OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Thursday, 17 October 1996
せるら琍戳
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
と230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 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.
DR THE HONOURABLE EDWARD LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
辩醇翬某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 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.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
糂祇某O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
独﹜グ某
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING
畊そ戮
THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
CHIEF SECRETARY
︽現Ы某ガ現朝よネC.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
︽現Ы某癩現纯疆舦ネO.B.E., 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.
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
MEMBERS' MOTION
某某
MOTION OF THANKS
璓谅某
Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 16 October 1996
確せるせら笆某某臛阶
畊セЫ瞷確穦某膥尿碞辩醇翬某┮笆某ぇ璓谅某秈︽臛阶琌Τゼ纯碞某祇ēぇ某稱祇ē㏄辩睶┥某
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊羆服碸﹚眃筁ㄓ程谨纷Θ罿礚好琌"斑и縒碙"現獀ゅてê贺瞏竤渤綰迭網癸現寄も琿常礚ぃ价芠ゎぃ虫ゎㄏ︗玡ヴ羆服ア︹瞷ヴ某ǎ惨ゼㄓ疭跋盿ㄓ珼驹ぃǎら︗疭跋匡繵繵笆骸ì翠砆碸﹚眃羆服┮ま祇戳辨盾
弘現讽礛璶磷碞淮璶"篛"筁荷矗┣ぃ眔灿弄碸﹚眃羆服琁現厨㎝秈厨矪矪常沫旅簈箌紈︑︑据粂碞硈硄等辅耴︑獺產穦拜╯澈碸﹚眃羆服暗或癘硂ぷㄤ琌琁現厨い秈场だぃ耞喘筁4ㄓ骸Θ罿,矗ㄑ计常琌Θτ羭靡讽礛⊿Τ霉笷ぃ夹ョ荡ぃ矗硂ㄇ藕计琌借э到┪琌骸ì翠戳辨
艼φ钮ㄓ倒︑秈93だ蔼だ絋眔и-
羆服癑み稰谅狦瞏╯碞穦祇瞷硂蝶だΤろそす肈ヘ琌匡拒┦τ3い璣计常"ㄐ"腨и-
环ゼㄓ祇甶い碞琌い翠闽玒ア毖獺ぃノи量竒琌翠┮そ粄ㄆ龟璣碞琌翠璣瓣┮拜肈珹璣瓣﹡痙舦程沧秆∕孩翠禫玭差チ钓场ユフτ计碞琌┛跌竒蕾辅瞷龟箈㏕┶荡钮坝種ǎぃ耞ノ︑ΜΘセ玥ネ種"秨"盿繷粿竒犁Θセ
螟笵碸﹚眃羆服硂3璶現郸絛瞅睝礚攫︓も珼癬い翠ぇ丁がぃ獺ヴи-
ゼㄓガ皚皚好冻и-
临璶谅
眖Щ芠獀翠現獀糷
螟笵и-
璶谅矗現獀ē秨﹍絯㎝い璣闽玒穝眯璉春贾
螟笵и-
璶谅盿烩翠ǐ現獀て笵隔だて翠籹硑ず场ベ㎝癸к┪谅碸﹚眃ネō砰︽毙惧翠現獀Τ硂或蔼も猭и-
現獀醇紌Τ┮矗蔼
螟笵и-
璶谅琁現厨い矗40兜安砞┦好拜ㄓの纞翠ǐぇ翠碞穦"読"
酵竒蕾㎝穦ㄆ叭
螟笵и-
璶谅ぃ虫ゎ┶荡钮坝種ǎэ到竒蕾吏挂临ぃ耞笲ノ︹紆翠ネ種и-
莱禤烩旧羆服坝叭〆穦Θ㊣苸ミ猭Ыユ硂翧〆穦攫ы┪璶Θ犁硑坝籔蒥チ痲癸ミぃ龟禜τ舧㊣璓谅
螟笵и-
璶谅癸Τだぇ矪蔼糷牡叭玡瞒ヴ耞糷诀跌璝礚窣"痙礚砃⊿Τ酚牡钉も浪癚厨某ㄓэ到牡钉絪и-
踞み翠獀碿て堵穦╋繷
螟笵и-
璶谅唉ぃ矗︙ゼㄓ9る过┏秆∕禫玭差チ孩翠拜肈產а癘璣瓣舦簿ユ玡璶糹︽砫ヴ
埃瓃硂ㄇ現獀竒蕾㎝穦ㄆ叭碸﹚眃羆服ま︑花チネㄆ叭琌眔и-
璓谅㎡
螟笵и-
璶谅筐筐ゼ骸ì膀糷︘惠―ゼ笷︘Τㄤ﹚ヘ夹
螟笵璶谅栋砰笲块よ睝礚よ皐㎝現郸┛菠硂よ环祇甶砏购ゲ斗籔玭い瓣皌翠フフ穕ア丁㎝诀穦ゼ荷Ν籔地玭ㄤ跋癬Τ祇甶玠畓翠膙
螟笵и-
璶谅そ洛励現郸ア粇現┎痝㎝禘癸骸ぇ眞痜禘丁┑
螟笵и-
璶谅秆∕ぃ骋笆蒥初ㄑ―ア颗よΤ秖戮︗τΤ秖蒥チア穨骋戈蛮よ常羘更笵
螟笵и-
璶谅┶荡穦醚矗蔼ρ侯穿夹非计窾璸顶糷ρ產璶ネ"緅ョ埂"瞃璚吏挂讽い
畊臮羆服筁计"︓"碞琌рㄇ笆钮τ︽ぃ硄種翠玡ㄏ產Τㄇ罫穝τ才︓禬產戳辨現郸盢穦龟︽崩ρ祙やρ癶ヰ琌ㄒ虫よぃ臮い璣7ユㄧンτ崩碸﹚眃羆服よ琌ㄒ繷ㄓ硂ㄇ杆腞種ほ防蒥チア辨讽礛碸﹚眃羆服ォМр砫ヴ崩ōρ癶ヰぃ龟︽碞弧Θ竜ミ猭Ы㎝は癸τ現ぃ硄碞弧Θ琌いよ几硂禬籏мぃ佩鼓㎡癸翠璶┯ア辨㎝狦и-
螟笵临璶谅盾
畊и谋眔羆服竒礚み攀刺翠环褐祇琁現厨ぃ跌ぇら秈瓁瓣悔現韭箇絞
琁現厨いゼㄓ疭跋︽現﹛矗10翴璶兜и稱碸﹚眃羆服┮瓃は毙矗︽現﹛Τ10翴ちづ列滦箩"ぃ璶兜"
ぃ璶癸кみ篈τ璶ぃぎぃ矪瞶い翠闽玒
ぃ璶縒掉盡绢種饼緍翠俱砰痲
ぃ璶だて翠瘆胊︵蕾が瞶├
ぃ璶眏そ叭現獀ての"澙現獀"莱玂ㄤ莱Τいミ┦のΤ┦
ぃ璶砱瓜"︗"ē羜钮斑ぱぃ睹
ぃ璶―暗"現獀奶"τ┛菠穦龟叭
ぃ璶臮崩︽祏戳蒥チ現郸τ斌环Τ砏购
ぃ璶虑縩伐ぃ箇τ簔跌竒蕾ぃ臮坝穨祇甶
ぃ璶簎纗称ぃ堡現┎Μ禣玱ぃ到笲ノ
ぃ璶睹秨繷や布戳辨璓ア辨
畊セ略朝勉は癸某
眎ゅ某璓勉畊さぱи-
臛阶琌璣瓣現┎恨獀羆服碸﹚眃ネ程琁現厨腨ㄓ弧硂琌⊿Τ琁現よ皐現獀厨ㄏ螟碞ㄤㄣ砰琁現ず甧蝶阶и匡拒癸硂琁現厨菌羆挡翠琌玡緙驹τ澄琵倒璣瓣硂琌琿ぃ眒菌и纯竒翠┎矗璣瓣現┎碸﹚眃ネ莱赣癸硂琿ぃ眒菌笵簆陪ボ璣瓣痷港癶崔チ参獀琌碸﹚眃ネ⊿Τ硂妓暗琁現厨р璣瓣獻菠磞瓃Θ稼瑆眏い瓣笆硂陪礛琌磷碞淮⊿Τタ跌菌玦⊿Τ菌┯踞岿粇㎝砫ヴい瓣ㄓ弧硂ぃ衡琌篴篗癶
碸﹚眃ネ┮タ跌菌琌材Ω驹挡秨﹍俱俱50硂琌翠パ驹ǐ砍脖菌и-
硂カパ砲絘ǐ碔肝パρǐ瞷パ縒掉ǐ秨硂膀娄秨甶и-
︑パ舦㎝猭獀ń祘и-
ゲ斗┯粄硂50狦眖菌跌偿ㄓ陪礛琌Θ硂ㄏ翠Θい瓣ヰ緄ネ砍產ミ穨よい瓣璚螟┗硂ㄓ丁ㄓよ眔覸絯さぱ讽翠盢耴玡и-
絋盿ㄇ縒疭Θ碞タ碸﹚眃ネ弧カ初竒蕾猭獀ゅ穦㎝﹟耴だ瞒ダ砰
さぱ讽и-
臮穦翠Θ碞稰篴㎝藕镀硂讽いΤ礚计晋㎝êㄇㄓ︑ぃよ痷港翠灸矮﹀礛τ讽и-
甶辨ゼㄓ翠┕︙矪и-
耴ぇご礛Τ50羉篴㎝秈˙琌и-
翠み繷揣ぇぃ好拜и-
絋癸菌锣跑碞琌耴い瓣龟︽"瓣ㄢ""蔼︑獀""翠獀翠"硂琌礚玡ㄒ龟喷硂琌600窾㎝12货把籔龟喷Θ毖眔ア闽翠玡硚㎝㏑笲ㄏ–翠常み羖羖糹痢
