糵璝種笷秸笆緉翠场钉㏑チ囊粄秸笆緉瓁矗叫ぃ莱パ疭跋︽現﹛钡緉翠秆瓁矗秸笆舦莱ㄓ︑いァ現┎のㄤ秸瓁╰参秸笆ヘ蝴穦獀㎝毕╝甡埃獶疉の驹篈ň叭玥逼莱赣緉瓁猭い碞Τ闽祘砏﹚い瓣現┎﹚緉瓁猭莱眖いァ現┎à碞矗叫舦㎝秸瓁舦硂ㄢ舦絋砏絛
よΤ闽矗叫舦よ菏诡璶︙孔"Τゲ璶"︙孔"穦獀"︙孔"毕╝甡"单常琌妮疭跋︽現﹛癸薄猵и-
矗某ゼㄓ疭跋莱碞硂よσ納秈︽セミ猭磷硂緉瓁矗叫舦ぃ砆垒ノ盢ㄓ疭跋Τゲ璶碞Τ闽矗叫舦笲ノ﹚猭ㄒ璹闽诀ㄏ疭跋︽現﹛Τ猭ㄌ薄猵続讽笲ノㄤ矗叫舦ㄣ砰ㄓ弧疭跋︽現﹛莱荷秖いァ現┎秸笆緉瓁矗叫ミ猭诀闽硄厨㎝秆睦钡ゲ璶借高安璝薄猵候璶程祏丁ずそ渤ユの疭跋ミ猭穦矗ユ厨
畊ネゼㄓ緉瓁程璶拜肈琌秆瓁猭恨烈舦拜肈ヘ玡膀セ猭材兵砏﹚緉瓁埃斗宽瓣┦猭临斗宽疭跋猭琌ㄣ砰猭恨烈舦︙︽ㄏ玱ゼΤ睲捶﹚猭恨烈舦┮疉の琌讽緉瓁瞣疉チㄆ┪ㄆン莱︙矪瞶╯澈琌ユパ秆瓁瓁ㄆ猭皘糵瞶ы┪琌ユパ疭跋チㄆ猭皘糵瞶Τ贺種ǎ粄莱赣蹦ノ"瓁ㄆ猭皘纔"玥琌弧讽瓁疉のチㄆ┪ㄆ禗砠莱钩嘲矪瞶场钉疉暗猭阀ユパ瓁ㄆ猭皘糵瞶τΤ讽瓁ㄆ猭皘∕﹚ぃぉ瞶ユパチㄆ猭皘矪瞶硂贺種ǎパ秆瓁ㄓ常い瓣猭砏恨抖瞶Θ彻-
ゑ耕剪眡ず猭癸龟︽炊硄猭翠ぃ秆璝蹦ノ翠猭砏恨-
穦硑Θ螟よ秆瓁︗ゑ耕疭蹦ノ-
耕剪眡猭穦搭ぶ盢ㄓ猭┮ま癬侥
ㄆ龟い瓣瓣ず戳蹦ノ"瓁ㄆ猭皘纔"玥Νき"程蔼チ猭皘闽瞷瓁籔竤渤丁祇ネ恨烈舦у滦"い竒睲贰狦瓁砆玥ユパ瓁ㄆ猭皘矪瞶狦砆琌キチ玥パ┮妮チㄆ猭皘矪瞶"闽瓁钉㎝よが疉ン碭拜肈砏﹚"ビ硂"瓁ㄆ猭皘纔"玥琌璝癸緉瓁猭猽ノ硂玥玥穦┛菠"瓣ㄢ"翠硂""疭┦チ囊粄ゼㄓ疭跋緉瓁猭莱赣暗"才"才"瓣ㄢ"弘才膀セ猭の才翠剪眡砏恨の猭玥膀セ猭材兵絋砏﹚緉瓁璶宽疭跋猭硂疭跋猭珹炊硄猭㎝Θゅミ猭单τ膀セ猭材兵いゼㄓ翠疭︽現跋猭皘癸疭跋┮ΤンАΤЧ俱猭糵舦Τ瓣產︽埃ち癸緉瓁蹦ノ"瓁ㄆ猭皘纔"玥ぃだ砰瞷疭跋猭皘┮局Τ猭糵舦ぃ砰瞷"瓣ㄢ"翠硂""猭膥尿︽炊硄猭弘疭┦チ囊粄Τ蹦ノ"チㄆ猭皘纔"玥炊硄猭弘ㄣ砰よ猭
琌疉の獶磅对の瓁犁┦借瓁籔キチ┪瓁籔瓁ぇ丁チㄆㄆン阀"チㄆ猭皘纔"玥莱ユパチㄆ猭皘糵瞶埃獶チㄆ猭皘粄ぃ続﹜ユパ瓁ㄆ猭皘矪瞶
璝琌瓁籔瓁丁ンτ疉翴瓁犁ず玥"瓁ㄆ猭皘纔"玥璝瓁よ穦疭跋︽現﹛ぃゴ衡瓁ㄆ猭皘糵瞶︽現﹛玥倒ぉΤ闽靡ゅンτン碞ユパ疭跋猭皘糵瞶
┪Τ種ǎ粄瞷緉翠璣瓁猭恨烈舦渡"瓁ㄆ猭皘纔"ê或︙ぃ猽ノ㎡ㄆ龟瞷璣瓁琌崔チ緉瓁Α秈緉翠籔ゼㄓ緉翠秆瓁"瓣"絛氓緉瓁ΑΤ┮ぃ緉翠璣瓁蹦ノ"瓁ㄆ猭皘纔"玥τぃ琌蹦ノ璣瓣炊硄猭猽ノ"チㄆ猭皘纔"暗猭セō碞琌贺崔チ莱ぉ
硂崔チ緉瓁暗猭璴ネ璣瓁瞷セ猭ㄒㄉΤぃぶ舦㎝僚Τ闽舦㎝僚琌莱赣┑尿琌拜肈ㄇ種ǎ粄搭陈沸┦р瞷床ǎ翠κ兵セ猭ㄒいΤ闽璣瓁舦㎝烈虏虫秈︽"続莱て"эΘパ秆瓁ㄉΤ獽硂暗猭穦р瞷璣瓁崔チ緉瓁τㄉΤ疭舦┑尿ぃ才盢ㄓ"瓣"絛氓緉瓁︗チ囊眎緉瓁舦㎝僚莱緉瓁ヴ叭龟悔惠璶逼ㄇ瞷逼Τㄇ琌方︑璣瓣癸崔チ緉瓁ぃキ单現獀闽玒Τㄇ丁筁环璓筁珿ゲ斗碞瞷緉翠璣瓁舦㎝僚硋╯琌惠璶玂痙┪
畊ネぃぶ翠癸秆瓁緉瓁Τ硂妓┪ê妓紐納琌芠瞷龟-
紐納ぃ琌秆瓁暗ぃ猌ぇ畍τ琌暗猭ぇ畍ぃ穌疭舦ぃ箇翠疭跋ず场ㄆ叭安緉瓁猭皐癸緉瓁à︹ヴ叭秸笆の猭恨烈单兜闽龄┦拜肈竒約獂吭高翠よ種ǎ璹睲贰τ"瓣ㄢ"㎝膀セ猭ㄣ砰砏玥穦Τ絋ミ緉瓁腨禜
畊ネセ略朝勉矗某
Question on the motion proposed.
PRESIDENT: Mr IP Kwok-him has given notice to move an amendment to this motion. His amendment has been printed on the Order Paper and circularized to Members. I propose that the motion and the amendment be debated together in a joint debate.
Council shall debate the motion and the amendment together in a joint debate. I now call on Mr IP Kwok-him to speak and to move his amendment. After I have proposed the question on the amendment, Members may express their views on the motion and the amendment.
