OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
ミ猭Ы穦某筁祘タΑ魁
Monday, 23 June 1997
せるら琍戳
The Council met at Nine o'clock
と9タ穦某秨﹍
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.
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 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.
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, J.P.
糂紌某J.P.
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 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, J.P.
綠癡某J.P.
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, J.P.
糂ホ某J.P.
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
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.
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
笲块拷琖ネC.B.E., J.P.
MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING
┬独琍地ネ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 PETER LAI HING-LING, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
玂兢紋圭ネC.B.E., J.P.
MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
砏购吏挂現辩腳篴ネC.B.E., J.P.
MR KWONG HON-SANG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR WORKS
叭馣簙ネネJ.P.
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE
畊
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, J.P., SECRETARY GENERAL
毒更不ネJ.P.
MR LAW KAM-SANG, J.P., DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
捌霉繟ネネJ.P.
MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
瞶狶綠腳
PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2):
Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Prisons (Amendment) Order 1997 336/97
Commodities Trading (Trading Limits and Position
Limits) (Amendment) Rules 1997 337/97
Securities (Exchange 刼 Traded Stock Options)
(Amendment) Rules 1997 338/97
Patents (General) Rules 339/97
Registered Designs Rules 340/97
Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1993
(Nos. 1 and 2) - Ending of the 1996/97
Session of the Legislative Council of
Hong Kong Notice 1997 341/97
Prevention of Bribery (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Ordinance 1996 (48 of 1996) (Commencement)
Notice 1997 342/97
New Territories Land Exchange Entitlements
(Redemption) Ordinance (70 of 1996)
(Commencement) Notice 1997 343/97
Volunteer and Naval Volunteer Pensions
(Amendment) Ordinance 1997 (56 of 1997)
(Commencement) Notice 1997 344/97
Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal
Facility) Regulation (L.N. 197 of 1997)
(Commencement) Notice 1997 345/97
Fugitive Offenders (Netherlands) Order
(L.N. 198 of 1997) (Commencement)
Notice 1997 346/97
Fugitive Offenders (Philippines) Order
(L.N. 202 of 1997) (Commencement)
Notice 1997 347/97
Hong Kong Airport (Control of Obstructions) Order 1997
(Amendment) Order 1997 (L.N. 217 of 1997)
(Commencement) Notice 1997 348/97
Hong Kong Airport (Control of Obstructions)
(No. 2) Order 1997 (L.N. 218 of 1997)
(Commencement) Notice 1997 349/97
Import and Export (General) Regulations
(Amendment of Schedules) Order 1997
(L.N. 246 of 1997) (Commencement)
Notice 1997 350/97
Import and Export (Strategic Commodities)
Regulations (Amendment of Schedules 1 and 2)
Order 1997 (L.N. 247 of 1997) (Commencement)
Notice 1997 351/97
Non-local Higher and Professional Education
(Regulation) Ordinance (50 of 1996)
(Commencement) Notice 1997 352/97
Non-local Higher and Professional Education
(Regulation) Rules (L.N. 265 of 1997)
(Commencement) Notice 1997 353/97
ゅン
ゅン沮穦某盽砏材14兵材(2)蹿砏﹚τタΑ矗ユ
兜ヘ
妮猭ㄒ 猭そ絪腹
1997菏夯璹 336/971997坝珇ユユ肂の肂璹砏玥
337/971997靡ㄩユ┮禦芥布戳舦璹砏玥
338/97盡砏玥 339/97爹芠砞璸砏玥 340/971917︓1993翠癡材1の2腹
1997翠ミ猭Ы1996︓97
穦戳沧挡そ
341/971996ňゎ胳革馒兜兵ゅ兵ㄒ1996
材48腹1997ネら戳そ
342/97穝ユ传舦奴兵ㄒ1996材70腹1997ネら戳そ
343/971997嘲瓁竡玦瓁の瓁竡玦瓁璹
兵ㄒ1997材56腹
1997ネら戳そ
344/97紀矪竚﹚紀矪竚砞琁砏ㄒ
1997材197腹猭そ
1997ネら戳そ
345/97発デ颤孽1997材198腹猭そ
1997ネら戳そ
346/97発デ滇猾1997材202腹猭そ
1997ネら戳そ
347/971997翠诀初毁锚恨1997璹1997材217腹猭そ1997
ネら戳そ
348/971997翠诀初(毁锚恨)(材2腹)
1997材218腹猭そ
1997ネら戳そ
349/971997秈()砏ㄒ(璹)
(1997材246腹猭そ
1997ネら戳そ
350/971997秈驹菠珇砏ㄒ璹1の2(1997材247腹猭そ)
1997ネら戳そ
351/97獶セ蔼单の盡穨毙▅砏恨兵ㄒ
1996材50腹
1997ネら戳そ
352/97獶セ蔼单の盡穨毙▅砏恨砏玥
1997材265腹猭そ
1997ネら戳そ
353/97
Sessional Papers 1996-97
No. 110 Report on the Administration of the
Immigration Service Welfare Fund prepared by the
Director of Immigration in accordance with Regulation 10
No. 111 Sir David Trench Fund for
Recreation Trustee's Report 1996 - 97
No. 112 Hong Kong Trade Development Council
Annual Report 1996 - 1997
No. 113 Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation
Annual Report 1996 - 97
No. 114 J.E. Joseph Trust Fund Report
for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997
No. 115 Kadoorie Agricultural Aid Loan Fund Report
for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997
No. 116 Sir Robert Black Trust Fund Annual Report
for the year 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997
No. 117 The Ninth Annual Report of the Ombudsman of
Hong Kong June 1997
No. 118 Statement of Accounts of the Welfare Fund
Prepared by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise
in accordance with Regulation 10
No. 119 Traffic Accident Victims Assistance Fund Annual Report
by the Director of Social Welfare Incorporated
for the year from 1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996
No. 120 Report on the Administration of the Fire Services
Welfare Fund for the year ended 31 March 1996
No. 121 Securities and Futures Commission
Annual Report 1996 - 97
No. 122 Hong Kong Airport Authority
Annual Report 1996 - 1997
せ︓穦戳ず矗ユゅン
材110腹 チ挂ㄆ叭矪矪沮砏ㄒ材10兵砏﹚
τ絪璹チ挂恨瞶钉褐膀恨瞶厨
材111腹 拦棚砶里眃贾膀
獺癠厨1996-97
材112腹 翠禩祇甶Ы厨
1996/1997
材113腹 翠獺ノ玂繧Ы
せ︓厨
材114腹 锋獺癠膀厨
せるら︓るなら
材115腹 古笵瞶笰穨徊禪蹿膀厨
せるら︓るなら
材116腹 琭ミ膀里獺癠膀
せるら︓
るら厨
材117腹 翠ビ禗盡材戳厨
せる
材118腹 翠闽羆菏沮砏ㄒ材10兵
┮矗ユ膀癩叭厨
材119腹 パ穦褐竝竝猭刮絪级
ユ硄種端穿膀
き︓せ厨
材120腹 篒︓せるら
ň矪褐膀恨瞶厨
材121腹 靡ㄩの戳砯ㄆ叭菏诡〆穦厨96/97
材122腹 翠诀初恨瞶Ы
せ︓厨
Miscellaneous
Report by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of Hong Kong under the Convention on the Rights of the Child
馒兜
ぃ腁の稲焊孽羛瓣沮ㄠ担舦そ矗ユΤ闽翠干厨
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
某借高繷氮滦
Environmental Impact of Stationary but Operating Vehicles
氨﹚ご礛玂笲═ó癸吏挂紇臫
1. バ玊某拜畊現┎セЫ碞緍緋氨ó单ご礛玂═óま篮㎝╰参膥尿笲薄猵
(a) 瞷琌Τ猭ㄒ窽ゎ璝現┎穦皑﹚Τ闽猭ㄒの
(b) Τ╯瓃薄猵癸吏挂徖ネ㎝︽胺眃紇臫
砏购吏挂現氮畊
(a) 瞷礚猭ㄒ砏﹚緍緋氨ó单ゲ斗闽奔═óま篮程и-
ЧΘ兜秸琩╯筁瓣產矪瞶═ó氨箉逼紀惫琁挡狦陪ボ瘤礛㎝瓣Τ场だカ龟琁恨惫琁ňゎ═ó氨箉筁Τ伐ぶ计瓣產瓣崩︽瓃恨琌緍緋吏挂㎝ユ硄砏﹚Τ┮ぃи-
祔穦紉高笲块︽穨㎝Τ闽刮砰種ǎ╯琌Τ惠璶の钡ミㄒ璶―═ó单闽奔ま篮
(b) 埃兜˙秸琩и-
ごゼ秈︽冈灿╯蝶︳═óま篮氨箉┮逼紀癸胺眃㎝吏挂紇臫и-
瞷タσ納琌Τ惠璶秈˙╯㎝秈︽╯よ猭
バ玊某拜畊㎝瓣痴ㄏ═ó逼紀ぃ璶候翠玱琌カи借高┮皐癸獶╬產ó筿猳═ó┪τ琌ノ猳错砯ó㎝笴ぺウ-
┕┕穦单丁叫拜現┎吭高笲块︽穨穦σ納窽ゎ硂ㄢ摸ó进氨óご礛玂═óま篮㎝╰参膥尿笲
砏购吏挂現氮畊ヘ玡и-
癸吭高冈灿薄猵临ゼΤ﹚タи璶氮滦い┮弧и-
穦紉高笲块︽穨-
硂よは莱㎝種ǎΤ惠璶и-
讽礛穦矪瞶瞷耕拜肈ó进
法У地某拜畊3玡ㄈび跋笴穦翠だ穦纯竒硓筁︽诀祇ま璶―-
疭币紈诀初单璶р猳错ま篮闽奔祇肚虫秆睦硂妓暗叫拜現┎Τ戈陪ボ硂摸︽笆疭币紈诀初琌Τ
砏购吏挂現氮畊ㄤ龟и-
竒籹硂摸虫眎祇倒Τ闽︽穨瞷盡ぺそ㎝ㄤ笴︽穨常Μ硂ㄇ虫眎
ぺそ诀祇ま璶―单戳丁ぃ璶琵ぺま篮笲禬筁5だ牧笴穨よ玥斗跌ぃよ龟悔薄猵ㄒ诀初狦Τó诀獽璶秨笆и-
⊿Τ碞–进ó单丁秈︽冈灿参璸らи-
秈︽秸琩砛穦秈˙╯硂拜肈
埃ぺ㎝笴óи-
辨ㄤó进ㄒ╬產ó饺﹊ó︓ぺ︽薄猵穦单рま篮闽奔и-
肚冀碈ざ㎝筿跌Τ秈︽肚祔и-
穦籔笲块︽穨㎝笴穦蝶︳Τ闽Θ狦
谅ッ闹某拜畊沮и┮畉ぃ┮Τ翠吏玂刮砰常やó进单戳丁ゲ斗闽奔ま篮叫拜砏购吏挂現Τ或龟悔現┎︓さごぃ龟︽ㄇ惫琁砏﹚緍緋氨ó闽奔ま篮
砏购吏挂現氮畊–よ︑Τぃ薄猵и-
笵瓣ㄇカи眏秸琌カぃ琌瓣產ㄏ璹Τ硂よ猭ㄒ磅︽Τ拜肈ㄒ妓耞ó进氨ま篮秨笆磅猭冈薄ㄒ靡ㄑ琌猭畑钡の龟悔薄猵单
翠薄猵狦ó进Τご璶单ㄤ碞ゲ斗秨笆狦рま篮闽奔ó进ず瑈硄﹚穦瞷拜肈︓瓣ㄇ耕瓣產狦рま篮闽奔ó进穦ぱびτ螟Ω秨笆ㄇ璹Τ硂摸猭ㄒカΤ僚逼ㄏó进薄猵常ぃ
и-
璶冈灿╯磅︽㎝龟琁よм砃琌︽и-
ら穦碞硂ㄇ拜肈吭高笲块︽穨種ǎ
糂紌某拜畊砏购吏挂現弧璶吭高Τ闽︽穨㎝刮砰谅ッ闹某玥矗吏玂刮砰﹚穦や硂贺暗猭ぃ筁狦ó进ぃ闽奔ま篮и獺┮Τカチ常穦甡現┎莱笵硂薄猵︙現┎紉高笲块︽穨種ǎ讽礛硂癸-
穦Τ紇臫璶-
рま篮闽奔ㄆ龟硂癸┮Τ常Τ紇臫現┎琌笵そ渤だ癚菇硂贺薄猵叫拜吭高筁祘い妓┮Τ甡常莉眔吭高
砏购吏挂現氮畊讽礛и-
礚猭吭高┮Τ甡Τㄇ厩┪м砃膀セ戈и獺某ゲ斗笵进ó┮逼紀︽緋耕氨ㄓ埃獶琌盞よ玥笵隔︽緋ó进┮玻ネ紀耕ó进秨笆ま篮单紇臫
ぃ筁﹉づ阶︙и-
笵カチ癸硂拜肈だ闽猔и-
蹦ㄇ惫琁ㄒ瞷诀筿祘竝㎝吏挂玂臔竝竒络璹ぺ羆硄╰参穝砞璸㎝夹非ら┮Τ穝ぺ羆常穦蹦ノ穝夹非Τ闽场穦σ納︙э到瞷Τぺ羆硄砞琁
琌Τ闽隔氨ó进タи┮弧и-
斗╯磅猭㎝北よ拜肈斗σ納笵隔ó进硄盽瑈秖ㄏ单ó进┮逼紀穦癸カチΤ紇臫カチ璶だ綼ê进ó穦腨紇臫玥ら盽笵隔︽緋ó进┮玻ネ紀ㄤ龟癸カチ紇臫
糂紌某拜畊砏购吏挂現⊿Τ氮и借高и借高だ虏虫碞琌︙吭高┮Τ甡砏购吏挂現弧だ螟琌ボぃ吭高τ琌吭高笲块︽穨種ǎ
砏购吏挂現氮畊иボи-
礚猭吭高┮Τカチ玥翠カチ琌甡某ゲ斗猔種翴翠カチ┮Τタ︽緋ó进紀紇臫耕氨獃戳丁ま篮ご礛篊锣ó进临璶и-
ぃ眖疷à硂拜肈τ璶俱砰薄猵
法У地某拜畊计琍戳玡Τ肚碈約獂厨笵弧產厩氨獃ó进рま篮秨笆穦疭端甡厩ネㄓ吏挂玂臔竝莱弧ぃの︽緋ó进┮逼紀腨硂琌現┎氮滦ぃ筁荡癸紀秖よ現┎Τ秈︽╯琘ㄨ琘㏕﹚絛瞅ず氨獃τま篮ご秨笆ó进耕笵隔︽緋ó进穦紀緻蔼
砏购吏挂現氮畊狦カチだ綼进═ó逼恨紀紇臫讽礛穦ぃ筁拜肈琌狦ó进祏既氨痙ㄒ厩ぺ厩ネó獽穦緋瞒玥︽緋いó进ま篮逼紀パ縐縉縐耕紀繦ぇ糤┮紇臫耕и钡弧猭碞琌狦琘よキら⊿Τó进︽ǐ礛Τ进ó氨赣矪τぃ闽奔ま篮玥赣矪紀緻穦糤蔼らи-
璶秈˙╯穦σ納癸カチ胺眃㎝俱砰借紇臫
地某拜畊叫拜砏购吏挂現現┎Τ砏﹚セō現┎ó进珹カ現Ы㎝カ現羆竝ó进氨獃ぃ秨笆斗рま篮闽奔璝Τ杠硂穦癬盿繷ノ璝杠穦╯秨﹍硂妓暗
砏购吏挂現氮畊硄盽и-
穦倒诀ボぃ璶琵ま篮锣单龟悔琌┮Τ诀痷硂妓暗и-
ぃ﹚砛и穦籔現┎Τ闽场坝癚╯︙現┎ó进︽硂妓暗
バ玊某拜畊砏购吏挂現弧ゼミㄒ玡現┎瞷秈︽毙▅㎝崩約иだや硂贺暗猭叫拜現┎穦σ納‵〤à㎝簧苧芖单硂ㄇ耕笴㎝坝鏓跋祇砏购吏挂現┮êㄇ虫眎盢ウ-
倒現┎场诀
砏购吏挂現氮畊и穦硂妓暗
独岸藉某拜畊砏购吏挂現弧瞷倒盡ぺそㄇ虫眎㎝ま璶―诀坝︘盞Αぺ羆ずрま篮闽奔狦ぃ瞶稱叫拜現┎Τ场ㄒ吏挂玂臔竝┪笲块竝菏诡ぺ诀宽︽ま薄猵現┎Τ秈︽硂よ菏诡
砏购吏挂現氮畊ê虫眎ぃ琌まτ琌腢抠Α璶―诀氨ó戳丁рま篮闽奔и-
秆睦锣ま篮玻ネ拜肈ぃ筁龟悔薄猵タи┮弧ぺ羆秨﹍Τ嘲尿ó狦ぺ杆Τ秸竊碞惠璶秨笆ま篮óずΤ続讽秸竊ヘ玡硂琌-
笿程拜肈и-
ず芠诡诀竒р⊿Τ杆砞秸竊ぺま篮闽奔瞷程拜肈琌妓矪瞶砞Τ秸竊ó进
Hong Kong's Capacity in International Labour Conventions after 1 July
翠るら瓣悔骋そいōだ
2. 某拜畊Τ闽セ翠セるら把籔瓣悔骋舱麓の糹︽瓣悔骋そ┮砏﹚竡叭現┎セЫ
(a) 挪瞷い瓣帽竝18兵瓣悔骋そいΤ6兵﹟ゼ続ノセ翠(珹﹚程戈絋﹚快猭そ╧筍その摧痚戮穨眃確㎝碞穨瓣悔そ)讽ЫΤσ納籔い瓣現┎坝癚獽赣6兵そるら続ノセ翠
(b) 瞷続ノセ翠50兵瓣悔骋そいΤㄇそ盢穦セ翠舦簿ユτぃ続ノ讽Ы癸Τ︙干毕惫琁
(c) 瓣悔骋そ砏﹚帽竝瓣Τ砫ヴ﹚戳矗ユ厨琌眡セ翠るら盢︙贺Α膥尿糹︽兜砫ヴの
(d) 琌眡るらセ翠盢︙贺Α畊瓣悔骋舱麓穦某穦い瓣刮だ
毙▅参膚氮畊
(a) 沮膀セ猭材κき兵材琿砏﹚"い地チ㎝瓣絣挡瓣悔某いァチ現┎沮翠疭︽現跋薄猵㎝惠璶紉高翠疭︽現跋現┎種ǎ∕﹚琌続ノ翠疭︽現跋"
瞷い瓣帽竝τ﹟ゼ続ノセ翠瓣悔骋そ斗パ盢ㄓ翠疭︽現跋現┎籔いァチ現┎坝癚琌続ノ翠
(b) ヘ玡続ノ翠瓣悔骋そΤ49兵ㄤい3兵パ翠舦簿ユぃ琌"獶セ场烩"τぃ続ノ硂3兵そだ琌材82腹獶セ场烩穦現郸そ1947材84腹獶セ场烩挡舦そ1947の材86腹帝沟ノそ1947
瘤礛硂3兵瓣悔骋そ盢ぃ穦膥尿続ノ翠翠現┎硄筁Τ闽ミ猭┪︽現惫琁辅龟硂ㄇそず続ノ翠兜兵蹿硂盢ぃ穦癸セ翠沟舦㎝笿Τヴ︙龟借紇臫
(c) せるら翠疭︽現跋現┎盢硓筁いァチ現┎瓣悔骋舱麓矗ユΤ闽兜瓣悔骋そ厨
(d) 膀セ猭材κき兵砏﹚"癸瓣產虫︗把翠疭︽現ЫΤ闽続讽烩办瓣悔舱麓㎝瓣悔穦某翠疭︽現跋現┎缓い地チ㎝瓣刮Θ┪いァチ現┎㎝瓃Τ闽瓣悔舱麓┪瓣悔穦某す砛ōだ把"い瓣翠"竡祇種ǎ"せるら翠疭︽現跋現┎盢い瓣刮Θōだ把籔瓣悔骋舱麓笆珹瓣悔骋穦
某拜畊現┎氮滦いΤ闽い瓣現┎帽竝瓣悔骋そ盢ㄓ疭跋現┎ョ穦籔い瓣現┎坝癚琌続ノ翠и稱叫拜毙▅参膚瞷Τゴ衡碞ヴ︙瓣悔骋そ籔い瓣現┎坝癚ボ璶秨﹍翠龟琁谅谅畊
毙▅参膚氮畊讽Ыヘ玡ゼΤゴ衡ぃ筁盢ㄓ翠疭︽現跋現┎琌続讽丁碞Τ闽瓣悔骋そ冈灿╯
辩模┚某拜畊讽Ы氮滦(d)琿いせるら翠疭︽現跋盢い瓣刮Θōだ把籔瓣悔骋舱麓笆и稱叫拜毙▅参膚硂琌翠現┎セō瞶秆临琌竒眔﹚氮滦笵ゲ﹚穦硂妓暗㎡
毙▅参膚氮畊Τ闽逼ㄤ龟竒膀セ猭ず睲贰糶τ璶氮滦(d)琿冈灿膀セ猭Τ闽砏﹚ず甧┮и粄硂逼琌荡癸⊿Τ拜肈
辩模┚某拜畊и稱叫拜毙▅参膚硂琌┪翠現┎セō瞶秆临琌竒眔辅龟絋﹚氮滦
毙▅参膚氮畊┪砛и干翴いァ羛蹈舱纯癚阶硂兜逼硂琌ЧぃΘ拜肈
某拜畊氮滦(d)琿碞琌辩模┚某纯竒拜の琿矗の盢ㄓ翠穦い瓣刮Θōだㄓ把籔笆叫拜讽ЫΤ籔瓣悔骋舱麓㎝い瓣現┎坝癚"い瓣翠"虫縒刮ōだ把籔笆碞钩и-
瞷ㄤ禩舱麓常琌翠ōだ把籔笆τぃ琌い瓣刮Θōだ把籔и稱笵現┎讽ЫΤ碞硂よ籔瓣悔骋舱麓の籔い瓣現┎坝癚谅谅
毙▅参膚氮畊瓣悔骋舱麓Θ琌瓣產虫︗翠瞷琌刘妮璣瓣刮ōだ把籔瓣悔骋舱麓笆盢ㄓ翠疭︽現跋把籔瓣悔骋舱麓笆玥琌い地チ㎝瓣刮Θōだ把籔硂琌Ч讽
︙庇古某拜畊叫拜и-
硂盢璶筁寸疭跋現┎毙▅参膚穦碞瓣悔骋そ続ノ翠场だ秈︽╯の疭跋現┎矗ㄇ某ㄒ莱或э跑狦琌穦秈︽硂兜╯杠Τ闽╯ら祘盢穦︙璝ぃ穦╯玥瞶パ︙㎡
毙▅参膚氮畊иぃ逼埃盢ㄓ穦╯い瓣帽竝τ﹟ゼ続ノ翠瓣悔骋そ╯澈琌Τ龟悔惠璶ㄏぇ続ノ翠ヘ玡иぃ碞ㄣ砰丁ヴ︙┯空
Foreign Domestic Helpers Taking up Part-time Jobs
產畑赌眖ㄆ戮
3. 朝胞糭某拜畊ヘ玡產畑赌璝眖ㄆ戮妮笻猭-
の竨ノ-
沟А綝浪北礛τΤㄒ陪ボ鲸恨Τ產畑赌眖ㄆ戮τ砆浪北竨ノ-
沟玱硃换猭現┎セЫ
(a) 筁3–だΤぶ產畑赌獶猭τ砆浪北
(b) 戳だΤぶ沟獶猭竨ノ赣单赌τ綝浪北の
(c) 璝產畑赌眖ㄆ戮砆﹚竜竨ノ-
沟穦莱砆浪北璝︙?