ゅ菌や琖いチ︑パ舦猭獀翠縒ろ琌チ碸﹚眃ネ琁現厨い弧⊿Τ翠ミチ匡羭琌ヴず狙ㄆㄤ龟硂ぃ虫ゎ琌碸﹚眃ネヴず腨岿ア砮﹃翠崔チ菌璣瓣常⊿Τ翠ま秈チ璣瓣ミ初ㄓ硂琌瞶┮讽礛倒崔チチ碞琌倒チはк猌竟㎝诀穦い璣酵玡翠絯篊祇甶某現τ繦い璣酵挡翠チ碞い璣Ж羅い羮螟ネ︓綝い璣現┎羛も筀硂眖い璣7盞ㄧンい眔靡碸﹚眃ネ框狙狦ぃ琌а玱菌獽琌安稯磀筀翠チぃ虫ゎ琌い瓣現┎珹璣瓣現┎翠竒蕾承硑玡羉篴現獀玱ぃ甠︑㏑笲硂琌翠磀玸琌ゼㄓ50潮紇┮
碸﹚眃ネ琁現厨い矗16翠㎝膀非ㄤ龟硂16膀非耴癬ㄓΤ3翴碞琌︑τぃ巨北現┎︑パτぃ筀ыチ種︑獀τぃ箇翠︑︑パ㎝︑獀琌翠邻膀非爵假琌妓龟瞷翠︑︑パ㎝︑獀㎡и碞Τ从翠チ碸﹚眃ネ矗癸翠ゼㄓ紐納ぃ琌翠︑舦穦砆ㄊ管τ琌硂兜舦穦翴簑耞癳翠琘ㄇも耞癳êㄇ╬τ玃ㄏいよざ翠ㄆ叭もぃ筁狦и-
Τチ匡ミ猭诀闽τぃ琌斑いよΞ種琌眖ミ猭诀闽ê或и-
碞镑︑︑パ龟瞷翠"蔼︑獀"τぃ┤ㄓ︑潮穞à辅厨ぃ┤ㄓ︑いよ笻は膀セ猭箇もτチ種琌к┶いよ礚瞶箇斑綼㎝
碸﹚眃ネ琌フチ㎝チ種秖琌いよ溃玡碸﹚眃ネぃ衡琌"圭てηぃ疊剐"玦瘤礛睲捶Θミ羬ミ猭穦セㄓ琌胊種矗羬ミ猭穦籔ミ猭Ы笲琌跑眔胊胊種硂胊胊種玡碸﹚眃ネ斑镑暗琌繷у蝶τぃ琌Τは阑㎝猭絣硂タタ琌絴腊Γ磃τ龟ぃ︓磇磇篈竧竒いΤ硂妓珿ㄆ霉皑ǖ季┘┰瑍叉р瑿縬皏琜竜竤渤玡瑍もボ睲フ瞷碸﹚眃ネ琁現厨い弧璶籔羬ミ猭穦购睲帹ㄤ龟鞍到ぇ矪籔┘┰だぃ程临琌рチ癳縒掉琜
程碸﹚眃ネ矗翠倒饥碞琌翠┮局Τ纔▆疭借獺├㎝瞶稱疨η荷τ防模ヘ瑈琍▇窾硂贺弧猭ㄏиΤ贺磀粿璣动稰谋翠獺├㎝瞶稱琌菌い疟硑ゲ礛穦阁禫闽承穝ゲ礛ぃ琌發―荷τ防玝ê地㎝Ё疨碾翠跌偿莱赣禬禫莱赣禬禫セτのい瓣┮孔"瓣ㄢ"眖环àㄓ琌菌耴㎝筁寸い硚い瓣硈翠50┪环盢ㄓぃ穦ッ环ㄢ筳τ琌硓筁ㄢ篴▆┦が笆㎝キ膙秨承い地チ壁穝じ▆参い瓣
框狙琌ㄏ琌い瓣窥ㄤ礰ネ╆疷筰菌芠翴ノㄢ盢翠㎝い瓣ッ环筳窥ㄤ礰ネ弧翠ぃ莱赣羭快êㄇ钩せ饱├栋穦妓钡箇い瓣嘲ㄆ叭現獀笆ぃ弧翠猭㎝ネよΑ琌甧砛ヴ︙㎝キ饱├栋穦璶琌翠琌い瓣Τ舦闽み瓣產ㄆ碞せㄆン地狥╝玂徖敞辰㎝参い瓣单拜肈笷翠種ǎ瞷い瓣現┎Τせ倪痝琌碞р翠ちΤ痲瓣產チ壁チ碔眏参㎝キ笷種ǎ笆常跌箇い瓣㎡琌翠い瓣Ξ種酵参ぶ酵敞辰ぃ酵せ㎡琌璶"瓣ㄢ"玡矗跑р翠船埃い瓣ぇ㎡硂贺暗猭琌"辟竲砶磷‵挛"穦玃ㄏ翠ǐだ瞒礚痲チ壁参琌伐ぃ
拜翠把籔せ饱├栋穦穦砆闽秈菏╟窥ㄤ礰ネ弧ぃ饱├せび⊿Τ硂妓菏夯琌窥ㄤ礰ネ菏夯よぃìぃр饱├せ翠Μ菏玱翠籹硑弘菏夯琌翠硂Τ笷︑パ栋穦︑パよ砞翠闽み瓣ㄆ饱├せ種醚篈窽跋硂妓暗碞莱喷碸﹚眃ネ紐納翠盢跑Θ菌"盜盜Υれ纐礛籊"τ翠耴盢ぃΘエ纒ッ痌烦るい床祇獹腞▇
さぱ竒琌耴玡и-
盢纐纐礚癳ǐ参獀и-
崔チ現舦и-
ョ琂佩尺み薄癸耴菌穒–翠い瓣み繷铬笆и-
タ承硑菌и-
瞏チ禥12货い瓣玡Τ戳縒掉魁い瓣玡翠チ琌伐ㄤ畓琂ぃ┶ぃΘㄢ毁硂玱琌и-
斑綼璶琵翠チΘい瓣羘и-
碞ゲ斗ぃㄢ沧伐發―τ莱讽チ碔眏い瓣и-
瞶稱翠50ぃ跑讽礛琌ンㄆ翠50秈˙狦崩笆い瓣玡︽琌ンㄆΤêい地チ壁菌痷タぇ笆甧琵瓣癬ミ耻
畊セ略朝勉
独篿某璓勉畊璣瓣恨翠κき程琁現厨祇ぇㄢ琍戳ずセ翠厨彻祅蝶阶ぃ絞и粄耕眔︗綷弄㎝芭馋るら獺厨癩竒穝籇材祅"︺"ê絞讽礛琌ぃ珹程Τ闽︺㎝独Щ祇畊秎ê琿︓セЫ︗淮某и某-
禦セパ辽皑穦砰美い厩ρ畍辩地痴┮帝闺籔い璣ユΤ灿弄獺癸︗蝶阶硂琁現厨い菌芠翴ゲΤ┮腊
琄ぱ珿︽現ミ猭ㄢЫ某皇緼ρネ隔筁穝℡纯硓臩碭る玡㎝いじρ郭┯вネ矗筁Τ闽翠舦耴虏虫よ猭沮郭ネ弧"璶р翠現┎郴μ篨埃ㄓどи-
き琍篨р璣瓣羆服叫Г︗独ふ堵緑堵泊氟カ﹛︓碞羆服硂碞︽"硂碞暗"翠獀翠"и痷辨せるら瞏舦簿ユ碞琌硂妓虏虫碞琌硂妓キ睭琵对骋翠膥尿对对筁發―︑ネ瞶稱筁筁寸戳丁獴獴碞翠び痟и-
穕ア丁碞琌窥刚稱稱琖皇畍糂胺祸畍辩醇翬洛ネ產不穦璸畍单禣硂芔獵琄︙基
盯杠ヰ矗и临琌ぃ瞒セ︽瞷碞毙▅籔戮穨蚌癡臟隔祇甶籔笲块膀娄砞琁の砏购吏挂㎝現硂3玡矗蝶阶
毙▅籔戮穨蚌癡
現┎璓矗蔼毙▅借セ翠獵镑ㄣ称┮惠醚㎝м莱セ翠ぃ耞锣跑坝穨惠―珹粂ゅそチ毙▅の瞷м磝搐单よ琌荡癸タ絋и辨現┎Τ闽场瞏ち猔種獵ぶ紈▅蚌癡吏玂毙▅耎戮秈躬纘の盡皘躬纘▆厩策
и舧現┎舱戮穨癡絤Ы絋玂м癡絤镑ち龟皌セ翠竒蕾ぃ耞锣跑惠―耎"穝м蚌癡璸购"┮瞇籠м砃贺摸㎝キㄏ戮Τ诀穦钡蔼糷Ωм砃癡絤
臟隔祇甶籔笲块膀娄砞琁
硂ㄓΤ闽﹁场ǐ碮臟隔璸购某紇臫セЫ碭︗ㄆ椿戳璸购ㄢ現┎癸璸购˙郸购〆癠㎝菏服波┛τ旧璓べじ单跋カチユ硄澜峨秆∕ら戳崩ㄢ現┎龟螟勉ㄤ㏒Μ笲块参膚㎝菏诡臟隔祇甶τ某舱麓琜篶疭琌龟琁臟隔祇甶郸菠┮某3兜纔臟隔璸购τ秈︽膚购珹﹁臟臟盢瓁緿や帹㎝皑綽 臟や帹硂笲块ず砞ミ舱麓筁20るиセЫ纯竒某筁ぃ4Ω沧眔現┎粄и戳辨硂穝舱麓镑荷Ν皑ǔ硉辅龟挡"е"砍﹁臟璸购
70货じ砍穝笵隔㎝э到瞷Τ笵隔箇衡衡畉眏種и辨現┎猔種笵隔蝴疭琌禬ó进ㄏノ璶笵隔Τ糤礚搭ま璓璶笵隔ち惠璶秈︽瞶
琁現厨いぃ腀矗癬翠畄よい跋竒芖露笵砍馋獶現┎璶磷矗の闽恶τ珿種р硂兜ヘ懒竚–ぱ痁ぇ5︓8眖い跋àユ硄澜峨薄露笵砍琌ぃ甧╈篊
砏购吏挂㎝現
沮参璸矪戈セ翠糤箇代瞷腨粇畉︳璸今︘ㄑ莱盢祏5窾穝初籔à盢瞷現┎ら玡祇"せ翠祇甶郸菠浪癚吭高ゅン"碞琌璶皐癸ゼㄓǔ硉勘等溃浪癚︙ゼㄓ15ず矗ㄑì镑800窾秆∕﹡︘碞穨のㄤ砞琁惠璶竒筁ㄓ紅┬簿┮乃ㄓノΘゼㄓㄑ莱斗ㄌ苦穝秨┹ㄓ方场だ玥ㄓ︑カ跋辨笷璓ㄑ―キ颗ヘ夹セㄓ恶琌糤ㄑ莱程ㄎ快猭玱砆场だ吏玂羔痜ぷㄤ琌蝴ㄈず翠璸购程,い跋芖︓簧苧芖恶纒‵〤約狥笵﹁︓翠畄﹁獵瑆纒芖单璸购現┎常ぃ幢矗癬︓玠荡獶▆郸穦硑Θ弊甼繧硑弊℡糤弊℡厄繧
ぶ璶秨┹穝ㄓ方酵︙甧瘤礛诀初臟隔猽帹盿ㄓ讽だ秖ó籠穨祇甶祔祔覸絯惠―祘現┎玱珿種框а诀初臟隔垃帹猽硚临Τㄢ纯竒矗のヘ玡Чぃ矗恶璸购ノ砍ㄢ穝カ马 漠芖㎝潮緿せる诀初臟隔硄ó杠碞琌Τㄢó⊿Τ⊿Τ﹡チは伐碔阶货じ﹁臟隔瘤礛禯瞒╃狾ご环現┎玱箇衡︙繟バじ单﹁跋逼甧き窾︙硂"玴痢┘"и粄祏戳秆∕ぃìよ猭埃Μ瓁ノゴ種㎝穝σ納㎝砏购场だ娩挂窽跋馋粄痷σ納ヘ玡穝砏购笰秖耕キ琌ごΤ惠璶の盢ㄓ穝琌ご璶玻翠┮惠场だ笰狦氮琌﹚玥俱穝笰碞惠璶穝砏购矗ㄑㄇい盞┪盞︘ノ
︓吏挂玂臔よ沮赣场–浪癚臮厨借场だ借э秈よ﹚琌ΤㄇΘ罿堡ㄤよア毖ㄒョ拇竀痓紀矪瞶て紀Μの縱紀Μ禣单孔ぃ秤猅羭и辨穝场镑盿ㄓㄇ穝禜穝镑祏戳ぇずユㄇΘ罿ㄓ
畊и略朝勉
ッ笷某璓勉畊琎ぱ肚碈厨笵い瓣捌羆瞶窥ㄤ礰钡厨彻砐拜矗窽ゎ翠羭︽せ栋穦の牡穝籇ぃю阑い瓣烩旧硂贺ē阶ぃ虫ゎ瘆胊羛羘の膀セ猭い倒ぉ翠Τ栋穦穝籇︑パ硂Θい瓣現┎秈˙痰翠現獀笆のē阶︑パ硂ㄇパ羛羘の膀セ猭兵ゅ砏﹚玂毁舦常パ烩旧そ礛筋今刚拜翠癸羛羘の膀セ猭Τ獺み
讽﹛種в竒祇璶马溃翠舦睲捶癟腹êㄇㄌ玻囊舦τ眔現獀︗竚現翠ㄆ臮拜の膚〆碞琌径璝碒峦┪琌蠢""笻璉▆み臛
窥ㄤ礰硂琿丁量硂礷杠翠过┏斌ㄢほ稱材ほ稱琌い瓣碔眏玻囊︑иЧ到稱稱い瓣э秨︑︓さΤ叫玻囊妓癸êㄇも礚臟ネ肣ㄊネ糂惧猧うの局Τ4 000窾囊计κ窾瓁钉玻囊常ぃ甧翴ㄠぃ種ǎ硂贺薄猵ゑ穦ゅ夯Τ筁ぇτ礚ぃの