MR IP KWOK-HIM's amendment to DR ANTHONY CHEUNG's motion:
"埃"セЫ"ぇ┮Τゅ
"やい瓣現┎﹚ゼㄓ翠疭︽現跋緉瓁猭辅龟膀セ猭材彻材兵い砏﹚いァチ現┎緉翠疭︽現跋璽砫ň叭瓁钉ぃ箇翠疭︽現跋よㄆ叭翠疭︽現跋現┎ゲ璶いァチ現┎叫―緉瓁蝴穦獀㎝毕╝甡の緉瓁埃斗宽瓣┦猭临斗宽翠疭︽現跋猭""
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊ネи笆某タ眎▆某某タず甧某ㄆ祘ずи┮更
畊ネい瓣缓秆瓁緉翠琌砰瞷舦耴璶禜紉チ羛ョ種翠莱縩伐癸盢ㄓ緉瓁猭ず甧矗種ǎチ羛纯筁ㄊ籔瓣叭皘捌羆瞶窥ㄤ礰ネ瓣叭皘翠緿快ヴ緗キネチ秆瓁捌羆把垦畗磃逮ネ贝癚緉瓁猭籔疭跋猭皘猭恨烈舦拜肈緉瓁︙籔疭跋現┎ㄤ场秸︓翠程闽み秆瓁禜单拜肈チ羛硓筁硂よ眔絋獺緉瓁猭埃穦絋砏﹚いァ恨瞶セ翠ň叭㎝緉瓁膀セ玥の現郸ョ穦砏﹚緉瓁戮砫籔舦の癸緉瓁籔竡叭
畊ネ某璶―﹚緉瓁猭い瓣現┎そ秨吭高翠種ǎぃ眎某矗硂兜璶―Τσ納翠瞷龟悔薄猵い瓣現┎セぃ碞览疭跋緉瓁猭翠カチ秈︽"そ秨吭高"緉瓁猭琌い瓣猭疭跋Τ舦璶―秆瓁埃宽い瓣猭璶宽疭跋猭τ礚舦璶―い瓣︙璹﹚緉瓁猭畊ネ安璝眎某矗硂妓璶―莉硄筁チ羛踞み穦硑Θ安禜い瓣現┎硈そ秨吭高ぃ秈︽い瓣現┎┶荡钮翠種ǎ臮翠種腀硂琌チ羛琌и-
翠カチ程ぃ辨ǎ
チ羛粄翠莱だノ翠瞷Τ措笵ㄒ硓筁疭跋膚〆穦縩伐矗種ǎㄑずΤ闽癬緉瓁猭场把σそ秨吭高暗猭┤琌妮"钮ノ"
眎某ら玡そガ︙购だ盢ㄓ疭跋猭皘籔緉瓁瓁ㄆ猭皘猭恨烈舦某龟瞷┮孔"チㄆ猭皘纔玥"沮眎某稱猭い瓣緉瓁狦牟デセ翠猭τ赣︽疉の炊硄カチ杠Τ闽ン獽莱ユパ疭跋猭皘糵瞶
ヘ玡翠ㄒ瘤礛猭砏﹚緉翠璣瓁斗宽セ翠猭セ翠猭畑Τ舦癸Τ闽笻猭︽秈︽糵癟琌璝Τ闽璣瓁琌磅︽ヴ叭戳丁デ猭τ赣︽籔ㄤヴ叭Τ闽杠玥Τ闽ン獽穦ユパ璣瓣瓁ㄆ猭畑璽砫糵瞶
畊ネㄤ龟瓣產猭诀篶琌ぃ穦糵瞶ヴ︙疉の瓁ㄆ磅对祇ネン硂琌瓣產硄盽暗猭ぃ穦琌崔チ硂妓暗穦Τ踞みらい瓣緉瓁猭穦玠畓疭跋癸緉瓁猭恨烈硂兜ǎ秆┪弧琌粇秆龟琌岿粇疭跋Τ闽緉瓁猭恨烈舦拜肈羛羘の膀セ猭Ν睲贰玥┦砏絛膀セ猭材兵砏﹚緉瓁ぃ穦箇疭跋ず场ㄆ叭埃宽い瓣猭-
临璶宽疭跋猭膀セ猭材兵絋翠疭︽現跋ㄉΤ縒ミ猭舦㎝沧糵舦埃瞷赣兵材蹿の材蹿┮砏﹚薄猵疭︽現跋猭皘癸瓣ňユ单瓣產︽礚恨烈舦疭跋猭皘癸┮ΤンАΤ糵舦
パǎ盢ㄓ疭跋Τ闽緉瓁猭恨烈舦拜肈Τ睲贰砏絛и-
某眎某┾丁灿弄膀セ猭硂よ阶瓃
畊ネさぱ某臛阶琌セЫ硈尿材琍戳癚阶Τ闽癸"辅龟膀セ猭獺み诀"肈ヘ臛阶肈ヘΤ翴ぉ稰谋禫玔┐笵セЫ场だ某竒盽璶玃叫い瓣現┎暗硂暗êチ羛粄矪瞶ヴ︙ㄆ薄常莱量―"タē抖"疭ミ猭诀闽硂琌璶瞷ミ猭Ы琌崔チ舅琜篶场だミ猭Ы矗某莱赣翠┎琁現絛瞅チ囊ㄆ玱钡硈矗禬禫ミ猭Ы戮某龟稰框狙иゲ斗Ω眏秸チ羛ぃ琌は癸翠カチい瓣現┎は琈種ǎミ猭Ы某ミ猭Ыず碞莱赣暗ㄇㄤだタ絋硚畖莱赣琌硓筁翠現┎い瓣現┎硂よ笷種ǎ
畊ネセのチ羛ㄆ粄琂礛羛羘㎝膀セ猭Τ絋砏絛τい瓣現┎烩旧ョΩ翠玂靡ヘ玡い璣羛羛蹈舱ョΘミ獶タΑ盡產舱╯Τ闽拜肈и-
Τ瞶パ獺盢ㄓ箋ガ緉瓁猭盢穦腨恨緉瓁翠笆の癸疭跋猭恨烈舦矗ㄑだ玂毁
セ略朝勉矗タ
PRESIDENT: May I enquire, Mr IP, whether you were raising a point of order in your speech or were you making a political point when you said that some motions had exceeded the scope of the power of this Council?
Question on the amendment proposed.
MR DAVID CHU: Mr President, before pressing on, let me say my amendment has been fused with that by the Honourable IP Kwok-him. Our joint effort is intended to illustrate in the clearest terms two opposite approaches towards the future garrison. One approach is fear mongering and another is calm thinking.
Over these three weeks, we have indeed been treated to consecutive motions which have one aim: To fan anxiety about our future with fewer than 365 days to go before China regains sovereignty of Hong Kong. I find both the content and the timing of these motions deplorable. As chosen leaders of our community, we should be easing rather than stirring up public fears.
The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is not a force of foreign occupation. The PLA soldiers are not our enemies. They are the young sons and daughters of people who are like us, people with feelings. They will miss their parents and friends. We should welcome them just as we have long done the same for the British troops. We must not alienate or ostracize them to score political points.
The responsibilities of the PLA garrison are listed clearly in Basic Law Article 14 which states: "Military forces stationed by the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for defence shall not interfere in local affairs of the Region. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may, when necessary, ask the Central People's Government for assistance from the garrison in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief."
The future role of the PLA is virtually identical to that of the British garrison since 1841. Those of us who have observed the PLA's drills and its high discipline have no doubt that the soldiers posted here will serve with honour and distinction.
Let us debunk a few myths about the PLA as a government within a government. The Vice-Chairman of the Chinese Central Military Commission, General LIU Huaqing, has outlined five broad principles governing the PLA garrison. These principles concern: duties and limits of the power of the garrison; management of that garrison; relations and communication between the garrison and the SAR; relations between the troops' affiliation and leadership command, and the Central Government's management of the garrison for defence purposes. None of these principles threatens the autonomy of the SAR and the liberty of the people of the SAR. They are all derived from Basic Law Article 14.
The future Hong Kong PLA commander Major General LIU Zhenwu has suggested to the British counterpart that the Chinese garrison here may number around 9 000 troops. Such a garrison strength is significantly lower than the 25 000 British troops stationed here at the time the Joint Declaration was signed. We can be sure that our police can deal with public order and also work with the garrison. The PLA will provide maritime patrol and external security just as the British Forces have done for decades.
The motion today also calls for the PLA to be subject to SAR laws. Of course, soldiers outside the barracks are subject to SAR laws just like everyone else. The chances for them breaking the law are, however, slim since they are to have their rest and recuperation not in Tsim Sha Tsui but in Shenzhen.
The PLA will not be a burden on the SAR. The Chinese Central Government shall pay for its full deployment unlike today in which we must continue to pay part of the British garrison's costs. The PLA will cause us no harm, but do us plenty of good. For this, those behind the motion today have not shown enough gratitude.
The Chinese military has voluntarily ceded to Hong Kong between $65 billion and $100 billion worth of defence land for our commercial and residential development. Nobody recalls such generosity from the British Forces.
Yes, I ask legislators to support the amendment so as to send the correct message to China and to its PLA. I want more. I want Hong Kong groups, particularly the youths, to organize regular social events that involve the PLA. By getting together, the soldiers and the civilians would come to know each other better and overcome any future misunderstanding.
I have children of roughly the same age as some of the PLA soldiers. While my children are abroad, I want them to be treated well by their hosts. My home and my heart are always open to young people, whether or not they are in uniform. I know you share this sentiment.
Thank you, Mr President.