玂氮畊きのせ獶猭τ砆浪北產畑赌だΤ162528の351戳獶猭沟ノ硂ㄇ赌τ綝浪北沟玥だΤ38185の131
∕﹚琌浪北砆﹚竜產畑赌沟и-
ゲ斗σ納兜珹Τ⊿Τだ靡沮靡赣赌籔砆胔好沟Τ沟赌闽玒の赣沟Τ蹦︽˙艼磷沟ノΤ闽獶猭產畑赌璝Τだ靡沮讽Ы常穦癸疉尔沟矗浪北
礛τ璶眏秸翴琌虫虫琌產畑赌眖ㄆ戮τ砆﹚竜ぃ﹚ボㄤ沟ョ穦莱砆浪北硂琌и-
惠璶ㄤ縒ミ靡沮靡沟赌ㄒ赣赌ぃ腀種靡沟┪ゼ絋﹚街琌痷タ沟浪北よ笿螟琌沟羘嘿蹦︽˙艼絋玂Τ闽赌琌猭沟ㄒ浪琩ㄤōだ靡单
皌ゴ阑獶猭沟ノ產畑赌よи-
蹦惫琁眏癸沟浪北現┎せる矗ユ璹猭ㄒ穝﹚猭沟﹚竡ㄏ笻は硆痙兵ン產畑赌ぃ珹ず瞷沟沟ノ獶ッ﹡チōだ靡玡ゲ斗浪琩ㄤ︽靡ン硂ㄇ惫琁ňゎぃ宽猭ㄒ沟ぃ笵赣赌獶猭沟臛秆瞶パせるи-
ョр砆﹚竜沟の沟籃蹿矗蔼Μ纞ぇ
朝胞糭某拜畊钮玂┮弧狦Τ闽赌ぃō靡沟獽螟秈︽癬禗и稱拜狦и綟﹡竨叫硂摸赌暗戮τ靡硂琌靡沮㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, since I am not a lawyer, I would not be able to say whether such is sufficient evidence. Obviously such evidence, if available, would be taken into account by the prosecuting authorities. The ultimate judgment is one of whether there is a reasonable case for prosecution and whether there is a reasonable chance of success. In all these, our colleagues in the Immigration Department take account of all the evidence, all the statements that are available to them, and where necessary, they would seek the advice from the Legal Department.
襖略ビ某拜畊玂材琿矗のΤㄢ┦庢靡螟赌ぃ腀種靡沟玂倒и-
稰谋琌êㄇ獶猭τ砆赌常ぃ腀種靡-
沟讽ЫΤ暗筁虏虫だ猂琌摸赌﹡┪-
ㄆ玡Τ纐ス砆ぃ穦靡㎡讽Ы穦σ納э猭ㄒや戈よ璹ㄇ┮孔安砞兵蹿讽礛琌瞶絛瞅ず獽ゑ耕甧浪北硂ㄇ沟㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, we always encourage the foreign domestic helper concerned to testify against the alleged employer. In 1996, for example, a total of 59 foreign domestic helpers were granted immunity by the Attorney General, or his approval in principle, to testify against such employers or agencies. At the same time, the current presumption available under the Immigration Ordinance enables the court to presume the existence of an employment contract if there are other employees employed by the same employer at the place of employment.
From a legal point of view, there is little other convenient way to further remedy the situation without undermining the importance of the principle of a fair trial, but obviously, we would be prepared to take into account any suggestions that may be practicable from Honourable Members.
㏄辩睶┥某拜畊現┎セЫ浪北êㄇ產畑赌Τぶ硂摸產畑赌琌タ单骋戈糵掉矪糵瞶-
北沟ンタ单糵瞶τ璶砎蝴ネ璸㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not have such information or statistics at hand, but I will check whether such information is readily available and will give a written answer to the Honourable Member. (Annex I)
讲蚌某拜畊現┎セЫ竨叫產畑赌眖ㄆ獶猭戮沟璶琌摸
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, we do not have such an analysis.
法У地某拜畊穦谋眔琌êㄇ箂扳┪都穨耕赌獶猭戮現┎ョ蹦惫琁瞷禜琌翠êㄇ產畑赌穦蠢︑沟克杯┪綟﹡狝叭τ沟穦倒-
ㄇ厨筍硂琌衡笻は猭ㄒ玂材琿ず酵の纯竒砆浪北计Τ珹硂摸┮孔丁凡┦戮㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, a foreign domestic helper is only admitted to work for a specific contract for a specific employer. If he takes up unauthorized job, whether part-time or full-time with any other employer he or she contravenes section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance and breaches the condition of stay. He or she is liable upon conviction to a fine of $50,000 and to imprisonment for two years.
法У地某拜畊и稱拜玂材琿计沮ずΤ硂摸丁凡┦沟狝叭τ砆浪北计㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not have a breakdown of the global figures which I mentioned in my main reply, but if there were such prosecutions they would have been included in it.
某拜畊玂氮滦ず矗のせるΤ兜穝璹猭ㄒê或浪北计琌糤临琌搭ぶ穦讽Ы矗ユ穝璹兵ㄒぇ穦甧┪浪北êㄇ沟ノ戮產畑赌沟㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do have the prosecution figures but if you would allow me just to switch to the appropriate page. In respect of the employers of foreign domestic helpers, the number of employers prosecuted in 1996 was 131. In the first five months of 1997, the number of employers of foreign domestic helpers prosecuted were 43. I do not think we can, on the basis of those figures, draw any particular conclusion. But I am told by my colleagues in the Immigration Department and in the Attorney General's Chambers that the amendment that we introduced in 1996 and subsequently enacted by this Council had at least enabled the successful prosecution of five cases of employers who would not have been liable to prosecution before those amendments were enacted.
バ玊某拜畊翠產畑赌Τ疭︹场だ常琌獶い瓣┮ゑ耕甧侩粄и稱拜玂狦и-
ヴ︙刁ǎΤㄇ產畑赌獶い瓣眖ㄆ箂扳┪ㄤ琌ヴ︙蒥チ庢厨㎡
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Government welcomes any report of evidence of foreign domestic helpers doing part-time job or other forms of illegal workers. We welcome report by any member of the community to the Immigration Department.
I have to make just one minor point which is that someone who may look like a foreign domestic helper may not always be a foreign domestic helper. I think it goes without saying that a large number of foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong are of the Filipino community. There are, of course, Filipino persons who are in Hong Kong not as foreign domestic helpers but are otherwise in Hong Kong for residence, for settlement, or for employment in other fields, and it is not always true to say that those who look like a Filipino or Filipina are foreign domestic helpers.
Safety of Three Government Slopes
3碩現┎弊℡
4. 朝篴篱某拜畊沮厨笵翠疭︽現跋︽現﹛ゼㄓ﹛古紌堕Τ3碩妮現┎弊℡砆繧弊℡莉逼セる秈︽呗祘碞現┎セЫ
(a) セ翠弊℡夹非︙の购だぶ繧摸
(b) 瓃3碩弊℡╰计だぶ单弊℡だ妮繧摸
(c) ╰计┪繧摸籔瓃3碩弊℡弊℡瞷セ翠计ぶㄤだガ薄猵︙
(d) ︙∕﹚瓃3碩弊℡秈︽呗祘τ╰计┪繧摸籔ㄤㄤ現┎弊℡穦戳秈︽呗祘ぇ璝︙の
(e) Τヴ︙妮現┎弊℡繧 (珹肩繧) 耕赣3碩弊℡蔼ごゼ莉逼秈︽呗祘璝Τ︙
叭氮畊
(a) 現┎璶跌贺弊℡璹﹚夹非硂ㄇ珹弊℡摸ㄒ恶弊℡玠℡㎝咀鲤单弊℡盰厄┮ま璓狦の弊℡硑丁妮瞷Τ弊℡┪穝弊℡弊℡铆㏕祘╰计斗ざ1.1︓1.4
現┎跌弊℡盰厄まㄓ狦癸ō┮硑Θ紇臫沮ㄤ腨祘р弊℡だ3摸冈薄更1妮材摸㎝材摸弊℡狦祇ネ盰厄穦だ紇臫ㄏノい縱㎝羉Γ笵隔癸ōま璓耕腨狦︓材摸弊℡祇ネ盰厄杠穦紇臫ㄒ偿そ堕单砞琁癸ō┮ま璓狦癸ㄓ弧ぃび腨
Τ闽弊℡夹非冈更現┎弊℡━祘も弊℡ゼ笷もず┮璹╰计穦砆"ぃ夹非弊℡"
(b) 钡紇臫古紌堕弊℡琌妮古紌堕穨╬弊℡拜肈┮矗の3現┎弊℡ㄏ祇ネ盰厄и-
獺ぃ穦紇臫古紌堕ㄆ龟硂3弊℡︗郴苐ó隔瓂古紌堕﹁狦祇ネ盰厄穦紇臫︗沉讽ィ笵郴苐ó弊℡盰厄癸ō┮ま璓狦だ摸硂3弊℡常妮材摸弊℡τ弊℡斗笷╰计1.2и-
祇瞷硂ㄇ弊℡俱砰铆㏕祘╰计菠蔼1.0┮硂ㄇ弊℡砆ぃ夹非弊℡"ňゎ猟渡耺璸购"ㄤい1祘ず獽秈︽э到祘
(c) 侣Τ硑弊℡疭琌穝硑弊℡⊿ΤΤ︓℡弊魁ずи-
瞷タ絪籹穝弊℡魁癘魁翠┮Τ硑弊℡︓翠Τぶぃ才夹非弊℡и-
璶穝魁絪籹ЧΘ魁弊℡秈︽冈灿╯笵Τ闽絋龟计ぃ筁筁20現┎纯Τ︓弊℡魁┮更┮Τ現┎㎝╬弊℡秈︽1 900Ω冈灿╯沮╯┮眔挡狦и-
祇瞷Τ899現┎弊℡ぃ才夹非ㄤいΤ754沮"ňゎ猟渡耺璸购"秈︽э到祘τㄤ緇145玥だ14瞷︽祘ず獽秈︽э到祘硂摸祘弊℡だガ18跋某穦┮妮跋Τ闽だガ薄猵冈灿更2
秈︽冈灿╯現┎619ぃ夹非╬弊℡Τ闽穨祇繧弊℡呗ㄤい405╬弊℡穨宽眖呗ЧΘΤ闽祘緇214╬弊℡Τ闽祘┪ㄤゲ斗﹟秈︽い
(d) 現┎琌る祇瞷硂3現┎弊℡ぃ才夹非р硂ㄇ弊℡硈ㄤ14ぃ才夹非弊℡ㄖ"ňゎ猟渡耺璸购"絪腹GE/96/01ず秈︽э到硂3弊℡э到祘и-
﹚さる秨﹍и-
︳璸惠1ЧΘ
2┮更緇ㄤ145ぃ夹非現┎弊℡场"猟渡耺璸购"14瞷︽祘ず獽秈︽э到祘
(e) ヘ玡⊿Τヴ︙ぃ夹非現┎弊℡﹟ゼ沮"ňゎ猟渡耺璸购"莉逼秈︽э到祘ㄆ龟現┎沮瓃璸购秈︽冈灿╯祇瞷Τヴ︙現┎弊℡ぃ夹非穦р弊℡祘獽秈︽э到祘タゅ(c)琿┮瓃︓さ絋﹚ぃ夹非145現┎弊℡场"ňゎ猟渡耺璸购"祘ず獽秈︽э到祘
1ㄥ弊℡摸
弊℡盰厄癸ō┮ま璓狦だ摸
癸ō┮ま璓狦ㄒ摸1摸2摸3(1) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫ㄏノい縱ㄒ︘加厩坝穨┪穨ぺ籠óる勏(2) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫纗繧珇縱勏(3) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫竒盽ㄏノ臩ぱ笴就ノ㎝眃贾砞琁ㄒヰ就矪笲笆初氨ó初勏(4) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫︽ó秖㎝︽秖笵隔勏(5) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫そ渤单初┮ㄒぺ═猳勏(6) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫偿そ堕㎝ぃ盽ノ臩ぱ眃贾初勏(7) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫︽ó秖笵隔勏(8) 弊℡盰厄穦紇臫畐礚繧珇勏
2跋某穦┮妮跋ず瞷Τぃ夹非現┎弊℡计ヘ
篒︓るらゎ
跋某穦跋ず瞷Τぃ夹非現┎弊℡计ヘい﹁跋36芖15狥跋13玭跋7猳2瞏桋4纒4独2芠俄7芖6べ2じ0跋2瓾20﹁癪13‵バ3釜獵5瞒畄4璸145
朝篴篱某拜畊叭氮(c)场だ借高临Τ214ぃ夹非╬弊℡﹟ゼЧΘ呗祘畊瞷竒琌獴﹗叫拜現┎︙秈˙еΤ拜肈現┎弊℡㎝╬弊℡┮斗秈︽浪琩㎝呗祘玂毁﹡チㄒ︙ňゎ摸程弊℡脄恨ま璓秖猟㎝撮チ﹡硑Θ㎝ㄤ繧種Ω祇ネ㎡
叭氮畊癸緇214╬弊℡呗祘現┎琌穦盞ち猔種ㄤ琁秈ぃ筁и-
弧硂214ぃ才夹非弊℡ぃ琌场常穦祇ネ繧и-
琌弧硂ㄇ弊℡ヘ玡薄猵ゼ笷и-
粄ゲ斗才╰计夹非讽礛礚阶琌現┎临琌и-
纯钡牟╬穨刮砰ㄤ龟常絋笵㎝辨ΝらЧΘ┮Τэ到祘硂よ現┎琌穦盞ち猔跌
Τ闽旅弊℡ず恨脄吊τま璓弊℡厄盰拜肈и-
筁┕ㄢ竒猔跌┮Τ闽現┎场珹┬竝竒碞┮Τ旅弊℡い恨甶秨戛诡㎝秸琩讽Ы箇戳┮Τ阀セ┏场ЧΘи-
盢穦沮Τ闽腨祘秈︽┮斗э到祘讽礛ㄤい疉の翴计ヘゲ礛ぃ穦ぶи-
盢穦沮腨祘ㄓ逼ㄇ翴斗璶ミㄨ琁ㄇ翴祔筐矪瞶ぃ筁礚阶妓и-
辨场э到祘常荷ΝЧΘ谅谅畊
︙┯ぱ某拜畊沮現┎氮滦古紌堕3弊℡琌╬弊℡讽Ы盢ㄤ"ňゎ猟渡耺璸购"ず獽秈︽э到祘и借高琌琂礛硂3常琌╬弊℡︙穨ぃ酚現┎祇呗ㄓ秈︽э到祘㎡讽Ы琌︙祇瞷Τ拜肈︙瞷临ゼ甶秨э到祘
叭氮畊и獺ê絞厨笵Τ┮粇穦钡古紌堕弊℡妮╬玻穨琌и-
祇瞷ê3ぃ才夹非弊℡玥琌現┎弊℡︗竚琌古紌堕﹁紇臫莱琌苐óи-
る竒祇瞷硂3弊℡Чぃ才и-
夹非┮и-
竒盢ㄤ"ňゎ猟渡耺璸购"τ祘盢穦る甶秨惠獽Ч谅谅畊
霉睲某拜現┎矗のごΤ214╬弊℡﹟ゼЧΘ呗祘琌穦籔╬穨竒蕾⊿Τ璽踞硂ㄇ呗祘Τ闽㎡安硂ㄇ穨痷⊿Τ竒蕾璽踞硂ㄇ呗祘現┎盢穦︙矪瞶㎡