材ほ稱琌辨êㄇ玻囊ず甧钮種ǎ翠徖舦硂ン琌獶拜肈êㄇ現の膚〆常綼罽︑催Τそ秨ㄓ盢窥ㄤ礰弧杠ジㄤ獶程ア辨讽礛琌3︗Τ诀穦砆崩匡疭跋匡赋地法臟假のタ硂3癹磷Τ闽翠栋穦ē阶の穝籇︑パ拜肈硂穦陪ボ硂3現獀拜肈ぃΤ縒ミ種ǎち璶ㄊ∕﹚硂3セ碞琌玻囊"ц帹そ"
秈˙ㄓ弧戳辨︽現﹛㎝羬ミ猭穦﹚膀セ猭材兵セ猭い穦徖舦┪︽現﹛㎝羬ミ猭穦穦┶荡霫澄舦猭セ琌絫れ―辰
筁ㄓ辊辊筋今舦磀粿ぃ琌竒い瓣の翠ぃ耞簍盾㏄辩睶┥某矗羆服迭網だ糉甡ぃ阶迭網︙糉甡ぃの玻囊腨㎝╟夯и粄戳―伐舦琁ぉ┦稯稲ぃ绊﹚︑種в程胊ゴ衡籔翠刮挡璓玂毁翠舦τ灸矮癸窥ㄤ礰纞ē阶翠莱玦莱и穦某や羛穦把σ璶膥尿そ秨縩伐羭快せ饱├笆縩伐㊣苸翠把︽笆╄咀伐舦纞︽笆徖︑莱Τ舦︽笆龟筋羛羘の膀セ猭
讽ΩΤい瓣烩旧ボ翠穦龟琁"瓣ㄢ蔼︑獀翠獀翠"眔ㄓ穦琌霍羘幵翠瞷˙˙龟筋セ琌甅ê碞琌"瓣囊恨獀癩恢獀翠"
畊翠ごΤ翴丁и-
莱羘弧︑み杠琌ㄤ琌獶ㄤ獶癸砆肣ㄊネ砆骋毙糂惧猧盢砆糵うの笷瓣и璶-
厩策-
璓穛-
琌い瓣▆み
畊и瞷锣酵┬現郸
羆服琁現厨い眏秸璶э跑せㄓ┬現郸痷タΤ惠璶矗ㄑ﹡ぇ┮躬纘竒蕾璽踞眔ㄓ蒥チ︑竚﹡┮羆服临眏秸ちせ㎝穦惠―┬現郸さぱぃ﹜
┬独琍地ミ猭Ы某虏厨せ┬現郸乎ョ眏秸現┎莱盢そ戈方皌倒"痷タΤ惠璶"┬竝竝璢厩搂らョ某盢そ近"眔"だ皌虫︗よ猭э"惠璶眔"﹡︘碿の砲絘蒥チ荷е莉絪皌"加"3︗蔼﹛が㊣莱甶ボ現┎璶э跑ㄓ场だ蒥チ矗ㄑ稧基﹡┮∕み
羆服硂礷杠ēぇ種琌璶э跑ㄓ現┎场だ蒥チ矗ㄑ稧基虫︗暗猭э跑そ┦借Τí砲Τ戈︘そ虫︗盢┬"╬犁て"躬纘︑竚﹡┮镣墩ǎ"蛮現郸"せ龟琁"禬碔め現郸"の糤挤戈方そ﹡チ矗ㄑ纔磃禪禦﹡τらΤ厨笵嘿┬竝穦璶―睲╊紇臫﹡チビ厨戈玻筄ぃ穦莉竚︘虫︗τ"惠璶眔"某龟悔狦碞琌盢︘そ虫︗戈Μ候近肂兵ンぃ虫ゎ︓珹戈玻﹡︘吏挂の產畑猵常穦σ納硂穦ㄏㄏ戈近钉ヮ產畑ぃ﹚穦近计莉皌そ虫︗τΤ"í砲"產畑︘そ虫︗程顶糷い程砲τ砞τㄤ顶糷蒥チ┪珹近┬竝泊い常琌"そ碔め""ネэ到︘め""禬碔め"の"碔肝近產畑"场砆腢抠┪砆禦﹡の╬加"惠璶眔"硂阀├龟悔琌現┎罽搭癸そ虫︗┯踞迭
╬の﹡加基ぇ蔼ㄏㄇㄑ加Ι埃ㄑ加秨や籔钡侯穿ネキぃ狦膥尿硂妓и獺硂ㄇぃ虫︗莉眔﹡┮ネΤ跑胊τぃ跑翠琌材︗程蔼АΜ跋砲碔腶ら痲腨程蔼Μ︘め20%Τ翠羆Μτ程20%Μ︘め羆Μκだゑ4.3%ㄏ瞷現┎场だ矗ㄑ稧基﹡┮,┬秨や蒥チ羆秨やョタぃ耞どさぱ翠羉篴碔肝澈礛Τ癩碔栋い20%もいㄤい璶琌玻坝もいㄤ玥璶焙禥ㄑ禥加蒥チ埃ì镑莱ㄑ加の膀セ︾ユ硄のㄤネ盢稫碼"蔼基蔼加基蔼"穦玻坝璚翠
и-
玥觅"惠璶"莉σ納纔眔穿現郸玥и-
は癸琌"í砲"矗ㄑ虫︗暗猭"痷タ惠璶"虑玠搭そ犁┬┯踞さぱ近肂璙ㄨ祘Τ戈近そぃ阶︘┪ネ常Τ螟и-
瞶秆瞷┬戈方Τぃミ絪皌虫︗倒┮Τ近﹡チ琌現┎璶┯粄近產畑絋"Τ惠璶"眔穿и-
某現┎近3獶そ產畑矗ㄑ穿搭淮-
ネ璽踞
瞷近﹡チΤ近7︓10ごゼ"加"︓и紐納羆服┮┯空〓き︓箂箂箂〓箂砍141 000︘虫︗┯空琌瞷и︑ō┬〆穦Θ,и秆璶龟筋硂┯空碞璶硂ヘ夹丁ず程い箂箂箂︓箂ぇ丁ぇず砍9窾穝の﹡虫︗и碞硂縱秖盡穨の玻紉高種ǎ-
弧硂セ琌ぃ龟筋┯空и碞硂翴╬┬竝ㄆ琩高-
稰溃箂箂箂︓箂9窾穝虫︗и粄硂琌菌┦Ωぃ龟瞷"岸砞"
狦ぃ笷硂ヘ夹近產畑盢膥尿璚硈ぱ產羆服┯空盢キА近丁パ7搭5ス瞷近そ產畑е翴"加"ㄓョ穦戳辨辅現┎そガパ箇璸岿粇箂箂︓箂丁盢Τ5窾虫︗祏ずㄓ翠猭簿チ癸そ犁┬Τ惠―–キА糤窾そ秖τ–近穦糤24 000︘め璚更薄猵ㄓ盢穦尿き"產眎の產┬"璚猵Τ诀穦瞷
畊翠┬拜肈紿κふи-
癚阶︑羆服沉瞶疎颈里瞷竒24и-
ご琌量るる量らら量量и稱拜碸﹚眃ネ┪ゼㄓ︽現﹛临稱量︙翠┎瞷╬┬旧郸菠┪癸╬加基┮蹦︑パヴ篈癸約蒥チ琌⊿Τ痲矪瘤Τㄇゴ阑加惫琁きせ加薄猵瞷︑碸﹚眃ヴ︓さ╬加基ど3琌街眔痲琌玻坝
畊羆服程琁現厨笵現┎璶э跑蒥チ矗ㄑ続の璽踞眔ㄓ﹡┮よ弧矗ㄑそ倒场だ蒥チ"ぃ﹜"а弧翠Τさぱ竒蕾Θ碞㎝穦铆﹚龟籔琁︽40そ稧虫︗現郸Τ闽玒現┎さぱэ跑硂よ盢穦"砲禫砲碔禫碔"薄猵碿て紇臫穦铆﹚и辨現┎┪ゼㄓ疭︽現跋﹛τ︽崩︽穦俱砰痲ㄌ耴┬郸菠
畊セ略朝勉
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, debates on the Motion of Thanks often provide a good opportunity for us all to let off steam.
But never before have there been so many speeches, spiked with so many barbs and delivered with so much undiluted pleasure!
So, it is not fashionable these days to praise an outgoing sovereign power. And it takes a great deal of courage for anyone to do so. For the king is dead, long live the king!
But colonies are really bad things for they deny the subjects self-determination and self-respect. They knock at the very roots of human rights and human dignity. British colonies, Chinese colonies, any colonies are bad things. However, whatever the fault of the British Colonial Government, it may be regarded as a government which is respected but not feared, and certainly not feared, judging from the generous lashings of venom in some of the speeches. It is a government which accepts criticizm in good measure and in good grace without wreaking vengeance on its critics, and I just hope that under the Chinese sovereign power next year, Honourable Members can still speak with candour and courage against Chinese leadership, with equal freedom and without being punished.