郭Θ某璓勉畊ネい瓣現┎翠確︽ㄏ舦盢沮膀セ猭材兵砏﹚秆瓁緉翠磅︽ň叭ヴ叭琌膀セ猭闽疭跋猭皘癸緉瓁猭恨烈舦緉瓁籔疭跋現┎肪硄籔秸诀疭跋現┎ゲ璶璶―緉瓁ㄣ砰夹非常⊿Τ絋砏﹚痙η︹盿い瓣現┎﹚緉瓁猭い莱络睲瓃膀セ猭ぃ睲贰よ臮の"瓣ㄢ"い翠疭跋縒疭薄猵タΑ硄筁緉瓁猭玡い瓣現┎莱盢約獂吭高翠種ǎ﹚ㄓ緉瓁猭続翠疭跋縒疭チ薄翠┮钡
沮現┎玂戈筁緉翠璣瓁牟デ翠ㄆ猭Τㄢ﹙计ヘ瘤礛ぶョは琈ㄆ龟碞琌緉瓁翠デ猭琌Τ诀穦祇ネ翠闽猔Τ闽緉瓁翠猭皘猭恨烈舦琌Τ瞶パ瞷い瓣瓁猭砏﹚秆瓁礚阶瓁犁ずㄆ︽ㄏ疉のキチパ瓁钉ず场瓁ㄆ猭皘矪瞶チ粄膀"瓣ㄢ"篶稱の翠疭跋縒疭薄猵龟︽緉瓁莱続讽э笷璓翠み翠钡狦チ粄瓃い瓣瓁猭砏﹚ぃ莱続ノ盢ㄓ翠疭︽現跋盢ㄓ緉翠秆瓁牟デ翠猭璶赣︽獶疉の緉瓁τ讽い疉の翠キチ┪獶緉瓁翠猭皘常莱Τ恨烈舦
︓チㄆ恨烈舦瞷緉翠璣瓁璝疉のチㄆ猭翠よ讽ㄆ璶チㄆ癬禗籉ㄆ璣瓁璶竒璣瓣猭畑秈︽癬禗璝秤禗玥パ璣瓣現┎翠よ讽ㄆ竭纕チ粄緉翠秆瓁璝疉のチㄆ禗砠翠よ讽ㄆ璶チㄆ癬禗杠パい翠猭砰╰ぃ莱甧砛翠よ讽ㄆ翠猭皘秈︽癬禗τ礚斗い瓣嘲猭皘癬禗璝翠よ讽ㄆ秤禗玥パい瓣現┎讽ㄆ竭纕︓疉の秆瓁ぇ丁ㄆのチㄆチ粄莱ユい瓣瓁ㄆ猭畑矪瞶τ礚斗ユパ翠猭皘糵癟磷翠猭畑糵癟ン璽踞
蝴臔翠獀㎝毕╝甡妮翠ず场ㄆ叭膀セ猭Τ睲贰璹膀セ猭材兵糶"疭︽現跋現┎ゲ璶いァチ現┎叫―緉瓁蝴穦獀㎝毕╝甡"硂兜砏﹚疭叫―笆舦莱翠疭跋現┎も緉瓁猭硂よ莱ユτㄣ砰祘パ疭跋盢ㄓミ猭穦︑︽ミ猭ㄇ砏﹚
緉瓁猭ョ莱碞︙ミ緉瓁籔疭跋現┎闽玒砏﹚疭跋現┎碞ň叭よ籔緉翠秆瓁场莱矪癸单︗蛮よ莱膀セ猭の緉瓁猭笷蝴翠疭跋穦铆﹚硂ヴ叭ミ贺が碙が官︸闽玒チ某盢ㄓ疭跋現┎籔緉瓁场砞ミ秸舱盽砞肪硄诀τ秆瓁–讽秸ň┪簍策常莱ㄆ玡硄筁秸舱穦の吭高疭跋現┎磷蛮よ瞷ぃ秸よ硂秸舱疭跋現┎叫―緉瓁蝴穦獀の毕╝逼よ続讽の秸
チ玃叫い瓣現┎籔ゼㄓ疭跋現┎莱硓筁秸舱眏緉瓁籔翠肪硄㎝钡牟ㄣ砰某珹﹚戳秨秆瓁瓁犁倒カチ把芠笆秆瓁把籔そ痲膚蹿硂摸穦狝叭チ粄蛮よゲ斗糤眏肪硄ㄏ緉瓁禜眔ミ癬ㄓミ▆瓁チ闽玒琌Τ緉瓁Τ磅︽ň叭
程畊ネチ粄さぱㄢ兜某ㄤ龟弧琌à︹腁腑瓣辆某タ莱赣琌某癸τ眎▆某某莱跌タ眎某某ず甧琌碞盢ㄓ緉瓁猭莱妓辅龟膀セ猭材兵矗ㄇㄣ砰某ㄆ龟程瞶稱Ω逼莱琌セЫ某栋い碞眎某ㄣ砰某秈︽臛阶Θ翠瑈種ǎい瓣現┎は琈翠カチ癸緉瓁猭ㄇㄣ砰璶―狦癸硂某矗は某タ矗璶辅龟膀セ猭礛盢膀セ猭材兵兵ゅ场йΩㄓ硂ぃ琌Τ痲Τ砞┦臛阶某
膀芠翴チセō琌や膀セ猭薄猵и-
穦癸腑瓣辆某タщ斌舦布や眎▆某某
セ略朝勉
眎ゅ某璓勉畊ネ翠稱癬秆瓁ぃ琌秆い瓣篴禜τ琌せ马溃監腊э秨ㄓ秆瓁疭舦籊毖﹛绢︽臦笵㎝瓁毖胊翠みヘい痙伐碿禜狦拜翠み┏杠碞琌程秆瓁ぃ緉翠緉杠计禫ぶ禫ス秆瓁笻猭程璶琌パ翠猭獀瓁τぃ琌翠猭临Τ瓁猭㎝瓁ㄆ猭畑緍翠猭ぇ
翠猭琌或㎡琌膀セ猭膀セ猭いΤ闽緉瓁兵ゅ獶盽虏虫粂種ぃ睲痙η︹盿㎝簗瑌ゲ斗ぉ蔼跌玥翠螟みタ┮孔翠笿秆瓁Τ瞶Τ猭弧ぃ睲
材程拜肈琌翠猭╰参癸緉翠秆瓁猭恨烈舦膀セ猭い眏秸秆瓁璶宽瓣㎝翠猭琌玱⊿Τ睲捶弧秆瓁瓁犁デ猭琌パ翠猭畑矪瞶ㄊ烩ㄏ繻跋Τ秆瓁秨簀端瘤キチの烩ㄏ繻ン玱ユパ瓁ㄆ猭畑矪瞶硂贺薄猵琌穦翠瞷舦㎝瓁舦蔼ち玥緉翠秆瓁瓁ㄆ猭畑穦管翠猭皘猭恨烈舦琵翠猭獀瞷瓁ㄆ痷琵秆瓁露筁翠猭畑禬礛翠猭ぇ翠琌猭獀よ猭ぇ玡ぃだ瓁チキ单狦"瓣ㄢ"い"ㄢ"種琌ㄢ贺猭︽ㄤ琌玥翠縒ミ猭獀亢礛礚笻は膀セ猭材兵翠局Τ縒ミ猭舦┯空
材拜肈琌︽現﹛㎝緉瓁闽玒╯澈琌現揣瓁临琌瓁現だ產膀セ猭砏﹚疭跋現┎叫―緉瓁蝴獀㎝毕╝琌ス秆瓁笆琌钮㏑疭跋︽現﹛临琌钮㏑緉瓁スЧΘヴ叭街∕﹚秆瓁ミ篗瓁犁緉瓁瓣ň竡ゼ竒疭跋︽現﹛種τ︑︽笆马溃砆いァ現┎跌笻は瓣產︽疭跋︽現﹛穦局Τ∕舦ゎ秆瓁笆硂硈﹃拜肈ゲ膀︽現﹛┪揣緉瓁翠笆舦狦︽現﹛⊿Τ硂贺舦ê或翠獽穦瞷ㄢ舦╰参キ盽ら拜肈ぃ穦裹陪诀ら獽穦瞷琵いァ現┎瓣ň竡筋今翠蔼︑獀笻は膀セ猭材兵疭跋ㄉΤ蔼︑獀㎝︽現恨瞶舦┯空
材拜肈琌疭跋緉瓁猭﹚㎝龟琁膀セ猭ンΤせ兵瓣┦猭翠龟琁琌秆瓁璶宽ぃ虫琌翠猭临Τ瓣┦猭珹盢璶箋ガ疭跋緉瓁猭╯澈疭跋緉瓁猭籔セ翠猭Τ⊿Τ侥疭跋緉瓁猭穦緍翠猭Θ瓣┦猭翠龟琁场だ览疭跋緉瓁猭琌吭高膚〆τぃ吭高翠龟琁疭跋緉瓁猭ゼㄓ翠ミ猭穦琌Ч⊿Τ癚阶㎝把籔丁硈緉瓁猭ㄖσ納琌瞷砏恨璣瓁猭妓続莱て㎝瞶て筁璣瓣局Τ疭舦Τ竒筁㎝陪眔抡ㄒ獶緉翠璣瓁礚惠翠挂矪﹛砛獽秈翠窗璣瓁禯翠窾ńㄓ翠ぃ瞏秆瓁禯翠ぃ筁琌兵瞏猠ㄓ︑兵猭虏虫盢璣瓁疭舦ぃ笆碞穦硑Θ簗瑌㎝睼睹盢砏恨璣瓁猭続莱てゲ斗ㄏㄤ瞶て皌办㎝ㄆ疭翴玥碞穦陪眔圾て㎝抡
腑瓣辆某タ膀セ琌盢膀セ猭材兵йΩ癸赣兵ゅ磅︽㎝秆睦簗瑌癸翠癸秆瓁倪㎝紐納Ч⊿Τ牟の狦ぃ瞶チ薄弄Ω硂碞琌贺圾て
畊ネセ略朝勉や眎▆某某
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, as a peace-loving person, I would welcome any peace-loving presence of anyone, including the PLA. Some time ago, it was widely reported that PLA armed forces were paid a pittance. I think their average wage, as reported in the media, was HK$800 a month.
Now, I hope my honourable friends with the ears of those in the corridors of power in China will persuade the Chinese authorities to pay PLA a decent salary. I hope too that they are paid a Hong Kong cost-of-living supplement to enable them to live a decent life when they are posted here. Now, this will also enable them to enjoy Hong Kong when they are here and will also, no doubt, endear them to Hong Kong people with their conspicuous consumption. It might also minimize chances, however unlikely, of them succumbing to temptation.
Now, with these words, I would like to say that, like my good friends here, please rest assured that I shall myself welcome PLA with an open mind and if I still have my freedom, despite my contrarian views, I shall welcome them with open arms as well.
With these words, I support the motion.