叭氮畊︓ヘ玡ゎи-
临⊿ΤΜ硂摸獺и獺狦Τ闽╬穨礚璽踞呗祘┪琌ㄤτぃミ秈︽呗祘杠タи弧筁┮孔ぃ夹非弊℡ぃ﹚Τ繧┮現┎琌穦盞ち猔種ㄤ祘秈甶狦ス祇瞷赣弊℡穦祇ネ腨繧㎝腨狦現┎盢穦沮砮暗猭ㄤ秈︽э到祘礛篊篊發癚┮Τ禣ノ谅谅畊
襖略ビ某拜畊琂礛疭∕﹚匡拒古紌堕ㄤ﹛瞷祇瞷Τ闽╬弊℡ぃ夹非叫拜翠現┎Τ倒ぉ疭種ǎ琵ㄤ∕﹚琌古紌堕ㄤ﹛σ納㎡τ疭匡拒﹛∕﹚Τσ納╯澈古紌堕穨琌縩伐璸购呗╬弊℡㎡
畊襖某┮矗借高禬借高の氮滦絛瞅盢干借高场だ菠タ
襖略ビ某畊ê或и拜场だ
畊安盢场だ菠タ叭阀氮
襖略ビ某畊狦琌硂妓ê或и拜场だ
畊场だョ禬借高絛瞅
襖略ビ某拜畊ê或и碞盢禬絛瞅借高э
и-
瞷癚阶琌╬弊℡呗拜肈┮и稱叫拜現┎安ㄇ蔼そ叭┪︓琌疭┮匡拒﹡┮Τㄇぃ夹非弊℡讽Ы穦倒ぉㄇ種ǎ㎝σ納秈︽呗祘┪琌穦ゴ衡碞Τ闽弊℡呗薄猵矗玂よ種ǎ
畊襖略ビ某叫拜借高翴
琌弧安Τ蔼﹛璶潦禦加現┎穦倒-
矗ㄑ疭临琌現┎砍現┎盝倒ぉ蔼﹛Τσ納Τ闽盝琌繧㎡叫拜翴
襖略ビ某拜畊и借高翴琌讽Ы蝶︳Τ闽弊℡繧薄猵┪呗祘秈獽磅︽Τ闽砏﹚┪磅猭穦σ納紇臫加琌Τ蔼そ叭﹡︘τ∕﹚е翴┪篊翴琁临琌跌く–兵㏑常琌妓璶
叭氮畊и沽刚だ碞ㄢ摸ぃ┦借弊℡ㄓ氮滦某借高┮疉の璝妮現┎弊℡и-
盢沮ㄤ╰计㎝繧祘ㄓだ纔Ω矪瞶︓╬弊℡讽礛パ╬穨璽砫盢ㄤэ到沮и-
瞷︽篋ㄒи-
祇瞷惠璶秈︽э到祘弊℡碞穦沮瞷兵ㄒ祇呗礚阶ㄤ穨舦琌疭┪琌そ叭┮局Τ讽Ы矪瞶よ猭常㎝矪瞶炊硄カチ局Τ穨舦弊℡よ猭Ч⊿Τだ沮и┮и-
︗ㄆ瞷┮﹡︘よ妓钡莉呗τ-
琌酚砮丁砏﹚㎝ㄤ砏玥ㄓ秈︽┮斗э到祘
谅谅畊
畊現┎穦籈﹡よ话候秈︽蝴
叭氮畊и-
┮璹﹚╰计琌沮弊℡ス盰厄癸ō┮硑Θ紇臫祘τ络璹┮и-
﹚琌穦р︗盞栋よ弊℡跌ゑ耕腨ㄒㄓ矪瞶谅谅畊
ッ笷某拜畊硂弊℡︙硂妓㎡產┕セㄓ琌ぃ笵瞷琌疭匡拒古紌堕﹛笵и闽み叭氮滦そ渤癸現┎蔼﹛穦︘ㄇよτ局Τㄇ疭舦琌庇稰и獺氮滦(b)琿陪ボ古紌堕硂╬加弊℡竒璶秈︽呗祘璸购ず玱⊿Τ矗の︙祇呗τタΤㄇㄆ纯竒矗拜穨钡莉Τ闽㏑Τ秈︽呗祘㎡и稱叫拜叭竒筁さぱ借高現┎穦σ納盢Τ闽古紌堕╬弊℡冈灿戈ユ倒и-
ㄤい珹︙祇呗Τ秈︽呗祘の現┎˙盢穦蹦或︽笆谅谅畊
叭氮畊и盢穦よΑ矗ユΤ闽戈倒某谅谅畊ンII
Rates of Increase in Price Indices of Private Residential Properties
╬︘加扳基计ど薄猵
5. ッ笷某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 筁 (パせせる︓きる)4摸╬︘加扳基计ど薄猵だ︙
(b) セる┮そガ╰覸絯加基惫琁笷或狦の
(c) 穦莱きる加基ど薄猵非称ㄇ覸絯加基惫琁
┬氮畊沮畉昏穨︳基竝耕舧恏╬︘基计陪ボきる籔せせるゑ耕い︘虫︗龟ノ縩100キよμ基ど碩38%τ︘虫︗龟ノ縩100キよμ┪基ど碩34%碭るど碩耕陪帝и-
⊿Τ戳ㄤ摸虫︗灿竊だ摸基ゑ耕计
闽拜肈(b)场だ現┎るせらのるせらそガ╰筀ы加芥笆の糤︘虫︗ㄑ莱惫琁竒Μ加カ耕玡铆﹚扳加▆︘加絃戈硓ョ糤さきる加基耕る辅3%︓20%ぃ单產ゴ阑︘ㄑ莱秖糤
︓拜肈(c)场現┎現郸琌荷秖琵︘穨カ初︑パ笲現┎穦Τ惠璶蹦箇惫琁и-
穦膥尿矗ㄑ砍┬の盞ち菏诡加カ祇甶
ッ笷某拜畊程疭跋︽現穦某Θ辩璣ネ竒览ЧΘê闽ㄑ莱の穨基厨и稱高拜碞ㄤい兜脖肚穦σ納某祏戳獶︑︘︘加锣扳祙辩ネ纯籔┬坝癚狦Τ杠現┎猭︙㎡
┬氮畊肚籇辩璣ネ┮矗ユ厨セゼ纯綷弄筁ョセ⊿ΤΜ筁︓肚弧┮矗の祏戳穨锣扳祙硂兜某и-
ョ⊿ΤΤヴ︙矗ユぉ疭跋快そ疭厨纯矗の某ちぃ筁琌肚弧讽礛硂贺肚弧琌パ琘ㄇ某のΤㄇカチ┮矗τ辩璣ネ籔иョ纯竒Τ硂贺某矗筁辩ネ⊿Τセ疭蝶阶硂某︽┦谅谅畊
甃ㄎ瞶某拜谅谅畊現┎セЫㄆ龟現┎現郸琌筀ы"加"临琌筀ы加基㎡
┬氮畊現┎︑いぇ3ぇず┮蹦摸惫琁ㄤ龟琌ゴ阑加禦笆礚種钡筀ы加基加基玥莱パカ初よ贺紇臫パ現┎筀ы加基ぃ甧ゴ阑加芥惫琁よ現┎Τ∕みガ膥尿崩︽ョ穦﹚浪癚Τ惠璶и-
穦σ納痷タΤ惠璶蹦惫琁谅谅畊
地某拜畊Ν玡現┎㎝┬弧琌花基ど⊿Τ瞣疉い︘沮瞷現┎矗ㄑ加い︘基ど碩筁┕1ゑ花临蔼現┎氮材琿穦Τ惠璶蹦箇惫琁筁い加竒ど38%現┎蝶︳へㄓ瞷琌衡琌Τ惠璶㎡
┬氮畊タи┮弧加基琌カ初よぃ┮紇臫ㄤい珹カチ癸翠玡硚┪加カ玡春獺みは莱и-
ㄓ現┎蹦贺惫琁絋琌Τ惠璶ョΜ▆狦硂薄猵現┎ご礛惠璶膥尿菏诡加カ祇甶璶и-
贺︽現惫琁镑棒峨加芥笆и稱и-
穦絛瞅ず荷秖琵カ初︑パ笲谅谅畊
畊﹟Τ4︗某ゴ衡矗干借高セ畊盢
讲蚌某璓勉畊現┎セЫ現┎穦碞–︘基夹箇代璝︙璝礛Τ闽箇代穦︙紇臫讽Ы加現郸
┬氮畊現┎ぃ莱赣箇Ν箇代盢ㄓ加基現┎箇代–ㄑ莱秖の加砍秖τ硂贺箇代ョ祏戳ぇず加基琌紇臫ㄤい珹俱砰竒蕾┮現┎ぃ莱箇Ν箇代加基и-
穦盞ち菏诡竒祇ネ薄猵筁加基锣跑の镣墩и-
琌疭痙種谅谅畊
朝胞糭某拜畊沮┬倒и-
氮滦パきる︓せせるい加基ど38%祏祏1ずど碩笷40%щ戈厨讽芠硂陪ボ芠絋瞷""現┎セЫ程加基癬妮チネ┮惠加竒盽砆ノщ诀芥ㄣ現┎穦璹箇夹㎡ㄒ厩ネㄏぃぃ︘璶15Τ禦加瞷赣厩ネㄏぃぃ︘玥璶24禦加現┎穦璹夹加基笷琘キ獽蹦縩伐惫琁ㄓ筀ы加基鰐ど㎡谅谅畊
┬氮畊и氮滦琌現┎⊿Τ硂贺夹現┎痙種""薄猵璝粄痷タ紇臫俱砰カ初現┎獽穦蹦琘ㄇ惫琁ㄓ絯㎝薄猵のゴ阑芥笆и狡筂現┎筁3ㄓみ矪瞶加カ拜肈ョ纯4ゴ阑加芥笆眔▆狦и-
ぃ莱赣淮瞯钮㊣苸獽矗穝ゴ阑惫琁谅谅畊
畊セ畊弧﹟Τ4︗某璶矗拜琌岿粇莱赣﹟Τ5︗某瞷﹟Τ4︗某セ畊盢
產不某拜畊и稱碞惠璶箇τ拜肈祇拜瘤礛独琍地ネ氮滦Ωиぃ稰骸種狦璹ミ箇夹琵現┎沮∕﹚Τ惠璶箇龟借琌倒現┎び丁ㄓ∕﹚︙惠璶︙ぃ惠璶㎡龟悔現┎秆睦睲贰ㄇ或夹陪ボΤ箇惠璶龟悔琌加﹚瞶基現┎現郸琌∕﹚︙衡筁疨㎡瞷⊿快猭璹ミ硂ㄇ瞶夹現┎穦稰谋ウ琌莱祏戳現獀惠璶㎡
┬氮畊現┎⊿Τ疭夹ㄒ基┪ㄤ摸戈ㄓ∕﹚︙惠璶蹦疭箇惫琁現┎穦σ納俱砰猵┮現┎–Ω蹦惫琁ぇ玡常穦σ納讽疭旧璓芥拜肈τ硂よ現┎–1Ω常镑蹦ㄇ続讽惫琁棒峨芥笆┮筁3и-
絋纯4Ω蹦贺ぃ惫琁ゴ阑┮Τ"加"よ猭讽礛и-
ぃ弧現┎镑Ч箇崩代"產"も猭ぃ筁ヘ玡ゎи-
笵荡场だ芥笆よ猭и-
竒硓筁贺ぃ︽笆㎝惫琁ぉ棒峨谅谅畊
朝胞糭某拜畊и琌Ω祇拜狦杠и临Τ借高畊êи獽矗借高谅谅
碞┬┮弧иご礛稱蛤秈и-
"禦芥"ㄢ獽瞷Ωτ程繵瞯禫ㄓ禫蔼現┎穦羆挡薄猵獽璹耕瞷Τ惫琁┬弧杠и﹍沧粄⊿Τち龟秆∕硂俱穦闽み拜肈┬琌ゲ惠珇筁ㄒ陪ボ瞷""㏄戳竒罽祏–Ω加基蔼畃戳禯丁稶ㄓ稶祏τ–Ω加基猧碩"芥"ョ糤現┎琌莱赣篶ㄇ穝快猭ぃ璶ま瓃氮帮ず甧谅谅畊
┬氮畊現┎癸┬拜肈常琌だ闽猔иぃ種朝某┮弧現┎琌蹦ㄇ惫琁獽ㄆ璓–ㄢ┪3"芥"笆獽瞷ㄤ龟拜肈ぃ琌и-
︽現惫琁礚程璶琌筁计у计秖耕ぶ璓ㄢ加砍秖辅Θ秖ョ癸搭ぶよ3玡и-
蹦ㄇ縀疨ゴ阑加芥笆惫琁璓翠竒蕾紇臫┬砍秖ョτ搭ぶи-
ゲ斗だみ╯の矪瞶硂拜肈候癘–兜惫琁常穦旧璓ㄤ贺ぃ紇臫┮狦痷璶ち龟㎝环秆∕硂拜肈タи-
Ω碞ゲ斗膥尿矗ㄑì镑砍┬┬砍祘ョ莱е獽еΘ┬虫︗┮現┎ョ常だ秆硂琌环秆∕よ猭τ現┎ョだ縩伐ョ纯ガゼㄓ5穦秖糤у计秖笷570そ臣谅谅畊
ッ笷某拜畊さる丁疭跋︽現穦某Θ辩璣ネ赋地疭〆Λ秈︽┬╯и癘眔讽┬独琍地ネの砏购吏挂現辩腳篴ネ癬畊癘穦そ渤谋眔-
3︗琌癬暗硂厨㎝癬╯眔眡┬氮滦и稰綺佩独琍地舅硈厨ゼ筁и碞硂薄猵矗借高硂瞷禜琌┣и-
ヴ┬ЫЫ钩琌舦辅硈╯厨某⊿Τ筁よ┬さぱ氮滦(c)琿籔辩璣ネそ秨初┮弧ぃ硂穦倒そ渤禜ゼㄓ︽現穦某Θのゼㄓ┬ЫЫ種ǎΤだ猍そ渤セぃ笵и-
ゼㄓ現┎稱暗或и稱拜┬癸硂瞷禜Τ或猭谅谅畊
┬氮畊某Τ禜琌辩璣ネ┬砏购吏挂現3︗絪糶厨矗ユ倒疭跋硂禜ぃ琌現┎セō籹硑ㄓτиョ獺и-
礚∕﹚パи-
3絪糶厨疭跋矗ユ疭跋琌〆辩ネ秈︽╯矗ユ╯厨辩ネ糶硂厨ぇи-
ョ┯空倒ぉ種ǎ竒盽籔и-
钡牟產瞏秆の肪硄秆肪硄㎝玂羛蹈よи-
3暗ひ︓ヘ玡ゎиゼ笵硂厨矗ユㄆ﹜┮иぃ硂よ储代谅谅畊
甃ㄎ瞶某拜谅谅畊ッ笷某借高拜の加基パせる︓さきるど碩и稱拜┬ㄆ龟狦臮せる︓さきる╬加基ど碩琌ぶ㎡
┬氮畊︓耕环薄猵筁3加基ǐ墩酚и癘拘の戈┮甶ボさきる︘基计耕る程蔼畃戳蔼21%狦и-
盢硂ゑ瞯чΘ龟借糤硂计耕る程蔼畃戳蔼琌2%硂妮琌ゑ耕计谅谅畊
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
某借高氮滦
Chinese Medicine Bodies
い洛媚刮砰
6. 馋莱某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 瞷沮刮兵ㄒ祅癘い洛媚刮砰计ヘ
(b) 瞷沮そ兵ㄒ祅癘い洛媚刮砰计ヘの
(c) 筁3盡厩皘–秨快Τ闽い洛媚蚌癡┪╯揭祘计ヘのㄤ厨弄计︙
徖ネ褐氮畊
(a) 沮刮兵ㄒ砏﹚牡よ厨い洛媚刮砰Τ15い洛刮㎝1い媚刮
(b) 沮そ兵ㄒ砏﹚τ称魁爹そ嘿"い洛""い媚""い瓣洛"㎝"い瓣媚"单泊Τ180丁そ爹矪祅癘⊿Τ爹そ穨叭┦借рそだ摸ぃ侩粄硂ㄇ爹そいΤㄇ琌い洛媚刮砰τ獶い媚禩そ
カチ煤ユ禣ノΤ闽讽Ы爹そ戈
(c) 筁┕3厩翠穦厩翠いゅ厩㎝翠厩АΤい洛媚揭祘パ皘尿㎝盡穨毙▅场癩現︑倒よ猭庢快
翠穦厩尿秈厩皘せ︓厩秨快兜い洛媚祏戳揭祘Τ50把赣厩皘庢快9量畒1506把
翠いゅ厩秈厩皘せ秨快い洛媚揭祘赣庢快6祏戳揭祘厩ネ计233赣厩皘パせ癬籔Θ常い洛媚厩快洛媚靡揭祘Τ27厩ネ厨弄
翠厩盡穨秈厩皘Τ矗ㄑい洛媚靡揭祘㎝祏戳揭祘筁3厩厩ネ计
︓
き厩き︓
せ厩せ︓
厩2靡揭祘计ヘ8711厩ネ计362326575祏戳揭祘计ヘ3132厩ネ计3315159
爹1 ︓き厩庢快癚穦Τ285把
爹2 篒︓せるらゎ计
筁3厩厩毙▅戈〆穦挤蹿戈皘⊿Τ秨快い洛媚╯揭祘
Education for Immigrant Children from Mainland
ずㄓ翠ㄠ担毙--
7. 眎▆某拜パセるら癬翠ッ┦﹡チず┮ネ盢︑笆Θ翠疭︽現跋ッ┦﹡チㄓ翠﹡︘挪┮Τ15烦┪セ翠﹡チАΤ舦钡膀娄厩毙▅現┎セЫセるら穝厩秨﹍
(a) 盢Τぶ丁穝厩のい厩辅Θ币ノ翠盢Τぶ丁ら㎝ら厩のい厩
(b) 翠厩パ︓い–盢だ秨快ぶ痁
(c) タ盽–痁厩ネ计璸衡瓃程蔼厩肂だ︙τ瞷碞弄单厩ネ计Τぶの
(d) 瓃计璸衡セ翠厩㎝い程┷Μぶ眖ずㄓ翠ㄠ担
毙▅参膚氮畊
(a) ︓厩秨﹍玡翠盢穦Τ6丁厩の6丁い厩辅Θ現┎の戈厩い盢Τ206丁ら厩545丁ら厩㎝377丁い厩
(b) 毙▅竝箇璸︓厩現┎の戈厩︓い秨痁计ヘ
厩
き せ 羆计
2 044 2 052 2 114 2 267 2 172 1 929 12 578
い厩
い い い 羆计
2 043 2 067 2 144 6 254
(c) 瞷現┎の戈厩︓い厩ネ计の毙▅竝︳璸タ盽–痁厩ネ计璸衡現┎の戈厩︓厩矗ㄑ厩肂计ヘ
厩
きせ羆计せ︓
厩
厩ネ计
66 684
67 682
71 000
68 054
67 845
72 131
413 396︓
厩
矗ㄑ厩肂
66 430
66 690
68 706
73 678
70 590
72 338
418 432
い厩
い い い 羆计
せ︓厩
厩ネ计 82 648 85 732 83 115 251 495
︓厩
矗ㄑ厩肂 81 720 82 680 85 760 250 160
(d) 毙▅竝璸购︓厩秨快痁计(瓃(b)兜┮)竒臮のセの穝ㄓ翠ㄠ担癸厩︗惠―и-
ぃ虫眖(c)兜┮计非絋璸衡厩︓い程临┷Μぶ穝ㄓ翠ㄠ担現┎ゲ﹚穦荷穝ㄓ翠ㄠ担矗ㄑì镑厩肂;Τ惠璶毙▅竝穦跌穝ㄓ翠厩担龟悔计糤痁计┪硓筁ㄤ惫琁-
矗ㄑ厩肂
Building Safety Inspection Scheme
加浪喷璸购
8. 糂簙煌某拜碞竝程崩︽"加浪喷璸购"現┎セЫ
(a) ︓瞷ゎ讽Ы穨祇ぶ腢抠獺讽い琌Τ穨ボ穦︑腀浪喷加璝礛计ヘ︙の
(b) Τ︙璸购矗蔼侣加穨加種醚Τ璹冈灿璸购肚"加浪喷璸购"躬纘穨把籔
砏购吏挂現氮畊
(a) ︑腀┦借加浪喷璸购︑セる┏秨﹍崩︽ㄓ竝祇3 653腢抠獺疉の加Τ69糽ùさΤ13糽加穨┪穨ミ猭刮赣竝琩高赣璸购冈薄竝瞷タ单钡腢抠獺ボ種穦祔-
祇妒快獺
(b) 竝璶硓筁現叭矪祇肚虫眎㎝肚冀碈ざ加穨肚加璶┦︑セきる秨﹍赣竝筿跌㎝筿﹚冀肚祏喘加獺
皌盢セる甶秨眏┦加浪喷璸购そ渤吭高竝埃眏瞷Τ肚临逼穨ミ猭刮が〆穦㎝ㄤΤ闽刮砰庢快癚穦㎝阶韭躬纘穨把籔硂兜璸购赣竝钡羛蹈Μ腢抠獺加穨獽縩伐蛤秈–﹙
Hospital Services Expansion in Kowloon East
纒狥跋洛皘狝叭耎甶
9. 地某拜洛皘恨瞶Ы洛皘呼蹈办购だτē纒狥跋(珹芠俄跋盢瓁緿の﹁癪)痜﨟计ヘ琌8洛皘呼蹈讽い程ぶτ沮眡現┎莱ゼㄓ尿糤の秆∕︘加单拜肈璸购ぃ耞糤盢瓁緿の猽笷︒笵砏购纒狥跋︓箂禬筁130窾籔膀服毙羛洛皘耎の盢瓁緿洛皘砍单兜祘箂箂Ч甿瞷顶琿⊿Τヴ︙秈˙糤跋痝痜﨟祘璸购碞現┎セЫ
(a) Τ璸购箂箂耎瓃跋洛皘砞琁の痜﨟计ヘ璝Τㄣ砰ず甧︙璝︙莱跋尿糤┮ま璓惠―
(b) 箇璸箂箂箂箂せの箂瓃跋–痜﨟ゑㄒだ︙笷璓讽Ы猽ノ翠砏购夹非籔非玥(Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines)い–砞5.5眎痜﨟砏购夹非璝︙の︙笷璓瓃夹非の
(c) ︙蝶︳ゼㄓ币紈诀初穐綞恶跋30窾癸綟芠俄跋洛励狝叭惠―┮硑Θ溃穦穝σ納砆懒竚"狥纒洛皘"砍璸购莱芠俄跋のㄤ綟跋环惠―璝︙
徖ネ褐氮畊
(a) 膀服毙羛洛皘耎祘艶龟洛皘祘㎝盢瓁緿洛皘砍祘Ч丹纒狥洛皘羛呼痜计ヘ箂箂箂穦糤970眎糤︓2 300眎糤痜计ヘì莱纒狥瞷癸洛励狝叭惠―︓箂箂璸购讽Ы穦跋ず糤薄猵璹㎝祇甶穝洛皘祘璸购и-
穦盞ち菏诡Τ闽薄猵
(b) 翠砏购夹非籔非玥┮璹–砞5.5眎痜砏购ゑㄒ琌翠┮Τ洛皘痜珹炊硄㎝弘痜のそ犁洛皘㎝╬產洛皘痜砏购ヘ夹ぃ﹜р硂ゑㄒ莱ノ琘跋矗ㄑそ犁洛皘痜计ヘ
(c) タゅ(a)琿┮秆睦讽Ы穦皌糤薄猵璹穝洛皘祘璸购и-
穦盞ち猔種币紈诀初のㄤ綟跋ゼㄓ祇甶﹚戳浪癚Τ闽薄猵の璹糤洛励狝叭璸购讽Ыヘ玡礚璸购甶秨"狥纒洛皘"祘
Operation of Government Clinics from 28 June to 2 July 1997
せるら︓るら安戳ず秨現┎禘励┮
10. DR DAVID LI asked: It is reported that in view of the number of people expected to attend the accident and emergency departments in public hospitals during the holidays from 28 June to 2 July 1997, the Hospital Authority will increase the staffing level in these departments by 10% by requesting staff members to work extra shifts during that period. Moreover, private doctors are being urged by the Hong Kong Medical Association to keep their clinics open during that period to ease the burden of public hospitals. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether the Department of Health will consider opening all the clinics under its management from 9 am to 5 pm during the holidays?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the Department of Health (DH) has made arrangement to open the following general out-patient clinics during the period of 28 June 1997 to 2 July 1997, from 9 am to 1 pm and from 2 pm to 5 pm:
Hong Kong Island1.Violent Peel Health Centre2.Shau Kei Wan Jockey Club PolyclinicKowloon3.Robert Black Health Centre4.Yau Ma Tei Jockey Club Polyclinic5.Kwun Tong Jockey Club Health CentreNew Territories6.Lady Trench Polyclinic7.Shek Wu Hui Jockey Club Clinic8.Lek Yuen Health Centre9.Yuen Long Jockey Club Health Centre10.Tuen Mun Clinic
Altogether, these clinics will be able to provide 3 360 consultations per day.