Although the Government is an all-powerful colonial government and as I said before nobody likes a colonial government, it has, more often than not, sought, I think, to tamper its absolute power with checks and balances achieved by the three pillars of the separation of powers: namely, an independent Judiciary, an elected legislature and an executive-led Government.
It is therefore fair, I think, to suggest that however imperfect the Government, or however imperfect the Governor's October address, if the policy address can be accused of anything at all, judging from the collective and united bashing of the Governor and the Government, the policy address can certainly not be accused of dividing the people of Hong Kong against China!
And whatever the failures of the Hong Kong Government under the colonial British rule, and indeed there are many failures, the Hong Kong Government will still leave behind an excellent legacy of Civil and Disciplined Services which serve the community without fear or favour.
Whatever the faults of the Administration, there is still a legacy of the rule of law which, if maintained, will stand Hong Kong in good stead in the years to come.
Hong Kong's success today is attributable to all of the above factors and to a social-economic infrastructure supported by the dedication of the Administration, by contribution from Hong Kong people and by assistance from China hinterland. Without all of these, Hong Kong will not have had the competitive edge over our neighbours.
Surely, all these will provide a sound foundation on which we can build for the future under the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government.
Indeed, I think Hong Kong people have much to thank the Government for. To my mind, it is a "good" administration led by Governor PATTEN. I think I shall run the risk of being branded having supported the Government, but it is only fair to say so.
Yet being just "good" is obviously not good enough. It could have been and could be better! And it is in this latter light that I shall abstain from supporting the motion.
In his address, the Governor declared his personal frustration in the fact that Hong Kong's leadership is not universally or popularly elected and thus legitimized, as in most free societies, through "the test of the ballot box" to use his words. Many people share this "frustration" and argue with conviction that it is entirely within the powers of the British Colonial Government to have removed such "frustration" by initiating reforms to make it possible for a system to be put in place to elect our own leadership through democratic and fair election by universal suffrage.
So it is ironic that Governor PATTEN's 1992 reform package, which came frankly a bit too late and a bit too little, was named and blamed for the "demolition of the legislative throughtrain".
So, Hong Kong can never be the same as in the past. Neither does it wish to be.