ヴ到圭某璓勉畊ネ翠癸"秆瓁"硂迭竒ぃネささらゼゲ–常穦灿み稱稱"秆瓁"或"秆瓁"翠耴ㄤ龟琌诀穦琵"秆瓁"暗ㄇ"秆"盢翠チ眖"崔チ参獀""秆"ㄓ┮ち蝴臔"崔チ参獀"τ结ぉ璣瓁疭舦烈舦单妮参獀セ瓣チ┮ぃ莱赣ΤА莱碞琌弧埃い地チ㎝瓣舅猭のㄤ┮璴ネ猭ㄒいΤ结ぉ秆瓁疭舦猭砏莱ノ翠ぃ莱璣瓁ヘ玡翠局Τ秆瓁獽酚妓局Τはぇ莱赣рウ"秆"琌"捌ㄤ龟""秆瓁"┪嘿"瓁""瓁"莱祇揣を畊か秨﹍ぃ耞ボ"兜猔種"材"荡癸狝眖㏑"ぃ翠琌疭跋τ磐"盢㏑Τ┮ぃ"Ы材"ぃチ皐絬"ちづ钡ヴ︙痲材"煤莉璶耴そ"ぃ竒坝ぃ舦垦╬︓"兜猔種"ㄤ弘ぃ暗穕甡チㄆぃ獽﹜┮秆瓁斌崔チ璣瓁琘ㄇ疭舦琌膥┯"瓁"肚参瞷琌船斌瓣崔チ竡瞷約チ"讽產"τ癪膍
翠璣瓁羆钮㏑羆服珿璣瓁ぃ穦箇翠現叭盢ㄓ硂贺诀ぃ磷瓁Τ禫瓂︽い莱盢緉翠秆瓁い現〆┪囊〆癘翠〆烈パ膀セ猭〆穦璹ミ緉瓁猭獺璓蠢ヘ玡瓁ゅ﹛╰参诀
畊ネセ略朝勉や眎▆某某
MR PAUL CHENG: Mr President, I find myself experiencing a disquieting feeling of deja vu as this Council is once again locked in a debate that serves little or no practical purpose.
Article 14 of the Basic Law makes it very clear that the PLA garrison will not interfere in local affairs, and that in addition to abiding by national laws, members of the garrison will have to abide by the laws of the Hong Kong SAR.
By moving this debate merely serves to stir up unwarranted suspicion and mistrust and create uncertainty over Hong Kong's future in the minds of the potential international investors around the world. It also serves to create the wrong type of newspaper headlines, also around the world. I am quite sure that no debate took place when the British garrison first took up their position in Hong Kong.
With less than a year to go before Hong Kong returns to Chinese sovereignty, it is high time we devote our time and efforts to reassuring our fellow citizens so that we can all work for a brighter future. It is already after 2 am and I am glad we are heading for a summer recess. So, please keep our remarks brief, and I do support the Honourable IP Kwok-him's amendment.
Thank you, Mr President.
︙玊く某璓勉畊ネさぱи-
臛阶某肈琌秆瓁緉翠拜肈и癘眔丁讽い璣羛羘临ゼそガい瓣铆﹚翠癸"瓣ㄢ"獺み翠緿快ヴ甐腜ネユ场独地ネの瓣ň场场矯ネ纯癸翠そ渤弧ぃ惠璶翠緉瓁讽翠穦烩砈㎝カチ常種硂猭ぃ筁スい瓣岸烩砈綡キ弧矯㎝独地璊弧笵弧いァゲ斗翠緉瓁砰瞷い瓣舦ぇ杠跑Θ臟翠ミ径璝碒峦ぃ酵阶硂ㄆ
さぱи-
虑硂诀穦璶矗硂ㄆ翠さぱ吏挂疭跋ず緉瓁猭瞶玂︓瓣ň琌Τ惠璶㎡ㄤ龟и-
临矗硂拜肈螟笵璶–カ––郡常璶緉瓁砰瞷舦狦弧琌镑玻ネゲ﹚ň徖ノ翠ㄓ琌瓁ㄆ翠瓣ňの驹菠よㄣΤ璶基㎡さぱ產常ㄏ癸璣瓁ㄓ弧翠⊿Τㄣ砰㎝璶ノㄆ龟-
翠┮磅︽ヴ叭竒セ牡诡┮и谋眔翠ぃ莱弧癸緉瓁拜肈さぱ┪礚斗浪癚
材狦翠緉瓁璶琌砰瞷舦杠传杠弧硂ノ璶琌禜紉┦借и谋眔翠惠璶玂靡碞琌秆瓁ぃ琌瓁ㄆ秖ㄓ纞翠ぃ琌璶ノㄓ马溃钵笷現獀┪穦北ヘ
畊ネ膀セ猭材兵瘤礛睲贰砏﹚秆瓁ぃ箇疭跋ㄆ叭镑疭跋いァ矗叫薄猵蝴獀㎝毕╝甡и-
ゲ斗眏秸膀セ猭材兵ゲ斗翠猭ㄓㄣ砰てㄤず甧笷睲捶現郸ヘ夹ê碞琌瓁ぃ翠疭跋ず拜現┪把現ぃ瓣ň瞶パ箇翠ず現ぃ蝴臔瓣產贺も琿翠╇êㄇ砆-
粄琌丁恳┪瘆胊瓣產疭跋璶―诀莱赣猭睲贰络﹚璶疭跋矗叫秆瓁穦矗ㄑτ疭跋┮矗璶―ゲ斗眔ミ猭诀闽粄狦ミ猭诀闽矗ぃ種ǎ疭跋莱篗綪ㄤ叫いァ現┎Μ疭跋現┎璶―-
揣秆瓁︽笆τよΑ莱赣パ疭跋現┎ㄓ∕﹚皌セ┮琁︽ㄤ現郸
畊ネ秆瓁穦翠ㄉΤ疭舦ま癬闽猔и-
眏秸秆瓁ゲ斗宽翠猭疭琌讽秆瓁︽紇臫翠カチ舦︑パτ玻ネヴ︙チㄆ┪ㄆ砫ヴ-
ゲ斗翠猭畑钡糵癟緉瓁荡癸ぃ瓣ň瞶パ┪龟︽瓣產︽ぇτ┶荡钡疭跋猭畑猭糵舦瘤礛膀セ猭㎝猭⊿Τ窽ゎ秆瓁セ竒坝┪暗ネ種и谋眔いァ現┎ゲ斗睲贰璹﹚現郸窽ゎ產常笵秆瓁瓣ず竒坝︽竒ま癬闽猔︓胔好の借好秆瓁疭︗穦ま癬ㄣΤ疭┦借紇臫眖τ旧璓砱γの籊て单︽
畊ネи-
谋眔緉瓁猭莱赣琌セ猭┮莱赣硓筁セミ猭诀闽硄筁τぃ莱琌いァ翠硓筁材兵┮﹚瓣┦猭ぇ虏虫Τ闽緉瓁猭獶続ノ瓣猭獶炊筂猭τ琌疭続ノ翠猭┮ゲ斗パ翠疭︽現跋ミ猭诀闽﹚
膀瓃瞶パи-
辨︗某や眎▆某某
谅谅畊ネ
腜某璓勉畊ネさぱ琌程Ω穦某チ囊某硈尿Ω穦某矗某常琌Τ闽い瓣拜肈ㄆ龟Τ睲捶獺碞琌и-
癸い瓣獺ヴ琌妓