DH will publicize the above services through telephone hotlines, messages displayed on pagers, television announcements, and posters put up at DH clinics, public hospitals, Housing Department offices and Home Affairs Department District Offices.
Departure Taxes
瞒挂祙
11. 独岸藉某拜現┎セЫ
(a) ヘ玡セ翠ノ隔の瞒挂だ惠璶煤ユぶ瞒挂祙
(b) 瓃ㄢ兜瞒挂祙兜络﹚非玥︙
(c) ︙隔瞒挂祙差布基ゑㄒ耕瞒挂祙诀布基ゑㄒ蔼の
(d) ︙瞷眖嘲隔瞒挂礚斗煤ユ瞒挂祙
畐叭氮畊
(a) 瞷–闹12烦┪诀瞒翠А斗煤100じ诀瞒挂祙и-
⊿Τ差瞒翠紉Μ瞒挂祙礛τ近差斗碞–近絏繷祅差瞒挂煤25じ祅差禣τ差玥盢硂兜禣ノ锣儿ぉ
(b) 紉Μ诀瞒挂祙琌兜Μ惫琁τΜ祅差禣玥琌Ξ琵現┎Μ矗ㄑ㎝犁快近絏繷兜砞琁Θセ
(c) パ诀瞒挂祙㎝祅差禣┦借ぃのウ-
紉Μヘ钵и-
粄ぃ﹜癸ㄢ┮布基┮ゑㄒゑ耕
(d) 嘲隔瞒挂礚斗煤瞒挂祙現郸籔ㄤよ暗猭璓硂ㄇよА癸诀瞒挂紉Μ瞒挂祙┪摸禣ノ玱ぃ癸眖嘲隔瞒挂紉Μ瞒挂祙┪摸禣ノи-
ョ礚癩現瞶パ癸眖嘲隔瞒挂紉Μ瞒挂祙︓現┎嘲筁挂┮矗ㄑ狝叭ぃì紉Μ禣ノ瞶沮
Entry and Exit of Container Trucks and Drivers from the Mainland
い瓣嘲砯耫óの诀秈翠挂
12. 某拜碞い瓣嘲砯耫óの砯耫ó诀ㄓ翠ㄆ現┎セЫ
(a) 筁ㄢい瓣嘲诀緍ó秈セ翠–るキАóΩ︙
(b) 筁ㄢΤパチ挂ㄆ叭矪帽祇超笵隔砛靡の硄秈セ翠い瓣嘲诀–计︙の
(c) ゅ(b)兜┮瓃靡ン帽祇祘の祇靡兵ン冈薄︙?
玂氮畊
(a) きのせい瓣嘲诀緍ó秈セ翠–るキАóΩだ28 000Ωの34 000Ω
(b) и-
も娩礚筁ㄢ–"超笵隔砛靡"の"硄"秈セ翠い瓣嘲诀计ぃ筁篒︓セせるきらゎΤ779い瓣嘲诀ΤΤ"超笵隔砛靡"の"硄"
(c) セの嘲诀莉帽祇"硄"の"超笵隔砛靡"┮惠才兵ン琌赣诀ゲ斗沟い瓣嘲Τщ戈セそΤㄢ緍緋磅酚莉眔い瓣そ场уい瓣嘲诀临斗Τパチ挂ㄆ叭矪祇Τ帽靡瓃ㄢ贺靡ンА硓筁ビ叫快瞶ビ叫硈Τ闽靡ゅン斗パ赣诀沟ㄖユ
New Arrivals from the Mainland
ず簿﹡セ翠穝簿チ
13. 朝胞糭某拜現┎セЫ
(a) せのせパず簿﹡セ翠穝簿チΤぶの赣单い眖ㄆ竒蕾笆の獶眖ㄆ竒蕾笆计だΤぶ
(b) "┦の闹"の"闹の毙▅祘"舱矗ㄑパず簿﹡セ翠穝簿チㄤい獶眖ㄆ竒蕾笆せのせ戈
(c) "┦の闹""闹の毙▅祘""毙▅祘の┮眖ㄆ︽穨""毙▅祘の┮眖ㄆ戮︗""闹の┮眖ㄆ︽穨""闹の┮眖ㄆ戮︗"の"计"购だ(i)︓(x)兜Μ舱矗ㄑパず簿﹡セ翠穝簿チㄤい碞穨せのせ戈
(i) 3,999じ┪
(ii) 4,000 - 4,999じ
(iii) 5,000 - 5,999じ
(iv) 6,000 - 6,999じ
(v) 7,000 - 7,999じ
(vi) 8,000 - 8,999じ
(vii) 9,000 - 9,999じ
(viii) 10,000 - 10,999じ
(ix) 11,000 - 11,999じ
(x) 12,000じ┪の
璝現┎⊿Τ瓃戈︙の穦σ納穓栋Τ闽戈の﹚戳そガ
癩竒ㄆ叭氮畊炊琩のせい戳参璸い纯高拜Τ闽"ネ翴""瓣膟"の"﹡翠戳"璝р才兵ン跌パい瓣ずㄓ翠穝簿チ"穝簿チ"琌
() ネ翴い瓣
() 瓣膟琌"い瓣ッ﹡痙琌翠"の
() ﹡翠ぶ7
玥︳璸Τ闽穝簿チ计ヘのだ猂ㄤ疭紉
︓せい戳参璸パ⊿Τ穓栋"瓣膟"の"﹡翠戳"戈珿ぃ眖Τ闽计沮いだ侩穝簿チ
眖﹚兵ン┮眔穝簿チ计ヘ籔龟悔"虫祘靡"ㄓ翠计Τ畉禯ㄤ珹"虫祘靡"ㄓ翠ㄓ翠ずネ簿チ瓣眔ㄤ瓣膟┪氮癸﹡翠戳癘拘┪Τ熬畉单珿沮炊琩のせい戳参璸┮眔Τ闽穝簿チ计沮把σノ硚
(a) 沮炊琩のせい戳参璸眖ㄆ竒蕾笆の獶眖ㄆ竒蕾笆穝簿チ计
炊琩せ
い戳参璸眖ㄆ竒蕾笆穝簿チ
獶眖ㄆ竒蕾笆穝簿チ65 491
78 45365 228
104 091羆璸143 944169 319
(b) "┦の闹""闹の毙▅祘"购だ獶眖ㄆ竒蕾笆穝簿チ计更の
闹の┦购だ獶眖ㄆ竒蕾笆穝簿チ计ヘ
闹の毙▅祘购だ獶眖ㄆ竒蕾笆穝簿チ计ヘ
(c) "–る穨Μ"の"┦の闹""闹の毙▅祘""毙▅祘の︽穨""毙▅祘の戮穨""闹の︽穨""闹の戮穨"购だ穝簿チ碞穨计だ更︓
–る穨Μ闹の┦购だ穝簿チ碞穨计ヘ
–る穨Μ闹の毙▅祘购だ穝簿チ碞穨计ヘ
き–る穨Μ︽穨の毙▅祘购だ穝簿チ碞穨计ヘ
せ–る穨Μ戮穨の毙▅祘购だ穝簿チ碞穨计ヘ
–る穨Μ︽穨の闹购だ穝簿チ碞穨计ヘ
–る穨Μ戮穨の闹购だ穝簿チ碞穨计ヘ
パ炊琩〓い戳参璸い⊿Τ穓栋Τ闽"计"戈珿ゼ矗ㄑ计购だ穝簿チ碞穨计
瓃8参璸琌沮炊琩のせい戳参璸挡狦τ絪籹︓い–る穨Μ琌眖璶┮莉眔场Μぃ珹穝の蛮鲁
TOTAL 40 PAGES
Legal Aid Department Expenditure
猭穿竝秨や
14. 璣某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 筁3猭穿竝–龟悔秨やの灿だ兜ヘ︙の
(b) 筁3赣竝–矪瞶ぶ﹙禗砠ン
ガ現氮畊
(a) 筁3猭穿竝–龟悔秨や
︓き
κ窾じき︓せ
κ窾じせ︓
κ窾じ
羱筍 124.7 140.7 165.0场秨や 4.7 6.0 8.3猭穿禣ノ 247.4 279.0 343.2羆秨や 376.8 425.7 516.5
(b) 筁3猭穿竝–矪瞶禗砠ン计
︓き
﹙き︓せ
﹙せ︓
﹙
钡莉ビ叫25 29526 52131 174倒ぉ猭
穿10 45210 90412 243
Octopus Card
"笷硄"
15. 独岸藉某拜沮眡"笷硄"盢セるタΑ崩︽現┎セЫ琌眡
(a) Τ闽璸购︙︓さ﹟ゼ吭高Τ闽跋某穦穦璶―Τ闽诀篶︽吭高跋某穦崩︽Τ闽璸购
(b) Τ闽璸购ㄣ砰冈薄の逼︙
(c) 挪ヘ玡ユ硄诀篶ㄒ淮臟の翠近Τ倒ぉ竒盽ㄏノ赣单ユ硄ㄣ纔磃る布惫琁讽"笷硄"崩︽穦膥尿玂痙赣单纔磃る布璝︙︙穝璸购矗ㄑ纔磃惫琁の
(d) 沮眡ビ叫眎100じ"笷硄"惠璶煤ユ50じのも尿禣20じ︙璶Μ瓃禣ノの︙络﹚瓃禣ノ
笲块氮畊"笷硄"斗璶Гそユ硄ㄣカチ矗ㄑ瞷て扳布╰参硂╰参ぃよ獽艶τ綼︑セきる癬Τ5 000把籔Τ闽刚喷璸购狦︓さだ骸種硂兜璸购﹚るら癬タΑ崩︽ㄏノ"笷硄"Г臟隔"臟"約臟隔"臟"┪淮獽臟隔"淮臟"óㄏノぺ㎝ぺ盡筁繥笵ぺ狝叭の翠猳弚近差Τそ"猳弚近そ"ㄇ瞒畄㎝穝カ马帹狝叭
羛玊笷Τそ琌パ祇甶"笷硄"璸购碭丁そユ硄诀篶┮Θミ犁穨そ赣そ硄筁肚碈肚硂兜璸购ゼㄓㄢる羛玊笷Τそ㎝產把籔そ穦甶秨兜肚笆崩約"笷硄"そユ硄诀篶︑璹璸购崩約"笷硄"猳弚近そ紉高瞒畄跋某穦種ǎ約臟隔そ瞷タ臟㎝淮臟猽帹﹡チ㎝硚竒跋跋某穦量秆硂羙╰参
ㄇ诀篶崩"笷硄"埃硂肂蹿よ猭临穦玂痙瞷ΤΜ禣快猭庢ㄒㄓ弧盡ぺ㎝寸近そ穦玂痙Μ禣ノ徊刽窥絚匡拒ㄏノ羙┪猽ノ瞷Τ蹿よΑ猳弚近そ穦玂痙る布Μ禣快猭рる布瓃羙ㄢ丁臟隔そ琿丁ず穦琵膥尿ㄏノ硄ノ纗布穦戳猽ノ虫祘布
淮臟よさる崩"笷硄"赣そ穦膥尿ㄏノ虫祘布玱穦氨ノる布琍戳布㎝厩ネ﹗布"笷硄"穦酚穎Ω计㎝龟悔隔祘禯瞒ㄓΙ埃ó禣"笷硄"穦砞Τ縩だ纔磃璸购竒盽穎淮臟矗ㄑчΙ纔磃琵-
莉眔┕妓布基纔磃"笷硄"崩担厩ネ㎝穦膥尿ㄉΤ布基纔磃
潦禦"笷硄"斗煤50じ安┮ユ"笷硄"Ч俱礚穕玥繦莉眔癶蹿场だ琌籹硑穝禣ノ30じΜ临Τノ硚碞琌ㄏず逞緇布ぃìや琘Ω︽祘Μ禣ЧΘΤ闽︽祘τ玥ノ恶干ぃìぇ计︓赣р布穝纗ずゎ
"笷硄"疭翴琌祇匡ノΤ﹎㎝ㄤ戈糤睰ア玂毁ぃ锣琵Τ框ア┪砆叛莉干祇穝τ逞緇布穦锣穝临琵ㄉΤ闽そユ硄诀篶竒盽穎矗ㄑ縩だ纔磃璸购埃50じ矪瞶"笷硄"戈も尿禣20じぃ尺舧ビ叫玥匡ノ炊硄
淮臟タ淋叫ヘ玡ㄏノる布㎝﹗布ビ叫"笷硄"琵-
パるら癬ㄉ盽τ砞縩だ纔磃躬纘のΝビ叫ビ叫煤20じも尿禣
Old People's Homes in Zhongshan and Zhaoqing
い㎝籉紋蒥ㄢ丁ρ皘
16. 糂簙煌某拜沮厨笵翠辽皑穦 ("皑穦") 戈в腀诀篶い㎝籉紋蒥秨快ㄢ丁ρ皘ㄑパセ翠ず﹚﹡τ膥尿烩侯穿ρ︘碞現┎セЫ
(a) 埃皑穦戈诀篶瞷セ翠临Τㄇв腀诀篶璸购ず秨砞ρ皘ノ硚
(b) 穦癩現の戈方やêㄇ腀種ず秨砞瓃┦借ρ皘в腀诀篶璝礛冈薄︙璝︙の
(c) パ┕ず﹚﹡ρ硄盽穦笿┬洛励の⊿Τ酚臮拜肈現┎穦躬纘в腀诀篶ず秨快瓃┦借ρ皘硂ㄇρず莉眔酚臮
徖ネ褐氮畊
(a) 現┎ぃ笵临Τㄇв腀诀篶Τㄣ砰璸购ず秨砞ρ皘
(b) 碞現┎瞷︽現郸τēи-
礚璸购в腀诀篶矗ㄑ癩現や穿ず秨砞ρ皘現┎癸セ翠ρ皘龟琁猭ㄒ菏恨ぃ甶︓セ翠ρ皘
(c) タ(b)翴┮瓃現┎礚璸购蹦ヴ︙縩伐惫琁躬纘в腀诀篶ず秨快ρ皘
Queen's Head Coins Circulation
繷钩祑刽瑈硄
17. ㏄辩睶┥某拜挪ㄇ窥刽坝秨﹍Μ栋繷钩祑刽τぃぶカチョΜ旅硂ㄇ祑刽痙├現┎セЫ
(a) 瓃薄猵穦瑈硄祑刽计秖艼礛搭ぶ
(b) 瞷カ瑈硄繷钩祑刽计秖籔カ瑈硄瑅档祑刽计秖ゑㄒ︙
(c) 穦σ納糤瑅档祑刽祇︽计秖┪矗Ν祇︽赣摸祑刽干硋亥搭ぶカ瑈硄繷钩祑刽の
(d) 挪磕恨瞶Ыボ穦︑礛Μノ侣繷钩祑刽箇璸ЧΘΜ丁︙
癩竒ㄆ叭氮畊
(a) 狦Τ秖祑刽パカチΜ旅癬ㄓぃカ瑈硄︑礛穦瑈硄祑刽计秖搭ぶぃ筁パ現┎Τì镑祑刽干カチΜ旅τ搭ぶ瑈硄祑刽计秖ぃ穦瞷祑刽尿祏薄猵
(b) 篒︓きる┏ゎ瑅档祑刽瑈硄计秖琌15.4货猅τ繷钩祑刽琌21.7货猅ㄢゑㄒ琌1:1.4
(c) 祇︽瑅档祑刽ヘ琌繷钩祑刽現┎箇璸–穝祑刽惠―秖σ納︳璸穦砆繷钩祑刽计秖
(d) 瑅档祑刽繷钩祑刽硉箇穦禫ㄓ禫еи-
箇璸瑅档祑刽盢瑈硄祑刽羆80%箇カチ穦Μ旅璝计秖繷钩祑刽┮赣摸祑刽ぃ穦砆场Μ
Revaluations of Rateable Value since 1984
︑︓さ莱揭畉昏︳
18. 璣某拜現┎セЫ
(a) 讽Ы︑︓さ秈︽ぶΩ莱揭畉昏︳
(b) –Ω秈︽︳︘穨の坝穨加莱揭畉昏羆肂だ︙の
(c) ︑︓さ︘穨の坝穨加莱揭畉昏羆肂仓縩ど碩ぶ
畐叭氮
(a) ︑ㄓ畉昏穨︳基竝秈︽5Ω︳莱揭畉昏︳だ㎝るらネ
(b) ︑ㄓ–Ω︳莱揭畉昏︘穨㎝坝穨加莱揭畉昏羆肂
莱揭畉昏(κ窾じ)るらるらるらるらるら(i)╬︘虫︗21,09829,29158,36993,970134,686(ii)そ︘虫︗7,8109,35318,57325,23431,870
莱揭畉昏(κ窾じ)るらるらるらるらるら(iii)穨加
(紅の畐砞琁)5,3077,41419,15225,55724,635(iv)坝穨加
(綫︗のㄤ坝穨加ぃ珹糶加)10,06213,66328,89844,31752,028(v)糶加3,7975,92618,96925,83131,832
(c) 沮ゅ(b)兜┮计璸︑るら摸加莱揭畉昏仓縩ど碩
加摸璸︑るら
莱揭畉昏仓縩ど碩(i)╬︘虫︗538%(ii)そ︘虫︗308%(iii)穨加364%(iv)坝穨加417%(v)糶加738%
瓃仓縩ど碩は琈Τ闽加跑て加计ヘ糤㎝加縱借矗蔼
Western Corridor Railway
﹁场ǐ碮臟隔
19. 肅繟某拜碞﹁场ǐ碮臟隔 ("﹁臟") 祘現┎セЫ:
(a) ﹚璸购舅厨そガ臟隔よら戳パセい┑筐︓現┎Τ︙惫琁絋玂﹁臟パ﹁纒︓じ场だ戳箂箂┏玡ЧΘの┑︓べ隔帹箂箂る玡ЧΘ
(b) 約臟隔そ"臟そ"程∕﹚э﹁臟パぱ瞅秈べ琿隔帹現┎Τ︙惫琁搭ぶ穝璹べ琿隔帹籔跋办カ現Ы"跋Ы"盢赣跋砍そ砞琁玻ネ侥の
(c) パ﹁臟祘盢疉のΜ︗ぃ干纕だ跋現┎盢︙∕﹚穦癸︗ぃだ跋獶偿そ堕絛瞅ず蹦ノΜ干纕瞯
笲块氮畊
(a) 現┎礚種┑筐︓そガ﹁臟よи-
ヘ夹ご礛琌るオ舅厨そガ硂臟隔よ籔﹚璸购秈璓и-
穦很荷┮叭ㄏ﹁臟戳ЧΘ﹁纒︓じ琿箂箂┏Θτ︓べ琿玥箂箂るΘ
(b) 臟そきる碞﹁臟璸购現┎矗ユ程某э到臟隔隔帹戳荷秖搭ぶよ惠―糤硂兜璸购俱砰Θセ痲
臟そ程穝某ぱ瞅︓べ隔帹眖祘︽┦笲逼籔淮臟よ獽钡婚のΘセ痲àㄓ硂某隔帹琌程よ
ぃ筁硂兵隔帹瞣疉籔べ猠﹁─跋Ыㄇ瞷Τ㎝盢穦辅Θ砞琁珹虫ó畖︽畖胺ō砞琁そ碯单が皌拜肈и-
籔臟そ㎝跋办カ現羆竝坝癚荷秖搭ぶ癸硂ㄇ砞琁硑Θ紇臫程ㄎ暗猭の硂ㄇ砞琁逼臟そ瞷タ览璹惫琁秆∕﹁臟籔硂ㄇ砞琁皌拜肈и-
穦絋玂
(i) 紇臫砞琁ぃ︓ッア臟そ穦﹁臟Θ硂ㄇ砞琁
(ii) 砞琁砞璸璶㎝臟隔砞璸甧
(iii) 靖蝴钡キの
(iv) 绢阁べ猠兵瞷Τ︽爵ぉ玂痙
и-
穦膥尿跋Ы㎝Τ闽跋某穦蹲厨﹁臟璸购秈甶薄猵穦е盢甶秨近吭高い碞臟そ某惫琁冈灿紉高-
種ǎ
(c) 沮瞷︽疭磃だ跋干纕琘兜祘斗Μ场だ╬狦妮だ跋τ瑂綟だ跋╬场だ讽Ы穦蹦ノ购Μ干纕瞯ぃ筁安琘兜祘斗紉ノ絛瞅だ約獂阁禫ぃ干纕跋玥妮ㄒ腹稦帹祘獽琌蹦ノぃだ跋干纕瞯穝ㄒ
砏购吏挂現㎝現羆竝粄﹁臟璸购籔腹稦帹祘摸碞琌ㄢ常琌膀兜ヘτ斗紉ノ场だА阁禫ぃ干纕跋莱赣蹦ノぃだ跋干纕瞯场だだ跋帹Τ惠璶淮稬璹現羆竝穦セ┏碞甶秨浪癚
Chemical Waste Treatment Centre on Tsing Yi Island
獵︾て厩紀矪瞶いみ
20. 谅ッ闹某拜碞獵︾て厩紀矪瞶いみ犁笲現┎讽ЫセЫ
(a) 赣いみ筁3い–癩現Μ㎝や︙の
(b) 現┎璹ㄇㄣ砰よ猭э到赣いみ癩現猵
砏购吏挂現氮畊
(a) 筁3現┎–パΜ禣┮眔Μの沮"砞璸硑の犁笲"祘て厩紀矪瞶いみ┯快坝煤禣ノだ
て厩紀矪瞶いみ
禣ノΜ ┯快坝煤禣ノ
κ窾じ璸 κ窾じ璸
︓き 0.0 429.1
き︓せ 53.3 510.5
せ︓ 63.5 490.7
(b) 現┎琂﹚現郸琌硋˙矗蔼矪瞶て厩の瑅γ琕紀Μ禣獽程沧Μ场跑笆竒犁Θセ矪瞶て厩紀穝糤Μ禣穦せるら癬ネи-
ョ〆竨臮拜╯セ"砞璸硑の犁笲"祘穦某琌惠璶э瞷︽逼
GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
現┎某
MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE
掉﹛兵ㄒ
THE CHIEF SECRETARY to move the following motion:
"That the Magistrates (Forms) (Amendment) Rules 1997 made by the Acting Chief Justice on 12 June 1997, be approved."
She said: Mr President, I move the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Section 133 of the Magistrates Ordinance provides that the Chief Justice, with the approval by resolution of the Legislative Council, may make rules for the carrying into effect of the Ordinance and for any matter ancillary thereto. The Magistrates (Forms) Rules were first made by the Chief Justice in 1967 and they prescribe the forms for the purpose of the Magistrates Ordinance.
The Acting Chief Justice has, under section 133 of the Ordinance, made the Magistrates (Forms) (Amendment) Rules. The Amendment Rules are technical in nature. They seek to modernize the language used in various court forms by removing or updating outdated colonial expressions.
In accordance with section 133 of the Magistrates Ordinance, the Rules now require the approval of this Council.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
MAGISTRATES ORDINANCE
掉﹛兵ㄒ
THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT to move the following motion:
"That the Third Schedule to the Magistrates Ordinance be amended by adding -
"13. Eastern Harbour Crossing
Any offence against the Eastern Harbour Crossing Road Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 215 sub. leg.).
14. Tate's Cairn Tunnel
Any offence against the Tate's Cairn Tunnel By-laws (Cap. 393 sub. leg.).
15. Western Harbour Crossing
Any offence against the Western Harbour Crossing Bylaw (L.N. 162 of 1997).
16. Tsing Ma Control Area
(1) Any offence against the Tsing Ma Control Area (General) Regulation (L.N. 244 of 1997).
(2) Any offence against the Tsing Ma Control Area (Tolls, Fees and Charges) Regulation (L.N. 137 of 1997).".
笲块璓勉畊и略笆某璹掉﹛兵ㄒ3