Just look at the manifestion of a new phenomenon, the emergence of neo-compatriotism, evidenced by calls for the protection of Diao Yu Tai, and you will get the drift of what I mean.
Many people may feel rejected by Britain. Many more may feel disillusioned with the present.
Equally, many people have found within ourselves an inner strength and a new vigour:
- to achieve a smooth and successful transition:
- to defend democracy;
- to promote human rights;
- to uphold the rule of law and
- to initiate "one-man one-vote" to elect Hong Kong's own leadership.
Hong Kong's success today is built up over time but, believe me, it can be demolished overnight.
At this historical juncture, it is important for us to learn from the mistakes of the past and to get the transition right. Whilst we cannot change history, it is equally important for us not to cry over spilt milk, but to look ahead and to secure for ourselves a bright future under Chinese sovereign rule.
To that end, let us do what is right. Let us do what is just for Hong Kong. Let us do our level best so as to achieve the twin dicta of "one country, two systems" with the high degree of autonomy under a system of full democratic participation by the people of Hong Kong.
In the final analysis, unless we care, unless we do our best according to our conscience, we will all deserve the Government we get. And we will indeed get what we deserve.
Thank you, Mr President.
MR PAUL CHENG: Mr President, traditionally, as a mark of respect for Hong Kong's Governors, Members of this Council have given their vote of thanks for the policy address.
I would very much like to follow that tradition this year by giving my thanks. However I find it extremely difficult to do so ....... and I consider myself a "moderate". So why is it that someone like me, a moderate, should feel moved to turn tradition on its head?
It is not just my disappointment that the final Hong Kong policy address of a British Governor was more of an attempt to justify the past, than a rallying call for the community to work together for the future. It is not just my frustration that the Governor, rather than trying to help Hong Kong through this historic transition period, felt compelled to have yet another go at splitting the community, and to take a few more pot shots at the provisional legislature and China.
My conversion from "moderate" to, well, "not-so-moderate" is because, quite frankly, I have had enough of the double-talk, the double standards, and the myth that the Governor seems intent on perpetuating for the benefit of the international arena and his home audience that he is Hong Kong's knight in shining armour
- The man who tried to give Hong Kong democracy;
- The man who tried to save Hong Kong from the "Chinese bullies";
and, not forgetting the latest addition to his list of heroics,
- The man who tried to save Hong Kong from itself or at least from the mysterious, shadowy group he likes to refer to as "some people".