闽緉瓁猭眎▆某矗種ǎ弧莱赣把σ翠種ǎ硂セㄓ琌礚玴獶钮钮ㄤチ囊某ㄒ眎ゅ某矗琌秆瓁︗疭︙玊く某弧秆瓁砱γ借好-
穦宽瓁弧-
绢︽礚бㄤ龟或緉瓁猭⊿Τノ肈祇揣τΤ緉瓁猭妓-
琌猭ぇ畍琌Τ疭舦
畊ネ程Τ︗らセ癘ㄓ砐拜и拜и闽翠盢ㄓㄆ薄疭矗秆瓁緉翠翠Τ稰甡┤の︙秆瓁璶緉翠拜硂拜肈и稰だ┣︙眖らセ环笵τㄓ矗硂拜肈弧纯钮籇秆瓁筁┕珿ㄆ-
盢穦翠︽ㄏ疭舦疭琌-
⊿Τヴ︙恨穦绢︽礚б拜秆瓁琌硂妓┤琌莱赣緉翠
и禗璣瓁緉翠眖ㄓ⊿Τ翠借高璣瓁莱緉翠τ璣瓁瓁禣场だパи-
璽踞秆瓁緉翠ぃ琌璶砰瞷舦τ临Τ砫ヴ璽砫翠ň徖и禗и-
礚斗や瓁禣稰だ佩︙いァ現┎硂妓糴翠礚斗и-
や禣ノи弧琌礚斗や禣ノ谋眔┣и弧⊿Τ禗盾弧⊿Τ琌Τ禗秆瓁緉翠Τヘ碞琌马溃讽Τ或ㄆ薄祇ネ碞穦马溃眔禜碞琌
и谋眔だ堡и弧琌らセ祇笆材Ω驹獻菠い瓣玭ㄊ監炳い炳计窾い瓣-
瓁钉Τ盾-
钮眖㏑監炳玭ㄊチ玭ㄊ監炳琌ぃ┵焚菌螟笵и-
い瓣常璶-
癌蹦厨確盾狦и-
い瓣璶厨こ杠-
らセ或快钮Чи弧杠и笵簆弧砆ㄇ粇旧秆瓁緉翠ヘ琌马溃и弧и-
い瓣秖だ約溜Ω驹琌筁ㄆ狦矗菌膥尿虑砫-
琌らセΤ︙稰谋㎡
и粄и-
ō某闽み盢ㄓㄆ叭琌莱赣玱ぃē羜钮Τ闽秆瓁ら穦翠デ猭ㄆи獺穦Τ硂诀穦緉翠璣瓁Τデ猭诀穦-
莱赣宽瓁и纯Ωǎ筁い瓣秆瓁-
常琌獶盽獵场钉獶盽Τ场钉讽礛-
ぃ莱ㄉΤヴ︙疭︗疭琌翠緉瓁ぃ莱ㄉΤヴ︙疭舦Τ闽-
︽﹚Τ猭掉膀セ猭材兵Τ闽秆瓁緉翠ㄆ叭砏﹚秆瓁砫ヴの緉翠埃璶宽瓣猭临斗宽翠疭︽現跋猭︙膀セ猭Τ硂砏﹚ê碞琌讽癬膀セ猭ㄇ翠ぃみ秆瓁琌惠璶宽翠猭竒筁吭高沧р硂琿弧杠糶ㄓи谋眔瞷拜肈ぃ虫ゎ琌秆瓁拜肈τ琌и-
癸и-
盢ㄓ╆妓篈のи-
癸い瓣и-
盢ㄓ﹙瓣猭
緉瓁猭礚阶糶眔妓⊿Τ快猭秆∕翠み瞶拜肈狦钩êらセ癘秆瓁緉翠琌ヘ碞琌马溃杠或杠ぃノ弧弧琌⊿Τノ秆瓁緉翠ぃ琌舦砰瞷τ琌Τ惠璶緉翠硂琌い瓣砫ヴ璽砫翠ň徖ㄆ叭讽翠痷Τㄆ薄祇ネ︽現﹛璶―秆瓁硂膀セ猭い弧眔だ睲贰и谋眔硂ぃ琌秆瓁拜肈и-
硂计琍戳臛阶ㄤ龟常琌瞅露癸翠盢ㄓ癸い瓣盢ㄓ琌Τ獺み拜肈
糂簙煌某璓勉畊ネ膀セ猭﹚獽ノ箂る丁戳丁碭碭は滦そ秨吭高種ǎ沮紉―眔ㄓ種ǎ癸膀セ猭紉―種ǎ絑秈︽э沮参璸膀セ猭紉―種ǎ絑эκ矪疉の龟借ず甧эΤ矪ㄤいき矪ㄓ︑吭高〆穦Μ栋種ǎǎい瓣現┎﹚膀セ猭┮秈︽そ秨吭高琌痷タ钮よ種ǎ
ぃ度膀セ猭﹚そ秨吭高翠種ǎよい瓣現┎膚疭跋よ琌硂妓暗闽妓舱Θ崩匡〆穦拜肈膚〆穦妮崩匡〆穦舱碞纯ㄓ翠甶秨吭高笆だ╒翠種ǎぇΘ崩〆穦舱Θよㄤ窖穝诀初逼γ祘﹁臟隔璸购单惠ゼㄓ疭跋現┎┯踞砫ヴ膀拜肈い瓣現┎ョ猔種約獂吭高翠種ǎτい瓣現┎﹚猭ㄒ砏恨ゼㄓ翠疭跋緉瓁讽礛ョ穦吭高翠カチ種ǎ
畊ネタ琌蝴臔疭跋蔼︑獀舦┮膀セ猭材兵癸緉瓁拜肈兜砏﹚ㄤいΤ緉瓁璽砫疭跋ň叭τぃ恨瞶獀緉瓁ぃ疉疭跋よㄆ叭疭跋現┎ゲ璶いァ現┎叫―緉瓁蝴穦獀㎝毕╝甡緉瓁埃宽瓣┦猭临斗宽疭跋猭膀セ猭材兵瓃砏﹚琌ゼㄓ疭跋緉瓁ゲ斗宽猭τい瓣現┎﹚猭ㄒ砏恨ゼㄓ疭跋緉瓁ョ盢沮膀セ猭Τ闽砏﹚﹚硂琌陪
ㄤ龟ゼㄓ疭跋緉瓁ぃ箇疭跋ず场ㄆ叭タ琌"瓣ㄢ"よ皐璶ず甧ぇタ㏄玭ネ氮瓣㏄癘拜肈┮弧"绊砮过瓣ㄢよ皐琌い瓣セ痲┮Τ镍穦端甡︑痲"
膀セ猭睲贰弧瓣ň琌いァ璽砫ㄆ叭Τ某粄緉瓁猭莱パ疭跋﹚и荡ぃ璭硂笻は膀セ猭芠翴秆瓁刘妮いァ緉瓁猭讽礛琌パいァ﹚
畊ネセЫ钡硈矗玃叫い瓣現┎莱妓暗某и桂Ωい瓣現┎螟穦跌ぇ癸ㄤ舦ㄆ叭も购竲暗猭セЫㄆ璝癸い瓣現┎﹚癸翠現郸┪猭Τ┮ē莱翠カチだōだ硄筁Τ肪硄措笵いよは琈笆怀翠璣ミ猭Ы竡玃叫┪揣い瓣現┎︽ㄆ癸э到磕ㄢ闽玒礚痲矪
畊ネセ略朝勉は癸某
綠產碔某璓勉畊ネさぱиセㄓ⊿Τゴ衡祇ē竒硂或边и钮Ч腜某簍勉畊ネи痷稰ぃチ壁竡癸らセ癘┮弧礷杠竡箕礛钩琌弧琘ㄇ粇旧êらセ癘畊ネи稱弧ㄢ翴抡ぇ矪
材璣瓁ゑ耕и稱拜腜某翠竒璣瓣現┎参獀硂或琌崔チ現┎и-
ぃノ璣瓁ㄓゑ耕ら秆瓁暗猭狦и-
痷璶辅龟"瓣ㄢ蔼︑獀翠獀翠"弘и-
獽ぃノ崔チ現┎ゑ耕弧и-
瞷璶や璣瓁禣ノ盢ㄓ玱ぃ惠璶や秆瓁禣ノ硂竒ボи-
瓣癸и-
琌或糴Щи谋眔硂翴タタ糧抡呸胯ず
材и-
ぃ莱赣俱ぱ弧琘ㄇ粇旧ㄤи稱拜虫綼碭チ谋眔いよΤㄇㄆ暗眔ぃ癸玪矗ㄓ琌碞粇旧㎡或-
ぃ拜拜粇旧碞琌"せ"監秆瓁碞琌パい瓣現┎瞷ご绊ぃフ"せ"ㄆンい╯澈Τ⊿Τデ岿狦い瓣現┎镑ㄓ弧"せ"琌Τ拜肈"せ"ゲ斗キは秆瓁琌讽参獀顶糷┮粇旧或ぃ稱稱硂妓㎡或ぃ稱稱瞷"囊盡現"硂玻囊琌粇旧ㄏ砛翠蒥チ︓瓣悔穦谋眔Τ拜肈τぃ琌и-
粇旧癸腜某矗の"粇旧"の"ē羜钮"и痷琌钮眔み礹
и-
瞷辨酚眎▆某┮矗某辨穦碞秆瓁緉瓁猭秈︽そ秨吭高硂妓砰瞷"瓣ㄢ翠獀翠"弘琌硂妓碞琌ē羜钮и辨ㄤ某稱稱и-
チぃ辨砆-
硂妓"Ι碪"弧и-
ē羜钮弧и-
粇旧翠蒥チ粇旧瓣悔穦Τ矗のи-
癸ゼㄓ翠猭螟笵и-
弧碭杠碞ㄏ穦ぃ盾и辨-
は穦ぃ琌瞷璶"囊盡現"琌"Τ蔦量蒒量產Α参獀玻囊"
谅谅畊ネ
眎▆某璓勉畊ネ腑瓣辆某タ惫勉钩籔и某⊿Τ或侥ぃ筁琌弧やい瓣現┎﹚ゼㄓ疭跋緉瓁猭辅龟膀セ猭材兵砏﹚狦琌硂妓杠︙ぃ镑やи某㎡︙璶タи某㎡
チ羛は癸и某ㄇㄣ砰ず甧㎡и某Τ翴材翴琌そ秨吭高翠チ羛弧-
種翠莱赣縩伐矗種ǎ弧翠⊿Τ舦璶―い瓣現┎そ秨吭高ㄇΤ闽い瓣┮﹚猭-
а癘膀セ猭琌パい瓣現┎﹚τ紇臫翠猭い瓣現┎纯"辅"吭高翠種ǎ弧翠⊿Τ舦璶―そ秨吭高㎡
闽︽現﹛ㄌ猭︽ㄏ矗叫舦よи钮ぃ腑瓣辆某矗ヴ︙籔и某ず甧ぃ種ǎ緉瓁疭跋猭皘猭恨烈舦よ琌弧琌瓁钉︽ㄆ莱赣ユパ瓁猭矪瞶┛菠膀セ猭ず砏﹚疭跋猭皘癸疭跋┮ΤンΤ猭恨烈舦硂翴
程矗粄チ囊矗硂ㄇ某琌Τぃ▆笆诀弧и-
某禬禫崔チミ猭Ы舦ミ猭Ы畊硂拜肈安腑瓣辆某阶翴琌Θミ杠и獶盽胔好︙矗硂兜タタ惫勉琌"セЫやい瓣現┎"暗ㄇㄆ薄妓笵瞶硂ぃ琌禬禫┮崔チミ猭Ы舦盾иぃフ硂贺呸胯硂琌現獀贺ボ
PRESIDENT: Dr Anthony CHEUNG, are you saying that you are making a political point and not making a point of order, so the President should not be involved?