硂兜璹ヘ琌盢笻は狥跋┏繥笵︽ó繥笵ㄒρ繥笵ㄒ﹁跋┏繥笵ㄒ獵皑恨跋砏ㄒの獵皑恨跋ㄏノ禣禣ノのΜ禣砏ㄒ竜︽砆粄竜竜︽砛粄竜虏てΤ闽矪瞶祘竊砆丁のΤ闽场戈方硂ㄇ场珹笲块竝㎝猭诀篶ヘ玡笻は┏繥笵ㄒ┪︽ó繥笵現┎砏ㄒ緍緋粄竜
畊и略朝勉叫某や硂兜某
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
睦竡の硄玥兵ㄒ
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That the Auxiliary Medical Service Regulation, published as Legal Notice No. 316 of 1997 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 17 June 1997, be amended -
(1) in section 8, by repealing "Services" and substituting "Service";
(2) in section 15, by repealing "30(2)" and substituting "32(2)"."
He said: Mr President, I move the first motion which has been printed on the Order Paper. This motion seeks to amend the Auxiliary Medical Service Regulation. The proposed amendments are minor and technical in nature.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
睦竡の硄玥兵ㄒ
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY to move the following motion:
"That the Civil Aid Service Regulation, published as Legal Notice No. 317 of 1997 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 17 June 1997, be amended in section 15, by repealing "30(2)" and substituting "32(2)"."
He said: Mr President, I move the second motion which has been printed on the Order Paper. This motion seeks to amend the Civil Aid Service Regulation. The proposed amendments are minor and technical in nature.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
GOVERNMENT BILLS
現┎兵ㄒ
Second Reading of Bills
兵ㄒ弄
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COUNCIL BILL
щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 10 July 1997
確るら笆某弄臛阶
独岸藉某璓勉畊せるら現┎セЫ矗ユщ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒセЫㄤΘミ兵ㄒ〆穦"〆穦"╯赣兵ㄒパセ踞ヴ畊〆穦るら甶秨籔讽Ы庢︽13Ω穦某穦ǎ瞷щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"畊の闽猔刮砰
セ兵ㄒヘ琌ㄏ瞷Τ牡菏穦Θ猭﹚舱麓牡菏穦矗ㄑ猭ㄌ沮ㄏ赣穦癸矪瞶┮Τщ禗牡叭щ禗牡诡揭磅︽菏诡の浪癚赣揭┮秸琩戮
〆穦舧讽Ы矗ユセ兵ㄒ癸兵ㄒ盿ㄓэ到ㄏщ禗牡诡そ獺㎝そ渤癸俱щ禗の菏诡獺み眔矗蔼玱伐闽猔
〆穦癸莱结ぉ牡菏穦秸琩舦ㄆ秈︽冈灿癚阶ゼ眔璓種ǎ场だ某粄牡菏穦⊿Τ縒ミ秸琩舦龟悔ご琌繷"礚ρ"牡菏穦ぃ獺ヴщ禗牡诡揭秸琩挡狦薄猵牡菏穦莱Τ舦秈︽縒ミ秸琩硂妓牡菏穦Τ磅︽ウ菏诡戮秈˙矗蔼そ渤癸瞷︽獺み礛τΤ场だ某玱癸牡菏穦ㄣΤ秸琩舦ㄆΤ┮玂痙のボは癸
讽Ыは癸琵牡菏穦局Τ秸琩舦┮瞶パ琌秸琩斗璶盡м砃パ礚盡穨醚の竒喷踞ヴ秸琩穦ㄆパ獶牡叭秈︽ㄆン秸琩ョぃ讽讽Ы瞷︽現郸琌パщ禗牡诡揭秈︽秸琩牡菏穦玥璽砫磅︽菏诡の浪癚戮瓃暗猭穦ま璓à︹睼瞔狡穦牡よ秸琩箇牡菏穦璝借好щ禗牡诡揭秸琩挡狦璶―穝秸琩Τ闽
襖略ビ某借好牡菏穦ゼ莉结ぉ兜秸琩舦Τ菏诡щ禗牡诡揭矪瞶щ禗盢〆穦糵某顶琿笆某タ结舦牡菏穦ぃ獺ヴщ禗牡诡揭┮秸琩挡狦癸ヴ︙щ禗秈︽秸琩┪穝秈︽秸琩癸硂翴иボ觅
眏牡菏穦菏诡戮〆穦某结舦赣穦〆ヴ続ㄒ碔竒喷秸琩の猭盡穨癸щ禗牡诡揭秸琩秈︽琩┪芠诡
讽Ыボパ螟竨叫ㄣ称続讽戮牡菏穦芠诡┮某硄筁耎牡菏穦芠诡璸购〆ヴ玡牡菏穦Θの穦藉笷踞ヴ赣穦糤匡Θ芠诡牡钉矪瞶щ禗讽Ы穦﹚冈灿逼硓筁妮猭ㄒΤ闽砏﹚
〆穦粄莱兵ㄒず璹牡菏穦Τ舦〆ヴ瓃芠诡щ禗牡诡揭矪瞶щ禗и祔穦〆穦砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某Τ闽ㄆ兜タ
〆穦稰闽猔ㄆ兜琌牡菏穦碞ヴ︙щ禗秸琩挡狦∕﹚场だ某粄牡菏穦莱Τ舦沮セō癸щ禗耞∕﹚Τ闽琌妮龟襖略ビ某盢穦笆某タ璹牡菏穦碞ヴ︙щ禗秸琩┮眔の挡狦の盢碞赣щ禗蹦︽笆∕﹚讽Ыぃ觅Θ硂兜タΤ闽ㄆ﹜莱パ牡叭矪矪璽砫∕﹚安牡菏穦ぃ粄牡叭矪矪∕﹚羆服矗某パ羆服牡叭矪矪ボ
Τ闽襖略ビ某某结舦牡菏穦р籔щ禗Τ闽ヴ︙ㄆ兜锣ざ稧現そ竝讽Ыョぃ觅Θ牡よ穦р籔砱γΤ闽щ禗矗ユ稧現そ竝矪瞶琌р籔砱γ礚闽щ禗┪ゼ秆∕锣ざ稧現そ竝秈︽秸琩┪穝秈︽秸琩ぃ讽讽Ыボ稧現そ竝ぃ辨рウ舦耎甶︓碞籔砱γ礚闽秈︽秸琩牡菏穦ョぃ觅Θ硂兜某场だ某癸襖略ビ某碞硂よ笆某タボは癸┪Τ┮玂痙
畊兵ㄒ材10兵璹牡叭矪矪碞琘﹙щ禗秸琩牡菏穦ユ厨牡菏穦┪ㄤΘヴ︙丁碞赣﹙щ禗穦ǎヴ︙靡〆穦璶―讽Ы種笆某タ獽絋砏﹚牡菏穦穦ǎヴ︙靡珹щ禗牡诡揭秈︽秸琩ゼ纯穦ǎの縒ミ盡產靡
〆穦粄莱琵牡菏穦紆┦矪瞶穦ǎ靡逼獽щ禗矗щ禗続讽穦ǎ靡τ獶兵ㄒ砏﹚ゲ斗牡よユ秸琩厨穦ǎ靡
讽Ы秆睦牡菏穦穦ǎ靡璸购ヘ琌琵牡菏穦坚睲щ禗牡诡揭┮秸琩好翴秸琩厨﹟ゼЧΘ薄猵牡菏穦礚眖眔惠璶坚睲よㄆ兜
场だ某ご礛粄牡菏穦莱щ禗矗щ禗続讽诀穦ǎ靡獽糹︽赣穦菏诡戮场だ某癸玥Τ┮玂痙襖略ビ某穦笆某Τ闽タ砏﹚牡菏穦Θ┪赣穦﹚ヴ︙牡钉钡莉щ禗菏诡┪浪癚赣﹙щ禗ヘτ穦ǎ靡
讽Ыは癸硂兜タ粄穦ǎ靡莱パ牡菏穦Θτ獶ㄤ秈︽パ牡菏穦秸琩ЧΘ玡穦ǎ靡穦Й锚秈︽秸琩祘讽Ы穦笆某タ结舦牡菏穦钡莉い戳厨莉眔牡叭矪矪種ぇ穦ǎ靡
ㄏ靡Ч㈱港篈ㄑ〆穦種兜兵ゅㄏ穦い靡┮┸臩戈ら皐癸猭祘いぃ穦Θ竜靡沮и穦〆穦笆某Τ闽タ
牡菏穦琂礛琌縒ミ诀篶〆穦粄莱结ぉ牡菏穦〆ヴ赣穦の矪戮舦珹猭臮拜〆ヴ硂暗猭眏そ渤癸牡菏穦縒ミ┦粄
讽Ы種パ牡菏穦〆ヴ赣穦の猭臮拜穦タ礛τ讽Ыぃ種琵牡菏穦〆ヴ獶そ叭踞ヴㄤ矪戮
〆穦粄叭斗砏﹚ㄏ牡菏穦紆┦〆ヴм砃㎝盡穨のㄤ戮赣穦磅︽戮㎝︽ㄏ舦и祔穦〆穦笆某Τ闽タ
畊〆穦闽猔Τ闽玂盞兵ゅ兵ㄒ材11(3)兵砏﹚牡菏穦沮兵ㄒ厨い┸臩ヴ︙ㄆ兜羆服靡┸臩赣ㄆ兜Τ穕翠玂ň徖┪瓣悔闽玒┪穦ㄤよΤ笻そ渤痲玥ぃ眔┸臩赣ㄆ兜〆穦粄玂毁そ渤眔羆服纯︽ㄏ兜舦舦莱砏﹚羆服–Ω︽ㄏ兜舦А斗そガ
讽Ыボ硂兜兵ゅヘ琌结ぉ羆服舦ㄏ伐╱Τ薄猵矪瞶Τ闽拜肈牡菏穦∕﹚琌厨ず┸臩Τ闽ㄆ龟の或よΑ┸臩闽硂翴襖略ビ某盢笆某タ
讽Ы钡〆穦某璹羆服逼盢牡菏穦ㄤ疭厨┪场だ厨矗ユミ猭Ы穦碞笆某タ
畊カチ癸щ禗牡诡揭⊿Τ獺み粄パ牡よ矪瞶皐癸牡诡щ禗弧ぃ琌ㄣΤ硓のそタ矪瞶よ猭〆穦ョΤ冈灿癚阶硂拜肈癸瞷牡菏穦矗〆ヴ獶牡叭磝恨щ禗牡诡揭某иセの场だ某常辨現┎讽Ы稸σ納硂琌矗蔼そ渤癸俱矪瞶щ禗牡诡獺み程膀セ碞琌р"穞い硄"砆щ禗牡叭暗猭ㄆ竜︽盢硂贺︽笻︽龟ぃ盿ㄓì镑纞ノ
畊埃и弧и穦〆穦笆某タぇ讽Ыの襖略ビ某砰〆穦糵某顶琿ョ穦笆某ㄤタи略朝勉やセ兵ㄒиョ辨虑诀穦讽Ыの〆穦Θ璓谅兵ㄒ糵某Τ苦-
眔ЧΘ
谅谅畊
襖略ビ某璓勉畊セ兵ㄒぃ虫ゎΞ盢щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"猭﹚て狦и-
陆綷ミ猭ЫΤ闽ゅンи-
穦祇谋ㄤ龟現┎陪笵瞷︽菏诡Τ闽牡诡щ禗诀ㄤ龟琌ぃ獺狝┮埃ミ猭盢牡菏穦舦猭﹚てぇ現┎ョ斗癸场だ︽現惫琁э到拜肈碞琌礚阶︙秸琩Τ闽牡诡щ禗瞷Τ诀Чぃ稰そタ
臮玡眖牡诡璽砫秸琩Τ闽牡诡砱γ︓稧現そ竝Θミи-
睲贰パ牡诡秸琩Τ闽牡诡龟⊿猭獺狝玡矗ぃ琌牡菏穦璶ぃ璶縒ミτ琌牡诡щ禗揭莱赣縒ミ琌現┎ぃ種
セЫ硄筁セ矗笆某и辨矗眶現┎讽Τ畉ぃき︗〆ヴ某щ布さぱи窱-
-
常и膥尿筁┕-
纯碞某や現┎琌-
常拜肈腨┦狦ぃ癸硂秈︽碩э碞⊿Τ快猭蒥チ獺みΤ秸琩の現┎瞷Τぇ丁眔キ颗
程玡帹菏诡щ禗揭パ現┎〆ヴ牡菏穦羇ㄏ硈尿3竒筁〆传ぃ舱ご礛绊矗щ禗揭烩旧莱赣パ獶牡叭踞ヴ眔現┎獺ヴ程玡帹诀篶瘤礛硈尿计パぃ畊のぃ〆舱Θ┮矗某現┎常ぃ钡и稱拜︗ㄆ╯澈現┎Τ⊿Τэ港種㎡
и笵さぱΤㄇ〆㎝某腨現┎琁溃︓ガ現癩現のㄤ常硓筁筿杠┪ノㄤよΑㄤ琁溃и-
現┎Τ翴э種┪港種㎡牡菏穦ぃ骸種щ禗揭秸琩挡狦┮︑秈︽秸琩現┎ぃ種
и弧Ωи竒癶˙竒砆砫絴иタ琌程パ牡诡秈︽秸琩ㄤ龟琘祘硂碞竒镑酚臮現┎璶―玂痙ぶ砛牡诡縒ミ牡菏穦ぃ骸種現┎厨現┎碞牡菏穦〆ボぃユパ羆服ヲ掉琌Τㄇ牡菏穦〆计る玡竒癸и弧ヲ掉挡狦琌現┎穦琵牡菏穦秈︽秸琩┪現┎穦Τㄤよ猭砛穦パ牡诡秈︽秸琩
牡菏穦ぃ骸種щ禗揭厨現┎玱ぃㄤ秈︽秸琩らㄇ某村弧現┎矗ぃ羆服уぇパ牡菏穦秈︽秸琩現┎ョボぃㄆ薄虏虫よ弧ユパ羆服ヲ掉よ玱猭璹ぃ竒羆服種ユパ牡菏穦秸琩種碞琌璶ユパщ禗揭秈︽秸琩︑﹍︓沧常琌パщ禗揭秸琩ㄏぃ骸種穦パщ禗揭秈︽秸琩︓ユパ羆服矪瞶挡狦常琌ユパщ禗揭秸琩硂琌そキ盾
叫產陆计ㄓΤ闽计狦︗纯翠ネネ竒喷穦禗-
ぃ獺牡菏穦┪щ禗揭计镑は琈瞷龟筁┕计Τ碭﹙牡诡嫁ゴ琌竒筁牡菏穦のщ禗揭パ現竝∕﹚癬禗㎡и禗︗Τ﹙ㄤい﹙琌ヰ痁闽闽粄牡诡ぃ莱赣嫁ゴ瑀⊿Τ瞶パ硂妓垒ノ舦繦Τ俱钉屡碪初рê礹ゴ箉ㄢや场钉常ぃ盢ㄆンキ狦砆嫁ゴ琌炊硄蒥チ碞穞ノよ猭盢ㄆンキ疉の闽闽︙㎡琌產碞ぃ镑㎡挡狦璶碞ㄆンそ秸琩材﹙琌牡叭矪Τ舱麓腨竜秸琩"⑤癘"贝芖絃ш┏パш眔筁狥跋舱苯堵рê贝礹ゴ箉ㄆンぃキ沮и秆牡诡羆场纯秨穦某狥跋揣﹛弧螟笵⑤癘眖⊿Τ嫁ゴタê贝安ш眔び璓и-
р讽胊礹ゴêΘ簍м毙и-
痷琌搁
埃ぇи辨現┎禗и╯澈临Τ﹙琌痷镑Θ浪北㎡琌ぃ琌硂5ず穦碞祇ネ筁硂碭﹙牡诡嫁ゴン㎡蒥チ极眔仓縩⊿Τ快猭猲⊿Τ快猭眔そキ氮
羛瓣舦〆穦纯竒Ω沮そチの現獀舦そу蝶翠瞷Τ⊿猭才瓣悔舦そ砏﹚-
玃叫現┎獶牡叭把籔秸琩τぃ琌虏虫秈︽菏诡
現┎ぃщ禗揭縒ミぃパ牡诡烩旧щ禗揭ぃ骸種щ禗揭厨ぃ牡菏穦秈︽秸琩︓硈闽щ禗揭㎝牡菏穦ㄇ祘э常ぃу
庢ㄒ弧狦щ禗揭硄厨獺倒砆щ禗程ぶョ莱篶Θㄆ竜︽狦牡菏穦珹畒计︗捌畊盢戈床ガ竒デㄆ竜︽或щ禗揭ㄤ硓臩戈碞ぃ妮ㄆ竜︽τ琌笻はず场砏玥惠璶秈︽ず场秸琩
牡诡﹍沧び璶ㄤ璶祘ぃ旧璓現┎常璶穛-
牡钉ぃΘ縒ミ瓣τи-
ぃ甧砛-
ΤЧぃ北舦猭獀ぃ琌硂妓狦薄猵硈ゅ﹛現┎常ぃ幢癸˙临暗Τ恨獀㎡
硂计ㄓи沽刚硓筁ぃ措笵侥瘆硂堵瑌璹チ現盡兵ㄒи某ユパチ現盡矪瞶獶ㄆン秸琩現┎玱矗璶Μ硂兵ㄒ1布ぇ畉莉眔硄筁讽Τ计︗纯竒ボやи某禗иê癚阶琌獶ㄆてン秸琩┮-
穦矪瞶Τ闽牡菏穦兵ㄒやиㄏ現┎秈︽碩э
и辨ê碭︗某镑硂膀娄睲贰硂兵ㄒ镑牡诡穦瞷Τ舱Θ蒥チ暗ぶㄆ
產常穦癘眔膀セ猭砏﹚ぇ某ゼ竒疭跋"疭"種ぃ矗╬兵ㄒи箇璸狦и笆某兵ㄒタぃ莉硄筁и獺牡菏穦ッ环ぃ穦Τ秸琩舦疭妓璶跌牡诡安⊿Τそ獺ぃッ环尿琘˙计窾璸蒥チ┪甡┪Τ极珹и︑ず砛璶牡诡羆场ボ叫腀к某牡钉ぃタ跌甡竤ぇ皑拜肈羆τēぇ牡钉ぃ岿硂15ㄓ獀炒程奸粄竜よ穦Τ拜肈牡钉瞷ご礛暗眔或и-
ぃ┾ㄇ甡竤ぇ皑ㄏи-
Ч到ㄏ蒥チ极眔猲㎡
и辨︗某粄痷σ納硂翴и笵現┎纯竒穞秈︽村弧某狦やи矗Τ闽秸琩兵ㄒ現┎穦篗兵ㄒ篗兵ㄒぃ琌ン虏虫ㄆ琌穦瞣疉現┎そ獺硂碭ぱ穦某琌さ穦戳ず程ミ猭Ы穦某現┎硂兵ㄒ竒╈┰碭舦〆穦盽у蝶硂兵ㄒぃ才舦そ砏﹚и辨現┎ぃ璶種﹖︽
ㄤ龟現┎程匡拒琌狦現┎粄硄筁Τ闽秸琩舦タ琌ぃ钡現┎ユパ某矗弄ぃ惠璶篗硂兵ㄒи辨現┎σ納甧砛某碞硂兵ㄒ祇種ǎ戳チネ盿ㄓэ到
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
產不某璓勉瞶畊и稱ビ厨и琌щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"瞷ヴ捌畊и⊿Τ眔痲ぃ穦牡菏穦祇ēи穦祇種ǎ
硂兵ㄒ讽狡馒иご礛癘眔兵ㄒ〆穦"〆穦"秨﹍糵某セ兵ㄒセЫ種ǎ㎝現┎種ǎぇ丁Τ讽禯瞒俱糵某筁祘ぇいи-
だ碙︗〆ぷㄤ琌襖略ビ某の玂ぃ種ǎパ產だΤ港種┮が砰教盢禯瞒硋亥Μτ現┎程矗よョ眔э到︓瞷ゎ〆穦㎝現┎眔醚粄砛某常牡菏穦縒ミ㎝ㄣ︑舦礚阶さぱщ布挡狦︙и獺襖略ビ某﹚⊿Τフ禣竒ㄏセ兵ㄒΤ秈˙
ぃ筁砛パ丁ゑ耕ョ現┎篈闽玒ㄏ硂兵ㄒいごΤ计兜耕ㄣ某┦タゼ莉眔よ種ぷㄤ琌祔襖略ビ某盢矗材7(1)(e)㎝材7(1)(f)兵の材8(1)(ba)兵璹и钡㎝丁钡秆牡叭Τ耕眏疨は莱-
粄硂ㄇ璹穦牡菏穦パ眖菏诡琜篶锣笆磅︽诀篶
σ納襖略ビ某タи穦眖ㄢよも材硂タ琌薄瞶иだ獺襖某笆某タ荡癸Τì镑阶沮やи辨現┎フ蒥チみヘい瞷牡诡щ禗揭そ獺Τ拜肈τ蒥チ癸赣Τ┮胔好眖蒥チàㄓ襖略ビ某タ荡癸薄瞶иョ獺琌盿到種笆某硂タ辨蠢現┎秆∕硂よ拜肈
ぃ筁牡菏穦Θぇи惠璶σ納硂兜э穦続ノ牡诡玡帹ㄤ龟悔狦琌痷и-
┮タ襖某┮弧┮Τ牡诡獺狝笷璓程ㄎ狦
ミ猭Ы莱蠢現┎秆∕そ獺拜肈临琌莱赣パ現┎笆矗㎡硂よи猭蛤襖某猭菠Τぃи纯把σ牡菏穦畊㎝牡菏穦Θ癚阶拜肈祇種ǎиだ種牡菏穦┮ΤΘ猭粄瞷竒Τ膀娄牡菏穦ǐ縒ミ︑˙
и獺眖笲よㄓ弧狦Τ▆醚牡诡镑続莱穝吏挂礛秈˙ㄤタ狦┪穦ぷㄤ牡菏穦舦の戈方常だΤ薄猵и-
ご礛ㄌ苦牡诡щ禗揭碞よ蛤и-
皌安虫よ盢и-
璶―眏-
ō-
獺狝程沧ゼゲ笷璓程ㄎ笲狦
狦牡诡钩チ丁刮砰┪盡穨刮砰畍穦妓и獺ミ猭Ы﹚穦碙-
種ǎョ穦σ納-
盡穨絛瞅ず碙腨ぷㄤ穦挡篶┦эσ納ㄤ薄猵琌碞и-
ㄓミ猭Ы癸現┎场耕腨璙硂暗猭ゼゲ琌ぃ癸иョだ種襖略ビ某猭㎝稱猭
礚阶牡诡琌或璶场钉ㄤ癸蒥チ拜砫ゅて㎝矪ㄆ篈龟び超龟Τ惠璶縩伐э到よи弧筂辨襖略ビ某ぃ璶緆礚阶さぱ∕挡狦︙иご礛辨穦膥尿
и弧硂或杠常辨弧さぱи癸–兜璹∕砛ぃ穦蛤襖略ビ某妓и﹍沧瞏獺Τ醚膀娄ぇ礚阶硂兵ㄒ硄筁籔常穦牡菏穦玡邻秈˙礛τи-
ご璶膥尿
谅谅瞶畊
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
MRS SELINA CHOW: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I rise to support the Second Reading of the Independent Police Complaints Council Bill.
I have made it clear on more than one occasion that the Liberal Party believes that the role of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) should be that of a monitor and not an investigator. It is quite evident that in this respect we are at one with the Administration and differ fundamentally and philosophically from the basic premise of the Democratic Party which has maintained that the Council should have a part to play as an overseeing investigator to Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO"). We do not agree this is the right way forward. To vest an investigative power in the Council will mean the establishment of yet another highly professional team of investigators which will duplicate the functions of CAPO.
The more cost-effective and efficient way would be to remove the investigative powers presently undertaken by CAPO to a body outside the police force, which was the subject of another debate during which all arguments have more or less been exhausted so I would not repeat them as they can easily be found in the Hansard. It suffices to say that the Administration has decided not to adopt that course of action and the Liberal Party agrees with that decision.