And then, there is the Governor's patronizing style. This was the fifth in the series of "Patten Lectures", and was the most condescending of all. If the Governor insists on showing his disrespect for the Council by continually talking down to Members, why should we show him respect?
Perhaps the Governor thinks that by treating Members like infants, he will receive the respect we Chinese automatically show to our parents and elders. But I am afraid that does not quite work in this case.
Of course, in terms of political rhetoric and cunning, we are all infants. And the Governor has certainly made this work to his advantage. He is fond of talking about puppets the Beijing variety. And yet, all the while, he has been orchestrating his own puppet show here in Hong Kong, playing one group off against another in an attempt to justify his actions, particularly his electoral reforms where his star puppets have really come to the fore, especially on the international stage.
However, judging by many of the views that have been expressed in this Council over the past two days, the puppet-master seems to have got a little tangled up in the strings. Not that it really matters now. The objective has been achieved and the Governor will be able to leave Hong Kong with his international image as a democratic crusader intact, and ready to revive his political career in England.
The world does not have to know the truth. It does not have to know about the British Government's and Governor PATTEN double standards. These are mere details. For example, the fact that:
- Britain did not see fit to introduce democracy for nearly 150 years, but suddenly developed a conscience when the 1997 issue appeared on the horizon.
- The first light of democracy was already here when the Governor arrived. Admittedly, it was far from full bloom, but then Hong Kong was in the very early stages of political development, and a sensible pace of democratic development had already been agreed with China and incorporated in the Basic Law.
- Although the Governor's electoral reform package was clearly contrary to previous understandings and its spirits, he introduced it amid fierce opposition from China and very often, he liked to give the impression that China objected only when the results of the election were known which, as we all know, is not the case.
- The electoral reforms were passed by this Council by one vote. What the Governor always forgets to mention is that the victory was achieved with the help of three government votes and one abstention hardly unanimous support.
- Had the Governor left well alone, the "through train" would have continued and there would never have been a provisional legislature. (But, of course, that would have done nothing for the "crusader" image!)
The Governor said in his policy address that he hoped the world will judge Hong Kong not by preconceptions, but by the evidence of what actually happens here. I fully agree with him on that point, but I would also say to him, to the British Government, and to other Western powers to apply the same yardstick and benchmark to China.
Unfortunately, many of the world's preconceptions of Hong Kong have been planted by the Governor himself. In one breath, he talks confidently about Hong Kong's future, and in the next, he raises grave concerns. His lofty list of 16 benchmark questions serves only to reinforce negative preconceptions of Hong Kong, and to sow further doubts and uncertainties both at home and abroad. It is yet another example of the Governor lecturing China on the possible consequences if it fails to abide by agreements it repeatedly says it will honour.
The Governor also makes great capital out of Hong Kong's supposed "level playing field", and warns of dire consequences should that be compromised after 1997. Of course, it is vitally important that Hong Kong preserves a level playing field. But the Governor and the British Government should not be so eager to take the moral high ground on this. People who have lived here in Hong Kong, such as myself, for any length of time know that in Hong Kong's level playing field, there has always been an Orwellian element ...... that all companies are equal, but some companies are more equal than others. What is it they say about people in glass houses?
Elsewhere in the policy address and Policy Commitments, there are a lot of impressive figures and glowing tributes to Hong Kong's achievements. They are all well deserved.
However, the truth remains that, despite the vibrancy of Hong Kong, the magnificent skyline, our sophisticated infrastructure and business success, we still have a lot more to do to help the elderly and the truly needy; to improve our education systems and facilities; and to train and retrain our workforce to cope with Hong Kong's changing economic structure.
Our housing policy is in urgent need of a comprehensive review. We must ensure that all our citizens can live in dignity and acceptable standards of comfort.
We must also ensure that our citizens can live in a clean and healthy environment, but what have we really achieved in the past four years in terms of improving the environment? It is but a small drop in an increasingly polluted ocean.
On the more positive side, I am pleased to see the Government's continued support for business and its ongoing commitment to maintaining Hong Kong's competitiveness. After all, Hong Kong is a business city, and the livelihood and standard of living of the Hong Kong people depend on us being able to remain an international financial and commercial hub. We must focus on what we do well and continue to enhance our competitiveness as a commercial centre and avoid creating too political an atmosphere for that would only help further the living standard of Hong Kong people in the wrong way.
We need urgently to identify and develop a niche of our own in the high technology, added value sector in order to help create a more balanced economy a third leg in the stool after services and tourism.
Initiatives like the Science Park, the fourth industrial estate and even plans for a second Industrial Technology Centre are all basically old promises wrapped in a nice new yellow cover. Nonetheless, I welcome the Governor's reaffirmation of these commitments, and hope we can now stop merely talking about them, and move forward so that they can be implemented expeditiously.
By the same token, with the controversy over Container Terminal 9 now resolved, I hope we can proceed smoothly and speedily to complete the construction. We have already lost too much valuable time on this vital part of our port development programme.
Furthermore, if we want to stave off the competition from neighbouring ports, we need to start forging ahead with Terminals 10 and 11 and that means talking seriously with China to ensure that we are all in full agreement (with no room for misunderstanding) on the way forward for this important transitional project.
I was pleased to see the increasing focus on social welfare, and the Governor's acknowledgement of the need to maintain a sensible and affordable balance between increasing assistance for those in genuine need, while avoiding the slippery slope to a welfare state.
The Governor said that pubic spending currently accounts for only about 18% of GDP, however, I have to wonder how this figure would be affected were we to strip out from our GDP the beneficial short-term impact of our infrastructure projects.
While on the subject of welfare, I would like to take this opportunity to urge all parties to help implement the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme. It may not be the most favoured choice for some, but our society, our ageing workforce, needs it. I hope those thinking of stalling the subsidiary legislation to be put before this Council will have a change of heart. If not, you will be putting at stake the interests of those very people you seek to protect.
In closing, I would like to pick up a point the Governor made about his predecessors. The policy address outlined many of Hong Kong's achievements past, present and future. Let us not forget that the seeding work for much of the development we see around us today the new airport, the port development and so on was carried out by the Governor's predecessors. We should give credit where credit is due. Last but no least, I would like to pay tribute to our very able Civil Service led by the Honourable Mrs Anson CHAN for all they have done to serve Hong Kong people and serve them well.
Mr President, as I understand it, voting on the original motion will take place next week after the policy secretaries have had a chance to speak. I will unfortunately not be in Hong Kong next Wednesday because I have a long standing commitment organized by the Hong Kong Government to speak for Hong Kong in Scotland. In any event, I would have abstained next week. Thank you, Mr President.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, when the Governor said in his policy address this year that his address would be different, little did we know until he finished that Policy Commitments were relegated to an undeserved second place.
I would not have expected the Governor not to place on record the British Government's version of events since 1982. Indeed, the Governor has gone further as he attempted to explain the whys and wherefors of the British Government's actions. Without doubt, the most controversial and damaging event for Hong Kong is the absence of an agreement between China and Britain over the transition of the legislative Council from 1995 to 1999. An event which the British Government has refused to acknowledge.
On the contrary, the Governor said that the failure to agree on electoral arrangements was, and I quote, "in a sense, resolved where it should have been right here in this Council Chamber". All of you remember that the Liberal Party's proposal was defeated by one vote. History will judge whether that defeat was fair to the people of Hong Kong because the issue was resolved in favour of the Patten constitutional proposals by the three government officials' votes not exactly in line with the finest of British democratic traditions.