眎▆某ㄤ龟и某琌Ч眖膀セ猭砏﹚祇龟悔祇ē某珹у蝶и某-
常ぃ矗龟借籔и矗ㄓΤ闽猭恨烈舦矗叫舦单ず甧よぃ種ǎ珹ㄇ羘嘿や腑瓣辆某タ某-
弧チ囊矗某琌Τ笆诀"笆诀"拜肈暗ゅ彻
ㄤ龟腑瓣辆某タ龟悔種竡琌は癸盢緉瓁猭硂拜肈そ秨吭高ぃ幢猭恨烈舦拜肈琌絢ㄤ迭ㄤ龟琌贺ぃ篈┪ぃ幢篈タи谋眔狦ㄆは癸и某弘㎝τは癸и某и碙-
∕﹚琌-
礚斗跟獂タ璉ぃ筁狦Τㄆ粄и某よ㎝弘и㊣苸-
は癸腑瓣辆某タи㊣苸チㄆぃ璶腑瓣辆某タいΤ矗の膀セ猭计τぃは癸и谋眔狦-
やи某弘硂琌-
矗ㄓê甅猭弘祘-
莱赣は癸腑瓣辆某タ
谅谅畊ネ
玂璓勉畊ネ︗某碞眎▆某矗㎝腑瓣辆某タ祇種ǎи常竒灿钮筁パるら癬い地チ㎝瓣現┎璽砫恨瞶翠ň叭ň叭砫ヴ眖璣瓣簿ユい瓣琌舦ユ钡ㄤい兜程璶吏竊癸い璣ㄢ瓣緉瓁ㄓ弧ň叭戮砫ユ钡伐ㄣ珼驹┦い璣翠現┎常癸兜だ跌
甧砛и虏虫弧簿ユ瓁ㄆノ秈甶礛秈產┮闽みΤ闽緉瓁㎝猭よ拜肈の緉瓁㎝現┎闽玒
い璣羛羛蹈舱竒筁絉坝沧せる碞瓁ノ┬ゼㄓ逼笷Θ某硂琌蛮よň叭拜肈璶ń祘窸︑眖帽竝瓁ㄆノ某и-
碞兜龟悔ㄆ叭眏籔いよň叭盡產钡牟硂ㄇ龟悔ㄆ叭闽ら非称簿ユ倒い瓣緉瓁14碩瓁ㄆノ㎝兜祘и-
逼Ω砐拜琵いよ粄醚-
盢钡恨ノ緉瓁ら翠笲吏挂翠阀猵单闽簿ユ瓃兜"祑ン"逼秈甶だ抖и-
⊿Τ┛跌"硁ン"璶┦硂┮弧"硁ン"琌ら続ノい瓣緉瓁猭砰╰のチ秆瓁籔翠疭︽現跋現┎ぇ丁闽玒
и稱弧弧緉瓁籔猭拜肈瘤礛膀セ猭材兵砏﹚"緉瓁埃斗宽瓣┦猭临斗宽翠疭︽現跋猭"赣兵ゼΤ碞ら続ノい瓣緉瓁猭琜篶冈瓃タ畒︗︗某┮弧硂琌兜ちτ璶揭肈琌そ渤闽み揭肈丁禫ㄓ禫ぶ瞷瞒秨舦簿ユらぃì360ぱ
畊ネи-
闽簿ユň叭戮砫現郸い緉瓁籔猭琌ㄤい伐璶吏竊い瓣現┎タ览緉瓁猭砏恨い瓣チ秆瓁翠疭︽現跋笲薄猵и-
タ荷矗ㄑи-
いよň叭盡產矗ㄑ闽セ翠猭籔猭冈灿戈-
冈荷ざ残筁瞷蹦ノ或玥ㄓ∕﹚璣瓣緉瓁莱セ翠猭畑ㄆ籔チㄆ猭恨烈の翠猭癸瓁よ矗瓃и-
硓筁┮ΤタΑ㎝獶タΑ措笵贺诀穦いよボи-
辨蛮よ秈︽癚阶獽は琈и-
癸緉瓁猭種ǎ
и-
蔼砍笵いよ羛羛蹈舱材せΩ穦某畊ボ贾種倒и-
碞ゼㄓ緉瓁籔猭拜肈虏ざ钮и-
種ǎ瘤礛﹟ゼ璹﹚Τ闽丁и-
辨硂Ω籔いよ盡產癸杠琌Τ砞┦の镑眔Θ狦Τㄇ某眏秸ゲ斗钮翠種ǎи-
Ч種硂翴瘤礛硂程沧琌い瓣現┎ㄆи-
穦躬纘いよ览緉瓁猭筁祘い莱讽荷秖硓蹦そ秨㎝縩伐篈Τ種矗種ǎぃи-
獺猭の穦常Τ硂よ盡產パ緉瓁猭癸翠Τ钡紇臫璶渤や硂兜璶猭ㄒ硓琌璶じ
畊ネи瞷锣酵緉瓁钡猭恨烈拜肈ヘ玡琌Τ睲贰猭砏玥瘤礛硂琌崔チ砏玥緉翠璣瓁璝牟デ翠猭獽穦翠猭畑糵埃獶妮薄猵
砆嘿竜︽妮獻デ緉翠璣瓁ㄤ┪
砆嘿竜︽妮獻デ璣瓣現┎癩玻┪
砆嘿竜︽琌パ瓁磅︽戮叭の磅︽筁祘いま癬
и┮瓃薄猵ン常穦ユパ瓁ㄆ猭畑矪瞶τㄤ緉翠璣瓁セ猭畑﹚Τ竜玥斗沮セ翠猭籃蹿┪セ胓毙诀篶ず狝и-
粄硂ㄇ∕﹚翠緉瓁莱钡セ翠猭畑ㄆ糵玥莱赣膥尿猽ノ硂ㄇ玥︽ぇ砆粄そタ瞶のち龟︽硂甅逼ぃ籔膀セ猭材兵ず甧璓τョ才膀セ猭材兵砏﹚"翠疭︽現跋猭皘埃膥尿玂翠Τ猭㎝玥癸猭皘糵舦┮癸翠疭︽現跋┮ΤンАΤ糵舦"
チㄆ猭よ沮﹛よ禗砠兵ㄒ材300彻砏﹚璣瓣緉瓁翠浪北ぃ筁璣瓣緉瓁矗チㄆビ常琌パ讽ㄆ畑㎝秆ビ璝癸矗㎝秆快猭ぃ稰骸種璣瓣チㄆ猭皘璣瓣現┎矗禗砠カチ緉瓁碞ㄤōだ翠猭皘矗チㄆ禗砠
材300彻┮瞷︽逼琌ボチ秆瓁矗チㄆ禗砠ゲ斗ず猭畑秈︽㎡и-
粄ぃ莱硂妓瞷翠璣ぇ丁硂贺逼琌ㄢ炊硄猭ぷㄤ琌獻舦猭㎝猭伐祘琌и-
粄せるらゲ斗琵翠疭︽現跋﹡チ㎝そ酚炊硄猭砏﹚い瓣緉瓁矗チㄆ禗砠Τ闽ン斗疭︽現跋猭皘ず测癟τぃ莱ユパず猭畑糵癟ず猭畑琌沮ぃ猭笲и-
獺硂暗猭ぃカチ舧τ程璶琌才膀セ猭材の兵砏﹚
иョ钮Τㄇ某矗の结ぉ璣瓁舦㎝僚舦猭兵ゅ拜肈Τ粄硂ㄇ琌疭舦и耕Ν玡纯竒ミ猭Ы玂ㄆ叭〆穦冈灿ざ残硂ㄇ兵ゅ┮ぃ瓃и稱眏秸硂┮孔璣瓁疭舦ぃ琌痲硂ㄇ兵ゅぃ筁琌倒瓁よ緉瓁ōだセ翠Τ㎝猭磅︽戮叭璣瓁翠現┎矗ㄑ-
舦絛瞅琌ぃ眔禬禫セ翠猭ㄒ┮璹腨砏挪い璣緉瓁Τи-
穦灿糵某ちΤ闽兵ゅ∕﹚琌続ノゼㄓ緉瓁и-
穦猭続莱て絛氓ず矪瞶硂兜ぇいи-
穦硓筁羛羛蹈舱碞┮Τセ翠猭ㄒいよ矗ユ続莱て某ョ叫いよ荷е籔и-
弧-
癸猭続莱て俱砰種ǎ
らい瓣緉瓁︽ㄏヴ︙磅猭舦常ゲ斗才膀セ猭材兵硂琌某┮矗の膀セ猭材兵砏﹚緉瓁埃宽瓣┦猭临璶宽翠猭產闽み砱γ拜肈硂ぃ琌皐癸ヴ︙瓁钉┪ㄤτ琌硂琌翠琂Τゅてи-
琌は癸砱γ┮抖瞶Θ彻и-
ョ獺翠猭莱珹翠疭︽現跋Τ㎝Τ闽胳革㎝砱γヴ︙猭
程酵酵緉瓁㎝疭跋現┎闽玒Τ某踞みゼㄓ緉瓁穦箇翠疭︽現跋現┎ず场ㄆ叭膀セ猭ㄤ龟琌絋窽ゎ硂暗猭材兵砏﹚"いァチ現┎緉翠疭︽現跋璽砫ň叭瓁钉ぃ箇翠疭︽現跋よㄆ叭"膀セ猭絋砏﹚疭跋現┎璽砫蝴穦獀τゲ斗疭跋現┎いァチ現┎矗叫―緉瓁蝴穦獀の毕╝甡
ㄓ翠璶パチ現恨獀璣瓣緉瓁璶ノ琌璣瓣舦禜紉璣瓁瘤礛⊿Τ摸膀セ猭材兵砏恨琌現┎矗叫―矗ㄑΩ叫―璣瓁現┎蝴獀琌せㄆ讽牡钉ご礛痙玡帹瓁よ踞ヴ徊à︹筁30ㄓセ翠玂场钉眏龟硋˙钡恨璣瓣緉瓁戮ヴ叭ㄒ牡よ钡恨娩挂ǖ呸и-
箇戳⊿Τ惠璶叫―チ秆瓁セ翠牡钉ㄤ磅猭诀篶の候毕穿场钉单常も肝皌称弘▆癡絤Τì莱ヴ︙箇ǎず场玂拜肈
Τㄇ某矗某讽Ы莱览称冈灿ま㎝祘獽疭跋現┎叫―チ秆瓁Τ┮ㄌ沮―矗蔼そ渤獺みの絋玂才膀セ猭材兵砏﹚и-
粄程讽礛琌睲贰璹疭跋現┎いァチ現┎獶盽戳矗叫―诀㎝措笵硂ンㄆゲ斗ユパいァ現┎秆瓁㎝疭跋現┎癬矪瞶讽礛玡矗﹚琌﹚ㄓヴ︙诀㎝措笵ゲ斗Τ笲莱闽㏑癩翠㎝ぃ箇璸祇薄猵ョ翠钡逼
セЫ㎝カチ渤常闽猔ら続ノチ秆瓁猭琜篶伐辨硂琜篶镑だ砰瞷"瓣ㄢ""翠獀翠"㎝"蔼︑獀"弘и-
獺い瓣現┎だ秆翠癸硂拜肈稰и-
Τは琈и-
辨い瓣現┎穦砞猭翠玂靡辅龟"羛羘"㎝"膀セ猭"兜┯空и-
よи-
穦很荷┮
谅谅畊ネ
Question on the amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
The President could not determine from voice vote.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to vote on the question that the amendment moved by Mr IP Kwok-him be made to Dr Anthony CHEUNG's motion. Will Members please register by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below. Press "Present" first.