Financial considerations apart, we do not share the view that effective monitoring can only be achieved by investigation. This Council performs its monitoring role quite satisfactorily without any investigative powers or functions. So long as the body entrusted with the duty to monitor is given the right to resources, information and is allowed to deliberate and report independently, it could perform its functions quite effectively. We are, therefore generally speaking not in favour of the Honourable James TO's amendments. They have the effect of providing for the Council to become a second investigative body through the back door, and we oppose this direction.
We would, however, like to see the Council given the flexibility to engage its own staff and not be restricted to government secondments. I cannot understand why the Administration is so reluctant to relax on this point as this will certainly enhance the independence of the Council both in fact and in perception. The Administration's move to allow the Secretary and the Legal Advisor to be recruited outside of the Government is a step in the right direction, but I would have preferred an enabling provision leaving it to the Council to decide. They may borrow from the experience of the Commission for Administrative Complaints which currently has a mixture of seconded as well as recruited staff. I do not accept the Administration's argument that the lack of career prospects will present difficulties to recruitment as the terms, which would no doubt be comparable to government terms, would be quite competitive and the work could also be quite interesting and challenging.
Unfortunately, the amendment to be moved by the Honourable WONG Wai-yin on behalf of the Bills Committee gives total carte blanche to the Council with no requirement on accountability. In addition, a resolution of this Council is required to trigger the operation of this power to engage its own staff, which is contrary to normal practice.
We will, however, support Mr WONG's amendment on behalf of the Bills Committee to render statements by a witness to the IPCC inadmissible as evidence against him in a criminal proceeding as we believe this will enable witnesses to speak more freely and fearlessly.
In the course of scrutinizing the Bill, our attention was drawn to the fact that tipping off is not a criminal offence, although the Police General Order is being amended to make it a disciplinary offence. I am of the view that such actions are highly damaging to the integrity of the entire police complaints system and should be subjected to much more serious punishment than is currently the case. I call on the Force and the Administration to review this important matter and to take all steps to prevent tipping off as can be reasonably imposed so as to strengthen public confidence in the system. I also urge the Administration to consider the possibility of introducing legislative amendments to render the action a criminal offence.
Mr President, I support the motion.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr President, it is important that we ask ourselves what message do we want to send to the community about our police force. Are we to tell them that the great, great majority of our police officers are working within the law which they carry out, or are we going to tell them that in fact the majority are the black sheep, so that there is actually a lot of truth in the complaints about police brutality which are raised in the courts?
Mr President, if I were a member of the police force and if I know that I am innocent, then clearly I want any unjustified complaint against me to be investigated by as independent a body as possibly can, so that when I am exonerated from blame, I can tell the whole world, "look, this complaint was entirely baseless, and now I have been exonerated by an independent body." Surely that is the correct way of dealing with it, unless I am totally wrong, and unless the great majority of the complaints are legitimate. Then it is a different story. But is that what the Administration is telling us? I hope not. And if that is not the truth, that means if the black sheep are indeed a small number of policemen and women, then what is there for them to fear?
So, Mr President, what message do we want the Hong Kong people to have about our police force as we brave our future which is already full of so many uncertainties? Are we to tell them that we can work with the police force because we trust them, or are we to tell the people, well, really there are a lot of black sheep there and that is why the complaints of the public cannot be fairly dealt with? So, that is a point I want Members to take into consideration.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I rise to speak in support of the Bill and some of the amendments to be moved at a later stage. Again, like my Honourable friend, Mr Eric LI, I would like to declare my interests as one of the vice-chairmen of the current Indpendent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) which this Bill aims to give it a statutory effect. Likely more so, what I should be expressing is not the views of the IPCC in total but rather most of them are my personal views.
Mr President, few would dispute in this community that we have one of the finest police forces in the world, both in relation to its effectiveness and honesty. Yet, like all organizations, especially large ones, and as my Honourable friend, Mr Martin LEE said, there could be black sheep.
To assure that any possible abuse of power will be looked into, a body known as Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) is established within the police force, and to oversee this body, the IPCC is appointed by the Governor as an independent advisory body to monitor and review the investigations of public complaints after the investigation work carried out by CAPO. In short, Mr President, any public complaint of the police will be investigated by a police team, CAPO, and its findings further reviewed and vetted by a non-police body, the IPCC.
Mr President, whilst as a vice-chairman of the IPCC I can boast that we have a very efficient body and some extremely dedicated members and that the current modus operandi has been most effective in monitoring and even unearthing areas missed by CAPO, the fact that a public complaint against the police is investigated by a team constituted entirely by police force, responsible to the Commissioner for Police and the overseeing body, IPCC, is but just an advisory body with no teeth, raises concern, and justifiably so amongst the public and the legislators.
It was in this area, Mr President, that heated and meaningful debates developed in the Bills Committee and where the Administration and some Members are unable to compromise. Mr President, basically there are two areas on which the Bills Committee has laboured on most. Firstly, should the structure of CAPO be changed to include lay persons, perhaps having a lay chairman? Whilst many excellent ideas have been forthcoming, the matter concerning CAPO, obviously, came from outside the remit of this Bill and was not taken into consideration, but recommendations were made for the Government to have a second look and few would disagree with this recommendation.
Secondly, should the IPCC be given an independent investigative power? Mr President, much has been said one way or the other by the Chairman of the Bills Committee, Mr WONG and other Honourable Members, and I do not want to be redundant. Suffice it to say that I would like to express some of my personal feelings. Mr President, it has often been said that only the police force have the know-how to conduct investigations in line with the nature of complaints brought to the attention of CAPO, and that any other body given the investigative right will erode the morale of the police force. Mr President, I totally disagree.