As we all know, it was the lack of an agreement on electoral arrangements that led ultimately to the birth of the provisional legislature not, as the Government asserts, because of the results of the 1995 elections. Do not forget one important point: there was absolutely no fundamental disagreement over the 20 geographical seats. There might have been disagreement over the single-seat single-vote arrangements but this was not the main difficulty. The impasse was the arrangements for the nine new functional constituencies and the election committee. If you are a fair-minded and open-minded person, the nine new so-called functional constituencies is direct election through the back door. If the British Government was determined to have more than 20 geographical seats, why did it not insist on this in 1990? Why wait till 1995?
Mr President, I also remind colleagues that the seven letters exchanged between the Secretary of State of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Chinese Foreign Ministers had a significant impact on the Basic Law. But the same seven letters obviously had little influence on the failure to agree on electoral arrangements. Again history and perhaps other papers within the archives of the British Government may tell a different story.
The Governor also mentioned that what happened last September was what Britain and China agreed should have happened in 1984. The Governor referred to a fair election and went on to imply that the protest today was because a fair election produced the wrong result for China. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Governor, experienced a politician as he is, must have known that the legislature for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region was, amongst other weighty factors, a matter of sovereignty. Had the position been reversed would the British Government have accepted a legislature elected under Chinese sovereignty based on electoral arrangements unacceptable to Britain? Clearly not!
Notwithstanding our opposition to the Patten constitutional package or the election results, the Liberal Party has continuously encouraged dialogue between the Chinese Government and the democrats which obviously include the Democratic Party. We can only do so much and as we all know the Democratic Party has decided not to participate in the Selection Committee or the provisional legislature. We believe that they are letting their supporters down, but that is their choice.
This leads me to the provisional legislature. The Government's, and indeed the Governor's, view of the provisional legislature is clear: one of total non-co-operation. It remains to be seen how this Administration will walk that tightrope of co-operating with the Chief Executive (Designate) and his team designate but not with the provisional legislature. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would answer the question that was neatly side-stepped by the Secretary for the Treasury, namely, will the expense of running the provisional legislature be part of the 1997-98 Budget? And if not, why not?
For the past four years, inside and outside this Council, the Governor has repeatedly told us that those who predict doom and gloom for Hong Kong will be proven wrong, so it makes me wonder whether the Governor has turned a Hong Kong-sceptic overnight or has his faith in the promise for Hong Kong of a high degree of autonomy for 50 years as provided in the Joint Declaration been jolted? Cynics might attribute this erosion of faith to shifting responsibility away from Britain. In other words, as far as Britain is concerned, it has done her best, including laying the best foundation for an even more successful Hong Kong after the handover. What a clever but diabolical approach: if Hong Kong succeeds, it is Britain's success; if God forbids, we fail, it is our failure not Britain's. Surely, this cannot be Britain's idea of an honourable withdrawal!
Mr President, enough on politics. Perhaps we only need two benchmarks both before and after 1997: the Hang Seng Index and the community's expectations and concerns about housing.
In 1992, the Governor promised to increase home ownership to 60% by 1997, but has failed to do so. The consolation is that after four difficult years which saw substantial increases in property prices the Administration has finally recognized that the fundamental problem lies in the slow production of land and increasing difficulties over urban renewal thus reducing private sector residential flats production.
Let us put the record straight! Apart from slow land production and declining urban renewal projects, delays in lease modification have also contributed to lower private sector production. The Administration must bear sole responsibility because there were clear and early warnings from the property sector. However, during the subsequent witch-hunt under public pressure, it shrewdly passed the blame to speculators which resulted in the so-called anti-speculative measures. Our professional and neutral Civil Service found yet another way of putting more money into public coffers. Yet the Administration has the gall to claim that the sole purpose of the temporary stamp duty arrangements was in the interests of home-buyers. Despite increasing costs for home-buyers, the Administration is not about to give up its new-found money machine as it is now seeking this Council's endorsement to make this temporary measure permanent. On my part, I say enough is enough!
In addition, development and construction is impeded by over-regulation and bureaucracy in planning and building controls and shortage of construction workers. Disappointingly the policy address and Policy Commitments have done little to address these problems. The property sector is aware that the approval process for new building projects has become more time-consuming as government procedures have become increasingly complex.
We now face five major sets of bureaucratic procedures which involve a large degree of duplication. They are: one, the statutory planning procedures through the Town Planning Board; two, land administration procedures through the Lands Department; three, building plan submissions through the Building Authority; four, environmental approvals under the impending Environmental Impact Assessment Bill and the Town Planning White Bill; and five, the Consent Scheme approvals under the Lands Department. However, in fairness, the Real Estate Developers Association (REDA) have constant dialogue with these Departments and occasionally produced sensible solutions. Indeed, the REDA will seek to seek these dialogues with a view to improving the real situation.
That having been said, I am most disappointed that the Policy Commitments do not create any new initiative to solve these problems. On the contrary, the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch says it intends to revise three sets of planning standards and guidelines in the coming months, namely, those on industrial land, those on open space and recreational facilities, and those on the provision of retail facilities. Would the Administration assure us that any revision will not lead to more complex or stringent regulations? Perhaps as a new initiative, the Administration will finally agree to the REDA's suggestion to form a working group comprising government officials and private sector representatives with a mandate to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy within the system.
Mr President, I shall now turn to the construction sector which is determined to enhance safety. However, it is nonetheless worried about the hasty proliferation of regulations in the name of work safety. This Council passed quite a few bills involving safety last Session, yet we are now told a few more will be tabled this Session. I have repeatedly said that the Administration's approach to work safety is not sufficiently broad. Putting all the responsibility on contractors will not solve the problem because safety is the duty for all, and this means contractors, workers, developers, and professionals alike.
The other problem, that of shortage of construction workers, will be exacerbated by the construction of container terminals, the second runway at Chek Lap Kok, and the 511 000 housing units projected for 1996-2001. The Administration has all the figures including those from the Airport Core Programme Job Centre. The Governor had the courage to promise us better housing, better transport facilities and a better environment, but it seems he does not have the courage to stand up against pressure from the unions over imported labour. The Governor and the Administration must tell the public there is a genuine shortage of construction workers which will slow down developments. If housing targets, transport facilities and a better environment cannot be achieved, the whole community will suffer for this blunder.
Mr President, I would not want to conclude without making a plea to the Administration to give a thorough review of our building laws and standards. One example of how backward our building laws are is the requirement that all kitchens and bathrooms must have windows. In civilized and developed communities, it is perfectly acceptable to have mechanical ventilation for kitchens and bathrooms. A small change like this will make much better designs for homes. Another area is the safety factor for our building which is, I believe, antiquated. For example, I suspect that you can remove one quarter of the foundation piles in any of our buildings without in any way rendering those buildings dangerous. Yet what does the Administration do? Nothing.
Mr President, these are anything but new pleas. Maybe this last British Administration, with business as usual, may finally wake up to these simple yet cost-effective and design-effective measures.
Mr President, it is a great pity that this debate on the last policy address by a British Governor has brought out such strong disagreement, but such is price of decolonization. But I want to make it plain that all of us are here to serve the people of Hong Kong and whatever our disagreement and however we vote on this motion. I hope we will never lose sight of that. With these words, I shall vote against the motion.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, as something of an amateur in public speaking myself, I cannot help feeling some sympathy for the Governor. He has made a long and rousing farewell speech, but then, instead of riding off immediately into the sunset, finds himself here for another nine months. What an anticlimax.