PRESIDENT: Members please check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mrs Elizabeth WONG voted against the amendment.
Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr Bruce LIU and Mr MOK Ying-fan abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the amendment and 25 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
PRESIDENT: Dr Anthony CHEUNG, you are now entitled to your final reply and you have three minutes 27 seconds out of your original 15 minutes.
眎▆某璓勉畊ネ瞷钡贬и璶谅︗ㄆ"狈初"縩伐碞и某祇ē
癚阶Τ拜︙и璶矗某и某琌羭膀セ猭璹Τ材兵竒ì镑︙и临璶矗某㎡膀セ猭讽礛砏﹚盢ㄓ緉瓁ㄇ膀セ玥安琌ì镑杠瞷獽礚斗酵阶︙﹚盢ㄓ疭跋緉瓁猭
は癸┪у蝶и某某阶翴いи钮ぃヴ︙癸и某ず甧龟借у蝶┪は癸-
琌癸チ囊矗某潮垦┦笆诀瞦代弧и-
籹硑稺籹硑獺み诀ㄤ龟琌街⊿Τ獺み㎡狦Τ獺み杠︙ぃ碞и某ず甧ㄆ龟ㄓ秈︽臛阶㎡и某ず矗猭恨烈舦拜肈矗"チㄆ猭皘纔"玥硂ㄇ玥Τ或ぃ㎡и眖は癸и某簍勉ず钮ぃヴ︙阶翴
ヴ到圭某弧眔癸∕ぃ初粄莱盢翠眖璣獀崔チ砰秆ㄓ秆瓁ぃ莱虏虫膥┯璣瓁暗猭ㄇу蝶и某某ē阶いи钮贺и踞み獺璣瓣筁┮暗盢ㄓи-
酚暗硂Τ︙ぃ㎡
ㄤ龟и某琌盢膀セ猭ず﹚砏﹚秈˙糂簙煌某矗膀セ猭览戳丁穦Τ秖癸秆瓁種ǎ琌ボ踞紐㎝Τ妓玂痙┮瞷膀セ猭兵ゅ璹﹚硂琘祘は琈讽紐納カチ琌甡┤秆瓁ㄤ龟讽い瓣現┎∕﹚超Α恨瞶よΑㄓ秈︽緉瓁逼翴ㄇㄆ薄ぃ筁иさぱ某獶癚阶琌甡┤秆瓁拜肈τ琌︙ㄌ猭癸秆瓁盢ㄓ翠à︹ヴ叭の︽砏絛
瘤礛腑瓣辆某タ莉硄筁チ囊㊣苸やи某ㄆは癸竒腑瓣辆某タ某
Question on Dr Anthony CHEUNG's motion as amended by Mr IP Kwok-him put.
Voice vote taken.
The President could not determine from voice vote.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: Members may wish to be reminded that they are called upon to vote on the question that the motion moved by Dr Anthony CHEUNG as amended by Mr IP Kwok-him be approved. Will Members please first register their presence by pressing the top button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. We are two short of the head count. Are there any queries? Still one short of the head count. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amended motion.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and YUM Sin-ling voted against the amended motion.
Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr Bruce LIU and Mr MOK Ying-fan abstained.
PRESIDENT: The result is 26 for the "ayes" and 26 for the "noes". In accordance with Speaker DENISON's decision in 1867 that where no further discussion is possible, decisions in the affirmative should not be taken except by a majority of Members, I hereby exercise my casting vote in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT therefore announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the amended motion and 27 against it. He therefore declared that the amended motion was negatived.
MEMBER'S BILLS
First Reading of Bills
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES (FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY, SEXUALITY AND AGE) BILL
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES (RACE) BILL
MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bill
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES (FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY, SEXUALITY AND AGE) BILL
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to promote equality of opportunity in Hong Kong and to provide remedies in respect of discrimination on the grounds of family responsibility or family status, sexuality, or age, or involving harassment on the ground of sexuality."
糂ホ某璓勉畊ネセ略沮某ㄆ祘┮笆某弄キ单诀穦產畑砫ヴ┦渡の闹兵ㄒ
羛瓣穦硄筁舦ē材兵"ネτ︑パ碙腨㎝舦キ单-
结Τ瞶┦㎝▆み莱﹏ゝ闽玒弘癸"
ささら獺穦⊿Τそ秨は癸キ单诀穦芠├и粄キ单诀穦み弘碞琌絋獺ネτキ单┘莱﹏ゝ闽玒癸τミ猭窽ゎヴ︙Α猍跌琌癸キ单诀穦キ单舦ㄣ砰絋粄タタキ单诀穦ミ猭ゲ斗琌τぃ莱赣琌Ы场┦ミ猭窽ゎ琘ㄇ猍跌┦︽ぇ緇玱甧砛ㄇ猍跌︽膥尿
セЫㄆ璊ドㄢ玡矗兵キ单诀穦兵ㄒョ琌膀硂妓獺├ミ猭窽ゎ猍跌堡現┎莱玱だ玂膀セЫ籔そ渤溃現┎﹚┦の摧痚よは猍跌猭ㄒ玱炳璊ド矗疉のㄤ絛氓キ单诀穦猭キ单诀穦猭綝∕やキ单诀穦ㄆ竒矗и-
盢穦さミ猭Ы辈ㄓ さぱи-
碞セЫ穦某瞷и-
┯空穝矗俱甅キ单诀穦猭さぱセЫ秈︽弄弄兵疉のキ单诀穦のは猍跌猭琌独窥ㄤ军某嘲糠某糂紌某㎝и崩笆キ单诀穦ミ猭∕み
パи璽砫兵ㄒ疉の產畑砫ヴ┦渡の闹よ猍跌场だ戳辨硓筁ミ猭窽ゎΤ闽絛氓猍跌┦︽琵綝猍跌甡莉眔ビ禗诀穦玂毁キ单诀穦眔痷タ辅龟
癸キ单诀穦ミ猭現┎常琌稱荷よκ璸癹磷村弧セЫㄆ現┎篋ノも猭碞琌"吭高"ㄓ╈┑丁︓カチぃ觅Θ瞶パ绊┶秈︽琘ㄇ絛氓は猍跌ミ猭ぃ筁и辨現┎睲贰フヴ︙蝴臔舦キ单诀穦ミ猭ヘ碞琌璶玂毁畓墩竤砰硂セぃ琌计種ぃ種拜肈 璶穦畓墩竤砰猍跌薄猵碞莱赣ミ猭玂毁甡舦痲ㄆ龟ミ猭窽ゎ猍跌ぃ琌璶﹚璶钡或琌辨ぃ璶猍跌-
ㄏ-
㎝㎝и妓ㄉΤキ单舦
и獺﹏ゝ闽玒弘が癸穦琌痷タ㎝キ㎝坑穦辨セЫㄆ镑セ硂獺├やキ单诀穦ミ猭
畊ネセ略朝勉矗兵ㄒ弄谅谅
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES (RACE) BILL
MRS ELIZABETH WONG to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to promote equality of opportunity in Hong Kong and to provide remedies in respect of discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, nationality, national or ethnic origin, or involving racial harassment."
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I move that the Equal Opportunities (Race) Bill be read the Second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to render discrimination on the ground of race unlawful and to make provision for relevant remedies. The objective is to eliminate, as far as it is possible, all forms of racial discrimination in Hong Kong. In doing so, the Bill also intends to give effect to a variety of international obligations applicable to Hong Kong via this piece of domestic legislation.
Many in Hong Kong maintain that race relations are not a problem in this beautiful city. If this were true, then the passage of the Bill would be no big deal for any of us, and would therefore be very appropriate. If not, then it would be all the more necessary to support this Bill so as to appreciate the true value of social integration and cohesion in Hong Kong in our effort to remove racial prejudice.
Mr President, the Bill has six parts and I shall highlight some of the key areas, seriatim below.
Part I sets out the objects of the Bill in detail to assist in interpretation. In particular, it provides that the definition of race includes colour, descent, ethnic, or national origin and nationality. Because the principal purpose of the Bill is to give effect to certain international instruments, the interpretation should be consistent with the standards under these international obligations.
Part II deals with discrimination on the ground of race. It includes the workplace; it covers both direct and indirect discrimination and makes discrimination unlawful in such areas as education, access to places, services, facilities, and so on. It also prohibits discrimination in the form of racial vilification.
Part III defines other unlawful acts, including victimization and certain advertisements.