There is nothing to stop IPCC in engaging former senior police personnel to carry out the investigation if so permitted, tapping their know-how, and their expertise. Let me state also, in no uncertain terms, that giving their power to an outside team to investigate occasionally should never be seen as eroding into and jeopardizing the morale of the police force. Instead the police force should welcome the idea and let others confirm that justice is being done and seen to be done.
Let us look at it from another angle and in the subsequent Committee stage amendments Members will realize that the Administration has actually agreed the IPCC will be able to interview new witnesses should the IPCC feel that these witnesses can contribute to the decisions of their deliberation. This to me is already the first step and the beginning of an independent investigation. The only difference is that the word "investigation" would not appear in the function nor the power of the IPCC.
Mr President, yet we are in special times not ordinary times, when the high morale of the police force must be given the full consideration. I have therefore taken the advice of the Administration and will vote in the line decided by the IPCC, which is, the Bill must be passed as soon as possible. Yet, the suggestions of the Honourable James TO is no doubt a move in a positive direction. I would strongly urge the Administration to introduce proper education if needed to the police force to ensure that they could in the course of time accept a different culture and I personally would like to see a push for a more open CAPO and a more powerful and independent IPCC in the course of my term in this legislature and in the IPCC.
With those remarks, Mr President, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊璶蝴翠▆獀カチ﹡贾穨や蔼瞯笲▆牡钉弧琌ぃ⊿タ┮孔"攫Τ琝狵壁Τㄠ"筁碭ㄓ牡诡щ禗揭Μぃぶщ禗牡诡珹Τ牡垒舦癸カチぃ搂华单щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"︑せΘミㄓ祇揣菏诡の滦浪щ禗牡诡揭秸琩ノ硂兵兵ㄒ玃ㄏ牡菏穦Θ猭﹚诀篶镑Τ菏诡の狡浪Τ闽щ禗牡よ秸琩辅龟碞щ禗牡诡揭祘秈︽縒ミ浪癚厨チ羛癸ㄤいㄇ某ㄒэ到穦ǎ靡祘糤硓の眏Τ闽牡菏穦肚单の硂兵ㄒ弘のよ单А伐觅и-
粄穦㎝坑祇甶Τ苦產だ祇揣┮
︑Θミㄓ牡菏穦à︹璶琌璽砫菏诡の滦浪癸襖略ビ某笆某タ疭琌结ぉ牡菏穦龟悔秸琩舦某チ羛伐Τ玂痙牡菏穦ㄉΤ秸琩舦某礚好瞷Τщ禗牡诡盿ㄓセэ跑チ羛瘤礛種カチ莱赣ㄉΤ伐ㄣ硓の秨щ禗牡よビ禗措笵縒ミ菏诡の浪癚Τ闽牡诡揭щ禗チ丁舱麓牡菏穦ぃ続﹜莉眔甭舦碞Τ闽щ禗秈︽秸琩
獶牡叭┮惠盡穨醚秸琩┕┕疉の牟デㄆ竜︽┪牡钉のщ禗祘щ禗牡钉セōョΤ猭﹚砫ヴ秸琩ㄆン珹疉の牡诡ㄆン甧砛牡菏穦秈︽秸琩穦狡牡よ秸琩ぷㄤ琌ㄇ腨щ禗ㄒ嫁ゴ┪摥硑靡沮单┕┕疉のㄆΘだ猵翠ヘ玡щ禗牡诡诀笲﹟衡▆τ蛤ㄤ跋牡跋ゑ翠щ禗牡诡硂よ礚叉竊
チ羛粄⊿Τ惠璶癸牡菏穦舦セэ跑τ癸牡舦ぃゲ璶の玠畓獺癸蝴翠▆獀ゼゲ琌ㄆ癸襖略ビ某璶―牡菏穦い稧現そ竝"稧竝"и-
粄硂琌ぃ続讽τ稧竝ョぃ辨盢ㄤ舦耎甶︓Τ闽ぃ疉の砱γン牡叭秸琩
硂玡矗チ羛粄ぃ莱赣硂よэ跑セ略朝勉
畊襖略ビ某琌砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某畊и祇ē砆粇秆┪иタ砆粇秆
畊癸ぃ癬セ畊钮ぃ睲贰
襖略ビ某иタず甧砆腑瓣辆某粇秆иタず甧⊿Τ璶―稧竝......
畊瞷础ē坚睲祇ē砆粇秆场だ︓タ莱タ场だ祇ē
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I rise to support the resumption of the Second Reading debate for the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) Bill. I think that this is a very good step forward, and at a personal level it has indirectly fulfilled my election commitment in 1995. I was calling very urgently for the Government to have statutory provisions to govern the operation of the IPCC. I feel that this is a very good way to proceed forward and to provide the statutory legal basis for the IPCC to discharge its principal function of monitoring and reviewing police investigation into complaints against police officers.
I support many of the proposals made by the Honourable James TO but there are two points in respect of which I have reservation at this juncture and I will explain why. First of all, for IPCC to conduct investigations independently of the police might put a very difficult situation operationally both on the police and also on the IPCC. As a civilian oversight body which monitors and reviews CAPO's investigations it would in fact involve tremendous manpower, almost like a duplication of the police force, for the IPCC to investigate complaints if such power were to be given to the IPCC and might lead to confusion of roles here and certainly would have operational difficulties. I mean, these are the practical issues.
First of all, I feel that many people look to the Hong Kong Police Force as a force of integrity. For the IPCC to determine findings of investigation would necessitate the IPCC to do the investigation itself and, since I have not supported the IPCC to conduct independent investigation, I find it very difficult to determine the IPCC for it to investigate the findings of investigations.
Furthermore, I think we have to believe in somebody in Hong Kong. I believe in the Police Force. I believe in the Commissioner. I think that Hong Kong generally has a very viable police force and has a Commissioner who knows what his job is about. So, with a lot of respect for the credibility and the viability of the disciplined force, I feel that the current state should be improved and monitored. And I trust that my confidence will not be misplaced because this confidence and this trust will have to be verified. The eyes of Hong Kong, like the eyes of this Council, are watching the future behaviour of the Police Force and the Commissioner, which is its authority, which has the authority to decide on a lot of the things which happen in the Force.
With this exception, I support entirely the other proposals made by Mr James TO.
霉不瓣某璓勉畊щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"琌蝴臔蒥チ舦痲の菏恨牡よ垒ノ牡舦程蔼诀篶セ兵ㄒэ到颗诀よ竒Τ陪瘆㎝э到珹耎芠诡睲贰ミ猭Ы某穦パ牡菏穦縒ミ〆ヴョ絋玂癩現竒禣ㄓ方щ禗钡牡菏穦Θщ禗τ讽牡菏穦矗ユい戳厨牡菏穦Θ穦ǎ靡硂逼琌ì镑㎡
さΩ襖略ビ某タ某讽牡菏穦癸牡よщ禗揭秸琩挡狦ぃ骸種竒筁腨略祘パ牡菏穦縒ミ秈︽秸琩チ琌や硂某ㄤ龟硂某籔チ璶―牡诡щ禗揭縒ミ某ご礛Τ禯瞒瘤礛現┎眏秸襖略ビ某某穦ゴ阑牡よи-
獺ゴ阑︳璸Τ安砞┦ョΤ肛ぇ尔ㄏ硂薄猵痷穦瞷︳璸ョ穦獶盽祏既
и-
粄襖某タ癸玂毁蒥チ痲︓眏牡よそ獺よ常琌獶盽璶谅谅畊
糂紌某璓勉畊и祇ēやщ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒ弄セ兵ㄒ璶Ξ盢щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"锣猭﹚舱麓眏ㄤ菏诡㎝浪癚щ禗牡诡揭戮程璶碞琌眏牡菏穦そ獺ㄏそ渤癸щ禗牡诡Τ獺み
畊и讽ミ猭Ы某6蛤某妓и跋ずΜ某щ禗иΩビ程璶拜肈琌┬拜肈禬筁だ﹡チщ禗常琌籔┬拜肈Τ闽琌程耑и拜肈碞琌щ禗牡诡
и纯竒Μ摸琌畉ぃ–Ωи常璶禗щ禗и穦酚妓盢獺锣倒牡叭矪矪┪玂︓锣倒羆服琌и粄パ牡诡秸琩牡诡挡狦穦ぃぃフΤㄆン穦╈┑丁
ミ猭Ы硂碭丁ョ纯Ω癚阶щ禗程沧常ぃ眔カチ癸硂⊿Τ獺み┮狦現┎璶暗ㄇㄆㄓ眏カチ獺みэщ禗牡诡琌癸堡и獺и-
さぱ璶щ布硄筁セ兵ㄒぃ暗硂翴
畊︙兵ㄒ〆穦辩醇翬某矗眶и-
и-
ぃ琌酵阶щ禗牡诡揭ぃ璶ρ琌皐癸щ禗牡诡揭и-
琌癚阶牡菏穦拜肈и-
フタ現┎ぃэ跑щ禗牡诡揭┮и-
Τ癸牡菏穦祇猲
畊и獺㎝︗某常穦フ產ㄤ龟稱皐癸щ禗牡诡揭現┎ぃ種矗硂よ暗ぶ砛獽眏獺みи︑ゼ砆現┎弧狝ぃ筁и-
讽礛穦谋眔さぱ矗セ兵ㄒ琌ㄆи-
ぃ穦︑篡腇︑┪︓篡腇カチボ瞷暗硂或ひらщ禗牡诡﹚穦產Τ獺み
и-
ぃ﹚璶﹚牡菏穦и-
ぃ粄牡菏穦痷镑癸痝媚┮襖略ビ某纯矗ㄏ牡菏穦ョ纯Ω某莱パ獶牡叭烩旧щ禗牡诡揭硂暗猭Чぃ笷计某㎝カチ璶―и-
辨Τ縒ミ舱麓ぃパ牡诡秸琩牡诡琌牡菏穦癶碭˙ボぃパ獶牡叭烩旧瞶硂场
и谋眔現┎痷び筁琌痷Τㄇ某┮弧牡诡舦︓硂˙㎡硈﹛㎝ㄤ常ぃ弧狝-
и獺硂癸牡诡そ獺⊿Τ矪
и-
ㄤ龟Ω矗チ現盡秈︽砛秸琩いΤㄇ眔Τㄇ玱ぃ眔讽礛Τカチщ禗チ現盡砰產常谋眔獺狝秈︽縒ミ秸琩ョ睲贰ユ秸琩筁祘玡щ禗牡诡揭ぶカチユ穦虏虫琘兜щ禗ぃ眔痷琌毙极┮某弧筁硂Τ拜肈
さぱи-
е璶ó硄筁硂兵"傣"兵ㄒи谋眔и-
ゼゲカチユら俱琌穦糤硓㎝拜砫┦琌穦耕瞷и常稰谋ぃぃ筁и弧筂Τ硂兵ㄒ羆衡琌ㄆτиョ穦や襖略ビ某祔砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某タ
襖略ビ某矗癶碭窾˙現┎ぃパ獶牡叭烩旧ぃΤ戮菏诡┪芠诡畊иぃ稱眔竜牡菏穦Θ碭︗Θ常畒и笵-
常琌Γㄤ龟現┎纯矗某и-
畊Τ闽穦某霉不瓣某纯畊Τ闽穦某3ボだǒ璚и︑玥场穦某丁籔ミ猭Ы穦某疾┮и⊿Τ丁畊產不某郭Θ某辩醇翬某单琌Τ盯丁篊篊芠诡秸琩琌妓秈︽㎡и獺硂琌腇-
丁┪畊┮и-
ボ璶叫ㄇ戮秈︽菏诡惠璶Τㄇ獶牡よㄓ菏诡秸琩秈︽礛牡菏穦蹲厨ご礛Τは癸硂某иぃ笵祔独岸藉某穦〆穦矗は癸и┤硂Ω挡狦穦琌たぶぃ筁﹍沧镑硂よ今˙
畊и稱酵酵ミ猭Ы矪拜肈產常琌︽現恨瞶〆穦Θ硂碭產ǒ璚矪縒ミ產常笵矪Τ紇臫┮и谋眔矪㎝猭臮拜眖ミ猭Ы┷竨竨叫続匡玱琌ゼぇ计и粄矪莱赣縒ミ現┎ョ莱赣倒ぉ矪戈方ㄏㄤまㄇ蔼借и谋眔硂琌程膀セ兵ン狦ぃ暗硂翴杠現┎Чぃ琵カチ钡パゑ耕縒ミ诀ㄓ菏诡щ禗牡诡揭
程畊и舧現┎钡倒ぉ牡菏穦Θ筍┪瑉禟某и谋眔硂琌璶現┎┕ρ琌"獽﹜"ぃ腀種窥叫и獺現┎┕常琌吏挂―êㄇ癸窥ぃ穦び候眎琌瞷и-
辨Τ秨ぃ虫ゎ牡菏穦碞琌ㄤ〆穦ず常辨Τ顶糷倒ぉ現┎や
莉現┎〆ヴ秖常硈現┎︑┯粄秖秖碞璶倒厨筍и舧現┎硂妓暗ョ辨現┎倒ぉΤ闽瞶厨筍
狦牡菏穦Θ眔瞶厨筍現┎Τ瞶パ璶―-
р暗ぃ镑盽ぃ秨穦ぃ蛤秈и辨牡菏穦﹚戳カチ祇厨禗カチ-
或对荷菏恨щ禗牡诡揭笲
и略朝勉やセ兵ㄒ弄
︙玊く某璓勉畊チ囊や硂щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒ獶и-
粄硂琌窾莱艶う┪琌镑秆∕矪瞶щ禗牡诡拜肈程ㄎよτ琌某桂Ω璶―щ禗牡诡揭縒ミ玱ぃ莉現┎す砛τヘ玡薄猵現┎矗硂兵ㄒи-
谋眔籔瞷逼ゑ﹍沧Τ秈˙┮и-
暴Τ钡程闽龄┦翴碞琌襖略ビ某矗璶琵щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"Τ縒ミ秸琩舦и-
辨镑莱ㄇㄆ矗借好碞琌穦琜舼禣戈方щ禗牡诡揭竒秈︽秸琩牡菏穦璶秸琩穦フ禣丁の窥
畊и獺狦︗ㄆ獺牡菏穦ΘΤ耞の醇紌ぃ穦繦種︽ㄆ杠-
莱赣獺牡菏穦ぃ穦⊿Τゲ璶薄猵碞–穝秈︽秸琩и-
粄莱赣倒ぉ牡菏穦舦耞讽牡菏穦璶ㄣ阶┦の常闽猔щ禗ンい祇瞷礚猭秆氮拜肈祇谋ぃ眔ぃ秈︽钡秸琩玥碞ぃ镑т氮и-
常辨牡菏穦痷镑ざ―眔睲贰フ氮
狦牡よ┪щ禗牡诡揭暗猭琌Чタ絋杠牡菏穦穦靡-
睲フ狦-
暗眔ぃタ絋Τ惠璶タ拜肈牡菏穦щ禗そ笵硂Τ或拜肈㎡┮и-
璶獺ヴ牡菏穦ㄆ獺-
Τ▆耞ぃ穦碞–穝秈︽秸琩
и谋眔嘿牡菏穦砞ミ琌琜舼┪禣戈方常琌Ч抡τ硂ㄇ紐納琌Чぃゲ璶Τㄇ弧牡菏穦Θぃ琌牡叭-
穦笵妓矪瞶Τ闽ン材帹秸琩㎡畊ㄤ龟Τ碭秆∕よ猭材牡菏穦ずΤ臮拜材тㄇΤ竒喷牡菏穦材иぃ獺秈︽秸琩常﹚璶Τ狝叭牡钉竒喷秈︽そタ㎝瞶秸琩
狦Τ︽ず秸琩Τ闽︽穨杠常穦借好瞷パ猭﹛秸琩古╝猭﹛秆薄猵盾猭﹛穦癸パê或厩產┪祘畍祇種ǎ稰繷铭ぃ笵弧或㎡┮и獺璶倒ぉ牡菏穦ㄆㄇパ-
笲ノ︑耞獽パ牡菏穦Θ常ㄓ︑ぃ盡穨τ惠璶秸琩Τぃ虫ゎ疉の牡叭玥Τョ疉のㄇ洛励よ靡沮硂ㄇ牡诡穦ΤΤ闽醚盾パ-
癸洛励靡沮秈︽蝶︳琌Т讽暗猭㎡┮牡菏穦ずタ璶Τㄓ︑ぃ盡穨がやが腊狦ㄇ癸场钉玥Τ粄醚が皌杠и-
獺秸琩荡癸ぃ穦瞷м砃拜肈
畊現┎盽闽猔拜肈パ刮砰ㄓ秸琩牡よ琌ボ癸牡钉ぃ獺ヴ㎡或パщ禗牡诡揭︑秈︽秸琩ぃ㎡ㄤ龟摸拜肈琌Θミ稧現そ竝Τ︙ノ㎡硂ぃ琌ゴ阑盾或ぃ稧現そ竝㎡タ戳ゼ矪瞶砱γ拜肈Θやγ琕牡钉┮Τ惠璶Θミ稧現そ竝τ硂ョ眔穦や眖カチàㄓ程ぶ谋眔瞷щ禗牡诡拜肈⊿Τ眔Т到矪瞶┮и-
谋眔璶琵そ渤Τ獺みτ璶临讽ㄆそ笵τ讽ㄆぃ﹚琌щ禗Τ琌砆щ禗牡叭┮и谋眔璶Τ睲贰ヘ夹и-
獺程镑琵щ禗牡诡揭縒ミㄏぃи-
ぃ粄倒ぉ牡菏穦縒ミ秸琩舦穦腨ゴ阑
畊и佩砓琌チ羛腑瓣辆某矗ㄢ翴瞷Τ笲▆и辨腑瓣辆某êㄇ参璸计碭﹙ぇいΤ碭﹙砆靡妮龟琌ぃ琌弧ㄤ緇98%┪99.8%いщ禗常粃牡诡㎡临琌腑某谋眔タ硂或ぶщ禗眔靡笲▆计糤碞ボ笲ろㄎ┮獽ぃ辨计糤琌猽ノ硂よΑ玂靡碭﹙いΤ﹙﹙妮龟碞琌▆靡牡钉▆⊿Τ垒ノ舦┪╬и獺辨腑某種ぃ琌硂妓и粄璶靡硂痷笲▆獽惠璶パㄣΤ硓の縒ミ┦刮砰秈︽菏诡狦ぃ镑秈︽材帹秸琩菏诡硂ㄇ秸琩ゲ璶秈材帹秸琩硂妓痷タ靡硂笲▆τぃ琌骸ì瞷计
腑某临矗ぃ璶繦獽盢牡舦┪玠畓硂碞琌и-
種ǎ蛤チ羛種ǎぃぇ矪ρ龟弧и-
ぃ踞み牡舦筁畓┪現┎舦びぶチ羛谋眔︽現舦禫禫璶︽現旧┪牡舦⊿Τ拜肈и-
谋眔Чぃ莱硂妓拜肈
チ匡某и-
跌舦莱だ玂毁τ牡舦莱赣瞶菏诡ㄤ龟猭ㄒ结ぉ牡诡秸琩舦τ牡诡琌癡絤Τ场钉礚阶秈︽秸琩┪畑ㄑ单牡诡莱︑狦炊硄カチ籔牡よΤ钡牟┪Τ侥┕┕穦ぃ癸カチ舦⊿Τ莉眔だ玂毁硂ㄇ常琌и-
闽みㄆ薄и-
獺チ匡某常莱赣眖硂à硂拜肈
畊и略朝勉辨︗ㄆや襖略ビ某タ谅谅
辩模┚某璓勉畊さぱ臛阶いゴ阑牡よ拜肈癚阶翴筁ㄓゴ阑硂瞶パぃ耞癸и-
щ禗牡诡揭︓щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"礚阶Θ舱Θ┪笲よ常盿ㄓ毁锚琌拜肈讽и-
酵ゴ阑牡よΤ⊿Τ秆睦睲贰ゴ阑牡よよ㎡︙穦ゴ阑牡よ㎡
ㄤ龟筁ê或ンい程ゴ阑ぃ琌牡よτ琌某糂紌某タ庢ㄒ糂某弧矪瞶筁いカチ常щ禗砆牡诡嫁ゴㄆ糂某程镑腊Τ闽カチ糶獺щ禗祇щ禗獺穦Τ或挡狦硈︑常ぃ笵ㄓ弧ョぃノ戳辨穦Τ或挡狦硂ㄇㄆ薄常紇臫某
ぃ虫ゎ糂紌某и瞦稱畒︗チ匡某常纯矪瞶筁摸и︑纯矪瞶硂ㄇи癘眔ㄤいΤ﹙獵︾祇ネΤ︗13烦獵だ窯砆牡诡嫁ゴ︓筂砰澎端玱砆牡よ北脓牡┶ㄓи盢ㄆン耎碞ㄆン祇癬帽笲笆の秈︽笴︽ボк某程沧牡よ矗⊿Τ靡沮浪北ㄆン碞て秆挡
埃ぇき︽笆Θるら讽边砆牡よ嫁ゴ讽Τ癘初╃酚щ禗挡狦程沧琌ぃぇ硂琌ゴ阑ㄆ
ゴ阑カチ琌и-
靡沮絋苭薄猵щ禗挡狦ㄌ礛ㄆ礚干┕┕毖Θ眔ぃヴ︙挡狦
狦и-
さぱㄌ礛躬绢︽臦笵墩篡и獺硂龟и-
谋眔螟稱钩и獺ゅ穦いи-
戴―琌そ快瞶そタ腨τぃ琌眏舦笹の篡溃ㄇ狦絋"︽眔タ眔タ"┤或㎡鲸恨琵秈︽秸琩︗某常繦穦砆秸琩и-
癩現癩叭ず甧の︽单常繦穦砆秸琩︓匡庢и-
穦砆秸琩и-
Τ⊿Τ砱γ┪獶猭︽单
某砆秸琩Τ⊿Τゴ阑и-
и-
ゼゴ阑и-
はτㄏ桂驹桂毖ご礛桂毖桂驹ぃ耞把籔匡庢或㎡и-
稱ミ稧间辨翠穦镑琌タ穦
狦牡よ痷谋眔︑绑绑タタ或穦甡┤砆秸琩㎡и龟ぃフ畊и辨硓筁拜拜現┎╯澈或竤谋眔暗ㄆ绑绑タタ砆秸琩弧穦砆ゴ阑㎡и痷稱睲贰笵Τ闽
讽礛и-
さぱ┮癚阶獶щ禗牡诡揭τ琌牡菏穦拜肈タ糂紌某┮弧и-
さぱ常だ礚ーパи-
ぃ癚阶щ禗牡诡揭拜肈и-
癚阶牡菏穦拜肈ㄆ龟щ禗牡诡揭и-
у蝶︙玊く某弧筁–キАΤ﹙カチщ禗ぃì10﹙ΤΤ8﹙琌Τ靡沮靡矪だ┪浪北﹙籔8﹙┪10﹙ぇ丁畉禯龟び狦и-
ぃ癸硂计и-
カチユ
讽и临ゼΘ某ぇ玡ΤΩи硙刁砆牡诡璶―琩иōだ靡и盢ōだ靡ユ倒琩篈獶盽碿琌и獽щ禗ê牡诡ㄓΤ服诡钡ǎи3魁ㄑи谋眔⊿Τ拜肈碞3魁ㄑ程挡狦玱琌靡沮ぃ絋苭琌ê牡讽篈痷琌だ畉ㄏи沮龟щ禗挡狦玱琌靡沮ぃ絋苭
讽礛и獶弧场牡叭常穦礚搂癸カチㄆ龟и踞ヴ毙畍ㄇ厩ネョΘ牡叭-
и逗册ぱи纯-
弧ㄇカチщ禗牡よ嫁ゴカチ-
禗и瞷薄猵ぃゑ玡腨ぶ牡穦嫁ゴカチи獺硂琌ㄆ龟瞷牡叭痷蛤眖玡ぃ借Τэ到硂ョ琌ㄆ龟иフぃλ縯ゴ┮Τ牡叭常ぃㄆ龟и璶嘿苂牡叭Τэ到ぃ筁и-
ぃ逼埃┪ňゎ琘ㄇ琝狵┮и-
惠璶ΤЧ到诀и-
辨щ禗牡诡揭㎝牡菏穦いΤЧ俱菏诡诀ぃ璶琵攫れ砆甡挛矱胊
и辨現┎痷镑粄痷癸硂拜肈瘤礛さぱи-
癚阶牡菏穦拜肈и-
辨盢à祔锣簿щ禗牡诡揭琵щ禗牡诡揭Τэ跑璝獶ぷㄤ琌ぇカチ紐納穦糤τぃ穦搭ぶ
畊セ略朝勉
郭Θ某璓勉畊иチ祇ēぃ筁и璶ビ厨痲и琌щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"Θиさぱ琌チ祇ēи稱干4翴種ǎ
材и-
は癸襖略ビ某矗糤癸щ禗ン秸琩舦瞶パ璶Τㄢ材琌ゴ阑材琌睼瞔à︹辩模┚某矗ゴ阑拜肈иぃゴ衡狡琌Ωи癚阶︽現ビ禗盡兵ㄒ竒"攫Τ琝狵"碞ゴ阑τē狦и-
Τ▆ㄤ龟и-
ぃ穦ゴ阑穦矗蔼癸êㄇ琝狵и-
タ琌璶ゴ阑-
硂ぃ虫ゎ琌牡钉拜肈璶Τ▆碞眏蒥チ癸牡钉獺ヴ
材翴琌睼瞔à︹拜肈и粄玂щ禗牡诡揭璽砫秸琩ЧΘ┮Τ秸琩ひパ牡菏穦秈︽菏诡牡菏穦琩綷厨Τぃ骸種ぇ矪獽穦璶―щ禗牡诡揭秈︽秸琩玂常ボ秸琩莱パ牡诡璽砫τ菏诡玥パ牡菏穦璽砫硂妓だ獽ぃ穦硑Θà︹睼瞔
さΩ襖略ビ某笆某タタ琌ぃ穦睼瞔à︹穦Τ腨祘ㄓà︹ぃ璓睼瞔叫︗某タず甧ず甧矪璶盢秸琩厨矗ユ牡菏穦癚阶︓琌骸種┪钡硂厨挡狦盢穦パ牡菏穦秈︽癚阶ぇ穦某硄筁某∕┪ㄤよΑ眔场だ牡菏穦Θ種安Θぃ骸種厨挡阶穦σ納︽ㄏㄤ秸琩舦
硂陪ボ琌獺ヴ拜肈現┎〆ヴ牡菏穦Θョ纯竒苂喘牡菏穦Θ琌璽砫ヴ瞶のΤ穦▆み穦弘璣ボ硂ㄇ常镑穦菏诡俱щ禗и-
璶獺ヴ-
-
俱穦某筁祘い灿╯ン灿竊ご礛谋眔ΤぃТ到ぇ矪產竒筁坝癚ㄆ玡ョ穦籔牡よ癚阶璶―牡よΩ秸琩狦牡诡ボぃ稱秸琩┪粄ン薄猵タ琌ê妓硂牡菏穦Θ穦ボぃ骸種某∕︽ㄏ秸琩舦
狦現┎獺ヴ牡菏穦莱讽獺ヴ牡菏穦∕﹚琌琂瞶璽砫ヴ┮à︹睼瞔拜肈竒眔秆∕讽牡菏穦︽ㄏ硂舦ぃ琌璶ゴ阑牡诡τ琌非称ゴ阑ㄤいㄇ琝狵τ
и稱干材翴碞琌安砞さぱи-
ぃ硄筁Τ闽程秸琩舦ㄆ兜и谋眔и-
Ν边常璶硄筁硂贺秸琩舦"拎包沧斗ǎ產"砞璸菏诡牡诡щ禗诀程み拜肈碞琌蒥チぃ獺ヴパ牡诡秸琩牡诡┮и-
辨Τ诀琌パゑ耕縒ミ把籔秸琩筁祘疭琌碞ㄇぃ骸種秈︽秸琩
或璶硂妓暗㎡ㄤ龟菌禗и-
Θミ稧現そ竝菌狦讽琌パ牡诡秸琩牡诡砱γ蒥チ碞穦ぃ獺ヴ蒥チ穦谋眔セ借硂琌ぃ縒ミ琵縒ミ﹚璶琵ㄇ獶牡叭秸琩璶Τ瘆さぱи-
ぃ琌癚阶щ禗牡诡揭縒ミ拜肈и-
睲贰璶―Τ縒ミ菏诡诀
材蒥チ璶―琌ぃк┶筁琍戳玂常癸и㎝3︗チ某獶盽ね到腢抠ョи-
矗瞶パи冈灿σ納硂ㄇ瞶パ琌玂氮滦ㄏи稱翴碞琌蒥チ癸иà︹璶―ゑ玂癸иà︹璶―眏и钡牟蒥チ祇谋狦牡诡暗岿ㄆΤ惠璶パ耕縒ミ诀篶菏诡и谋眔瞷菏诡诀Τぃìぇ矪┮さぱ琌诀穦パи矗糤Τ秸琩舦诀篶и粄ê诀篶莱竒筁腨略祘︽ㄏ秸琩舦硂暗猭琌続讽
硂薄猵癸玂㎝ね到腢抠и镑弧羘癸ぃ癬и穦や襖略ビ某タ谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Independent Police Complaints Council Bill was introduced into this Council for its First and Second Readings on 10 July 1996.
The Bill seeks to provide a statutory basis for the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) to discharge its functions of monitoring and reviewing the investigation of complaints against the police.
I am grateful to the Honourable WONG Wai-yin, the Chairman of the Bills Committee, and other Members of the Bills Committee for their thorough and careful study of the Bill and their valuable suggestions. This process has helped the Administration to fine-tune the Bill considerably, which we believe will enhance the credibility and accountability of the IPCC.
Specifically, I would like to highlight the following major amendments which I shall move at the Committee stage.
The first amendment relates to clause 2 of the Bill. We have noted Members' concern and the definitions of "complaint" and "witness". Accordingly, we propose to widen the definition of "complaint" to include the conduct of any member of the Police Force which may be regarded as an abuse of his position or identity as a member of the Police Force. We also propose to amend the definition of "witness" to mean any person who in the opinion of the IPCC may be able to provide information or other assistance to the IPCC.