I have no rousing speech to make; since, being native, I can never say goodbye. It is for us, in this Council, and even if we find ourselves one day out of this Council, to continue to do all we can for Hong Kong, to take it beyond the transition into a brand new existence. We will be trying to maintain the institutions that have served it best, and improve upon them. We will be guarding against those trends and acts which might bring harm, albeit unwittingly, and with the best intention.
The administration of justice is certainly an area of vital importance. It is in the courts that the protection for our rights and freedoms are tested. It is the uninterrupted operation of the common law system that gives local inhabitants as well as overseas investors the sense of security and confidence in the future. The rule of law will be empty if we do not have a system of administration of justice which is efficient, fair, professional, free from all corruption and accessible to everyone.
It is in this regard I find the Administration's proposal to hasten the use of Chinese in the highest level of courts without ensuring that we are fully prepared for it, a matter of grave concern.
There is no doubt that the greater use of Chinese in court makes the courts more accessible to more people. In appropriate cases, it may increase efficiency. Moreover, when most local inhabitants are Chinese, direct communication with the court in that language is highly desirable.
However, it must be equally recognized, that the adaptation of the common law and its processes into a different language is not a simple matter, and certainly should not be left to chance. We must not compromise the high standard of professionalism which we have enjoyed, and reduce legal arguments to the kind of moral platitudes the mythical Judge Bao is prone to propagate. Take away that professionalism, and we risk losing the confidence of the world.
The use of Chinese in court is sometimes advocated as if it is the easiest thing, that a Chinese-speaking lawyer means a lawyer who can, with only the most informal trial and error, render the law in the Chinese language. All he needs is a glossary of legal terms. I am astonished at such a view. Indeed, no one in Hong Kong can have a clearer appreciation that those who are involved in the translation of the law, how difficult it is to express in Chinese both fluently and accurately the legal concepts and ideas which we have got used to in English. If professional linguists, law draftsmen and practitioners dedicated to the task, putting their heads together, still find this a daunting task, what can have possessed us to expect this instantly from every lawyer and judge?
It must be also recognized, that Chinese comes more naturally for certain cases, and less so in others. In criminal cases or when dealing with factual evidence, using Chinese may present less difficulty, although we must not assume that this is always the case. But what is proposed is not confined to such cases. The policy commitment before us is that Chinese will be introduced in the High Court for criminal proceedings in January next year, and by March extended to civil proceedings. By July, Chinese may be used in the Court of Final Appeal. Sometime before that, presumably, Chinese may be used in the Court of Appeal.
Given this schedule, where is the supply of judges and practitioners to deal with cases in Chinese? If Chinese is to be used at a party's election to do so, with a public being irresponsibly fed the idea that he can choose either language freely, what is the demand the courts are expected to cope with? Further, will it mean the rapid rejection of non-Chinese speaking lawyers and judges, and proficiency in ordinary Chinese will replace legal expertise as the priority qualification?
Mr President, I urge the Administration to be realistic and responsible. I urge a careful approach, an honest assessment of how well-equipped we are to proceed, so that each step is taken only after adequate preparations. I urge, simultaneously, that systematic preparation be launched as soon as possible by which I do not mean just teaching judges how to write judgements in erudite Chinese quoting edifying ancient texts, but the thorough discussion of fundamental concepts of the common law and how they may best be expressed in Chinese. This discussion should be held with judges, academics and practitioners so that a common understanding is forged as far as possible. If we can do this well, then we will not only preserve the common law system in Hong Kong; Hong Kong will have made a unique contribution to the development of law in the Chinese speaking world.
The same principle goes for the translation of laws. A huge amount of manpower and funds in the Attorney General's Chambers is being expanded on this. His paramount concern appears to be to complete a translation of all Hong Kong laws in time for the transition, without regard for the practical value of such an exercise, or how impracticable it is in the circumstances to expect the high standard of legal drafting to be met. Certainly no one whom I have met, including lawyers and judges, have found the Chinese text comprehensible. At the end of the day, the whole thing may just be a white elephant, with no actual benefit to the public at all. Indeed it may do harm, when these texts are used in real-life litigation.
This obsession with things to Chinese should give place to a dedication to professionalism. It should be the Attorney General's aim for those in his chambers to achieve the highest quality, and set for them the highest standards. Otherwise localization can never be a true success.
I find it amazing that far more manpower resources are devoted to the study of Chinese law, computerizing the China Law Database, and offering training to Chinese lawyers, than to those studies, training, database which would strengthen the understanding of the common law among Hong Kong lawyers and government officials.
The administration of justice requires that we are equipped with the necessary laws. In this respect, the localization of United Kingdom legislations which hitherto has underpinned our legal system is of great importance. But even laws essential to the fundamental right of personal liberty such as the United Kingdom Habeas Corpus Act, remain of uncertain status. The Honourable Miss Emily LAU has referred to legislation arising from Article 23 of the Basic Law. Mr President, where is our priority? How can we be so busy publishing China Law Quarterlies, when laws protecting the rights of the individual in our own system are left unattended?
The most disappointing area in the administration of justice is legal aid. This should be the working end of the rule of law, the assurance that ordinary people will have access to the courts. Yet here there is the least progress. It is under the threat of the Administration that no other or better proposal would be forthcoming that this Council passed the law to establish a non-independent Legal Aid Services Council. In spite of the fact that it is in its terms of reference that this Council should study the feasibility of an independent legal aid authority, its Chairman has been reported to say that this is a matter of secondary importance.
But, Mr President, we must seriously look into the provision of legal aid. How can the Administration hold out on one hand, that the greater use of Chinese will make the law more accessible, while on the other, restrict legal aid, knowing that without the help of a legal representative, the ordinary citizen will find most legal processes an intimidating mystery?
If we were serious about the administration of justice, we must encourage people to seek legal aid. We must eliminate undue delays and unreasonable restrictions on the scope of legal aid to give help where help is sorely needed, such as providing legal representatives for the child and for the guardian in care and protection proceedings, and for the deceased's family at inquests. We must adopt a caring attitude towards applicants and clients, and become keen on customer satisfaction and effective publicity. The establishment of an independent legal aid authority remains an urgent matter, because many of the present discouragements for better services are inherent in the fact that legal aid is run by a government department.
Broadening the access to the courts is the best assurance for the appreciation of the rule of law. Why is it not regarded by the Administration as an important preparation for the transition?
Mr President, as Hong Kong hurtles towards 1 July 1997, many people believe that the best way to prepare for the transition is to become as purely Chinese as possible or at any rate, appear as Chinese as possible. So it is with the policy commitment: for "Preparation for the Transition", one may as well read "How to be Chinese". This is fundamentally wrong. The transition is not just about being Chinese, it is about Hong Kong people governing Hong Kong. It is about keeping Hong Kong's systems unchanged and separate from those of the Mainland. It is about taking responsibility for the autonomy which is entrusted to us in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.
The question is not about how to be Chinese. The question is what makes Hong Kong, Hong Kong. For this uniqueness is what we are enjoined to maintain, so that Hong Kong can best play its role and make its contribution not only to China's modernization or to international trade, but to the Chinese civilization, to the development of the world. Mr President, Hong Kong will have its place in history, and we will help earn its place for it by developing the best of what is "made in Hong Kong" from goods to people to institutions.
The great debate of what makes Hong Kong, Hong Kong has begun. With his address to his Council, the Governor has, in his usual modest way, contributed his mite to it. He thinks what makes Hong Kong so wonderful is superior British systems harnessed to Chinese elbow grease. I do not agree. He thinks that what characterizes Hong Kong people is their origins as refugees in search for freedom and their rights. I do not agree.
I would say that, not forgetting our historical backg
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.