Part IV provides for general exceptions to the Bill, for example, where race is a genuine occupational qualification for dramatic and artistics roles that demand racial authenticity and for services to promote the welfare of a particular race.
Part V provides for implementation and enforcement. Discriminatory acts or practices made unlawful by the Bill are civil wrongs and triable in the District Court.
Part VI sets out miscellaneous matters and provides for rules of liability. It removes an anomaly by amending the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance to make it applicable to all legislation, not merely to legislation invoked by the Government or public authorities.
Mr President, we know from historical facts that when a society is sensitive to the needs of all groups in its midst, including those of minority groups, the result is social harmony.
Hong Kong is an open, progressive and dynamic society where people of different race, colour and creed live in peace and harmony. Yet, here and there, you might see example of unfortunate racial prejudice which tarnishes Hong Kong's image.
Many countries around the world have all encompassing anti-discrimination laws.
I believe that full participation in all spheres of activities by the people of Hong Kong, of whatever race, is the true meaning of Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong. Those who love Hong Kong are not necessarily only those of ethnic Chinese origin.
Equal treatment of all groups of people in society will establish the effectiveness of a cohesive society.
Thus, the recognition and enjoyment, by all peoples, on an equal footing, of human rights include fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural and any other field of public file. These rights must be promoted and protected.
Equal opportunities for all will enrich our society with diversity. We should be able to share our cultural uniqueness through offering equal opportunities for all as we progress into the next century.
History tells us that prejudices of any kind can become potentially destructive and divisive. So, in race relations, let us race towards the sun.
Mr President, this Bill is, in fact, no stranger to this Council. In 1994, then legislator, the Honourable Ms Anna WU, attempted to introduce a similar Bill which revisits this Council today. I commend this Bill to this Council.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
MASS TRANSIT RAILWAY CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation."
虫ヲ昂某璓勉畊ネセ笆某弄1996臟隔そ璹兵ㄒ
臟隔そ琌現┎戈局Τ坝穨┦诀篶ウ琌沮き臟隔そ兵ㄒΘミそ猭刮τ臟隔そ兵ㄒ材6(2(f)兵甭舦臟隔そ︑︽络璹臟布基瞷璶臟そ赋ㄆЫ∕﹚基碩斗穦︽現Ы獽龟琁硂琌セ翠ㄤ╬犁そユ硄ㄣА⊿ΤΜ禣︑舦
兵ㄒヘ碞琌辨ミ菏恨臟そ秸俱布基诀琵チ匡琜篶ミ猭Ы镑糵某紇臫チネ臟布基讽兵ㄒ硄筁龟琁臟そ矗蔼布基獽ゲ斗妮猭ㄒΑ莉ミ猭Ы硄筁﹍龟琁
ヘ玡現┎癸╬犁そユ硄ㄣА蹦ぃ菏恨家Α癸臟㎝臟硂ㄢ丁砏家胑琌そ犁笲块诀篶はτ蹦Чヴ現郸龟Τろそキ沮瞷︽猭ㄒ丁盡ぺそ秸俱Μ禣ゲ斗莉眔︽現Ыуτ盡寸近そ筿óその基ビ叫莉眔︽現Ы硄筁临斗妮猭ㄒΑ矗ユミ猭Ы凝τミ猭Ы沮睦竡の硄玥兵ㄒ材1彻砏﹚Τ惠璶虑硄筁∕某癸︽現Ы∕﹚璹琵ミ猭ЫΤ舦菏恨臟布基ぃ筁琌砮过現┎ヘ玡癸そユ硄ㄣ基菏恨現郸
繦臟隔呼蹈ぃ耞耎甶臟Θセ翠カ跋璶ユ硄㏑カチ癸ウㄌ苦禫ㄓ禫玂毁穦渤痲絋玂臟そΜ瞶㎝カチ钡布基ㄤ基莱赣ミ猭Ы菏恨
ㄓ臟そ常ボ基候繦硄等琌程瞶暗猭セ矗硂兜某玱粄そノㄆ穨基莱赣琌艶Τ紆┦埃璶臮そセō犁笲の癩現猵临斗σ納讽穦竒蕾猵のカチ璽踞筁竒喷禗и-
臟そ羇ㄏ寥伦玴薄猵ご绊基セ碞⊿Τ眖カチàσ納基碩瘤礛臟基盽盽綝某㎝カチは癸㎝у蝶挪臟基Чぃ菏恨カチΤ礚ー钡极碞琌臟そォ羘嘿キА碩蛤繦硄等龟悔玱碩矗蔼ó禣暗猭碞さ基ㄒ臟そ盢硚ó禣碩矗蔼程蔼糤碩笷13.6%τ盢祏硚ó禣碩秸τ硑ΘキА碩6.9%狦ㄆ龟Τ77%琌碩笷7%︓13.6%丁ó禣パǎ臟そ局ΤΜ禣︑舦カチ痲碞穦砆┛跌
カチ糹︽菏诡そノㄆ穨诀篶ミ猭Ы龟砫礚禪兵ㄒ硄筁ぃボ臟基﹚穦綝ミ猭Ыは癸┪ゎ狦臟そ矗だτ瞶基瞶沮ミ猭Ы某荡癸ぃ穦礚瞶∕ウ基ビ叫兵ㄒヘ琌ら臟基镑ミ猭Ы㎝カチ菏恨秈˙玂毁カチ痲
畊ネи癑み辨セЫㄆや硂兵ㄒ
セ略朝勉笆某兵ㄒ弄谅谅
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
KOWLOON-CANTON RAILWAY CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1996
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation."
虫ヲ昂某璓勉畊ネセ笆某弄1996約臟隔そ璹兵ㄒ
約臟隔そ籔臟隔そ妓琌現┎戈局Τ坝穨┦诀篶ウ琌沮約臟隔そ兵ㄒΘミそ猭刮τ約臟隔そ兵ㄒ材4(2)(e)兵甭舦約臟隔そ︑︽络﹚臟淮臟の穝﹁场淮臟狝叭跋ずぺ布基瞷璶臟そ赋ㄆЫ∕﹚基碩斗穦︽現Ы獽龟琁
兵ㄒヘ碞琌辨ミ菏恨臟そ秸俱布基诀琵チ匡琜篶ミ猭Ы镑糵某紇臫チネ臟淮臟の钡婚淮臟ぺ布基讽兵ㄒ硄筁龟琁臟そ矗蔼布基獽ゲ斗妮猭ㄒΑ莉ミ猭Ы硄筁﹍龟琁
挪兵ㄒ薄猵籔1996臟隔そ璹兵ㄒ摸セぃゴ衡狡Τ闽瞶沮砮过現┎ヘ玡癸そユ硄ㄣ基菏恨現郸玂毁カチ痲絋玂臟そΜ瞶㎝カチ钡布基и癑み辨セЫㄆや硂兵ㄒ
畊ネセ略朝勉笆某兵ㄒ弄谅谅
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
SEX AND DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 1996
MISS CHRISTINE LOH to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to make further and better provision for the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sex, disability, marital status and pregnancy; of sexual harassment; and of harassment and vilification of persons with a disability or their associates."
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1996.
This Bill is one of three Member's Bills introduced today on the subject of equal opportunities. Taken together, these three Bills revive the legislative project that was launched in 1994 by former legislator, Ms Anna WU's Equal Opportunities Bill. Our project is to give the community comprehensive and effective legislation against unfair discrimination.
The Sex and Disability Discrimination (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill makes important improvements to the existing Sex Discrimination Ordinance, and makes several parallel amendments to the Disability Discrimination Ordinance.
Almost all the amendments contained in the Bill were recommended last year by the Bills Committee that met weekly for many months to study those two Ordinances before they were enacted. Many of the amendments also implement suggestions made by the United Kingdom Equal Opportunities Commission, on the basis of more than a decade of experience with closely similar laws.
The Bill's amendments help victims of sex and disability discrimination, and also promotes equal opportunities generally.
The Ordinance, as it stands, is badly flawed. Its flaws reflect the ulterior purpose for which it was originally put forward by the Administration: not to combat discrimination, but to control and contain pressure to legislate against discrimination.
So far, the Ordinance has effectively served that ulterior purpose. It helped the Administration defeat Ms Anna WU's Bill last year, and it has provided a handsome screen for government inertia and delay ever since. It has now been the phantom Ordinance for more than a year, on the lawbooks but without any legal effect in the community. When the Administration finally brings it into effect whenever that may be it will force victims of discrimination to negotiate a minefield of exceptions and limitations to their rights. Of many examples, I will mention only the Ordinance's wholly arbitrary $150,000 cap on damage awards for employment discrimination.
Now is the time to take this important Ordinance away from the Administration and make it serve the community as it should. This Bill will do so, and I recommend it to Members.
Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed.
Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 13 March 1996
︙┯ぱ某璓勉и谅︗や┏硂兵兵ㄒΤ诀穦弄иぃ琌箇称祇ē谅谅
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee Stage of Bill
Council went into Committee.
THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
Clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 12 were agreed to.
Clause 6
〆︙┯ぱ某璓勉畊ネи笆某タ材6兵タず甧祇癳︗某ゅン┮更
Proposed amendment
Clause 6
That clause 6 be amended, by deleting "On" and substituting "At".
Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clause 6, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bill
MR EDWARD HO reported that the
THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
had passed through Committee with amendment. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
END OF SESSION
PRESIDENT: Before I adjourn the Council, I wish Members well during the summer recess. The new Session will start on 2 October 1996 to which date I now adjourn this Council.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Three o'clock on 11 July 1996.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 10 July 1996
316
ミ猭Ы せるら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 10 July 1996
317
ミ猭Ы せるら
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.