The amendment to clause 4 of the Bill specifies that any person who is a member of the Police Force should not be appointed by the Governor as an IPCC Member. This is already the existing practice but we have agreed to make it explicit at the suggestion of Members. The other amendment to clause 4 is consequential to the enactment of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints Ordinance 1996 which changes the title of Commissioner for Administrative Complaints to that of the Ombudsman.
The amendment to clause 6 empowers the IPCC to appoint its own Secretary and Legal Adviser. The Bills Committee felt that the IPCC should be empowered to appoint its own staff to enhance the independent image of the IPCC. Both the IPCC Secretary and Legal Adviser play a pivotal role in assisting the IPCC to discharge its functions and its duties. Their appointment by the IPCC would therefore greatly enhance the independent image of the IPCC. We do not however see any need to burden the IPCC with the administrative duties of recruiting and managing other supporting staff in the Secretariat.
The amendment to clause 8 adds two statutory powers to the IPCC. One is to empower the IPCC to require the Commissioner of Police to notify the complainant of the findings and the results of investigation of his complaint. The other is to empower the IPCC to require the Commissioner of Police to submit to the IPCC a report on any action taken by the police in respect of the IPCC's recommendation. These are in fact the existing practice of the police and we have agreed to make them explicit.
The amendment to clause 9 relates to the procedures governing the submission of investigation reports by the police for the IPCC's endorsement. It expands the scope of what the IPCC may submit to the Governor. It also provide that the IPCC may request the Commissioner of Police to submit an interim report on the progress of the investigation of a complaint within six months of the request. The IPCC may advise the Commissioner of Police in relation to any matter referred to in the interim report. Some Members were concerned that the investigation report mentioned in the proposed section 9(1) might not include the findings of investigation. We wish to assure Members that both in law and in practice the investigation report to be submitted by the police under this section will include the findings of investigation.
The amendment to clause 10 mainly provides that the IPCC may interview any witness after the police have submitted an interim report, unless the Commissioner of Police is of the opinion that such interview would likely prejudice the investigation of any crime or complaint.
The amendment to clause 13 enables the Governor to cause any special report in whole or in part to be laid in front of the Legislative Council.
There were other aspects of the Bill which were of particular concern to Members of the Bills Committee.
Some Members have suggested to empower the IPCC to appoint full time salaried staff to observe the investigation of the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO). We have explained to Members the impracticability of recruiting and retaining salaried staff with the right calibre to perform this task due to inadequate job content and promotion prospect. We have however undertaken to expand the existing IPCC Observer Scheme by appointing non-IPCC members to become IPCC Observers, and to seek to provide both the IPCC members and the Observers with suitable honorarium. We believe the pool of observers should be sufficiently large so that it could adequately reflect the views of different walks of life in the community on the findings of complaints against the police.
Members have suggested that a provision should be added to specify that any statement made by a witness during an interview with the IPCC shall not be admissible as evidence against him in criminal proceedings in which the witness is a defendant. I want to make it clear that the IPCC Interviewing Witness Scheme is a voluntary process. No one, including the complainant and the complainee, can be forced to be interviewed by the IPCC or forced to reply to any questions asked by IPCC members during the interview. This is made clear to the witness before the interview and the witness may choose to have his lawyer present during the interview. We therefore do not see any need for a provision as proposed by Members. On the contrary, such a provision could mean that if a witness chooses to confess to a crime during the interview, nothing he says can be used against him. We therefore do not agree with such a proposal.
Another question raised by some Members of the Bills Committee was whether the Governor or the IPCC should make regulations for the IPCC. Some Members were concerned that the Governor may make regulations which would inhibit the IPCC from discharging its functions and duties under the main Ordinance. This cannot be so. Under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1), no subsidiary legislation shall be inconsistent with the provisions of any Ordinance; where any Ordinance confers power on any person to make subsidiary legislation for any special purpose, the enumeration of the special purposes shall not be deemed to derogate from the generality of the powers conferred with reference to the general purpose. As part of the improvement measures to enhance the credibility of the existing complaints system, the police is amending the Police General Orders to make "tipping off" to officers being complained a disciplinary offence. The Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW, a member of the Bills Committee has suggested to make tipping off a criminal offence. I wish to draw Members' attention to the fact that officers committing "tipping off" may be prosecuted with criminal charges such as perverting the cause of public justice under the Common Law. Existing offenders or concealing offences under the Criminal rocedure Ordinance in complaints that do not involve any criminal element the Administration is of the view that tipping off should be a disciplinary offence and which is commensurate with the nature and the severity of the complaint.
Mr President, the Administration has been as responsive as possible to meet the concerns of the Bills Committee, and have accepted a considerable number of their suggestions in proposing the amendments I have just mentioned. However, I am disappointed that some Members are still not satisfied, and will propose their own Committee stage amendments, to which the Administration objects strongly.
The Honourable James TO will move a number of Committee stage amendments which would disrupt the effective operation of the existing system and are unacceptable to the Administration. I shall go into more details on the specific reasons why they are unacceptable during the Committee stage.
I just wish to highlight at this stage one set of amendments to be moved by Mr James TO which the Administration cannot possibly accept. This relates to his amendment to clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill which would empower the IPCC to investigate any complaint where it is not satisfied with the CAPO's investigation, and to determine the acceptability of the findings and results of the investigation of all complaints. These amendments would cause fundamental and in our view adverse changes to the existing system.
The IPCC is a civilian oversight body. Its role is to monitor and to review the investigation of complaints against the police conducted by the CAPO. If it is not satisfied with the CAPO's investigation, the Bill already provides that the IPCC may ask the CAPO to reinvestigate or the IPCC may refer the complaint to the Governor's attention. To empower the IPCC to investigate complaints would confuse its role as an oversight body and turn the existing police complaints system on its head.
The proposal is also not practicable as the IPCC does not have any investigative powers similar to those of the police. We must bear in mind that most serious complaints against the police, for example assault and fabrication of evidence, are criminal in nature. To investigate into such complaints would require statutory powers such as the authority to conduct search and seizure of evidence, to detain and to arrest suspects, which the IPCC does not have. To enable the IPCC to conduct investigation would only interfere with police investigation into such complaints without necessarily achieving any tangible results.
Mr President, we have in recent years introduced numerous improvement measures to the existing system. We are also implementing a further package of improvement measures aimed at enhancing the credibility and the transparency of the police complaints system. Judging from our comparative study of police complaints systems in other countries, our Hong Kong police complaints system is not out of step with other overseas police jurisdictions. Indeed, ours is one of the most sophisticated systems in Asia; and there are countries for which there is no civilian oversight body at all. We therefore believe the best way forward is to enact the Bill as amended by the Administration. We believe in progressive improvements to a system which by and large have worked well, rather than to alter it radically and risk ending up with something which does not work, or not as well as the present system. We are, as always, prepared to review the need for further improvements in the light of the operation of the Bill.
The Administration believes strongly that to introduce unnecessary fundamental changes to the existing system, such as those proposed by Mr James TO which I have highlighted, would have serious consequences which would hamper the effective operation of the existing police complaints system. There are therefore totally unacceptable to the Administration. Let me repeat, Mr President that our efforts to improve the complaints against the police system did not begin with this Bill nor would it end with this Bill. We are committed to continue to review the operation of the system, in particular, the effectiveness of the additional powers given to the IPCC in this Bill. We will want to make it more transparent, more effective and more creditable to the community. I know the Commissioner of Police has committed to work hard towards changing the culture of and injecting a sense of vision into the Police Force. But we believe as I said in progressive step-by-step improvements, not fundamental and radical changes, especially at the sensitive time of the transition when it is particularly important to maintain the high morale of the Police Force.
I therefore urge Honourable Members to support my Committee stage amendments, and to vote against the Committee stage amendments proposed by Mr James TO and Mr WONG Wai-yin.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COUNCIL BILL
щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 3, 12 and 15 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材1312の15兵莉眔硄筁
Clauses 2 and 5
兵ㄒ材2の5兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 2 and 5 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendments are made in response to the Bills Committee's suggestions to widen the definitions of complaint and witness, and to enable papers under circulation for decision by the Independent Police Complaints Council to be discussed if Members so requested.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンIII
Clause 5 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンIII
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и觅Θ玂矗タи辨弧睲贰玂弧钡兵ㄒ〆穦兜タ某ㄤ龟狦產睲贰êㄇ兵ゅ碞笵兵ゅセō莱赣琌êㄇ種ぃ筁ぃ睲贰τ-
琌рウ-
睲贰τ硂ぃボ現┎Τ筁ヴ︙琵˙玂弧耎惗﹚竡產窾ぃ璶粇琌耎惗秸琩舦糵某舦┪菏诡舦ぃ筁琌耎惗セ莱赣硂粂
︓材5兵琌パи矗狦щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兜∕某Τㄢ┪〆粄璶癚阶Τ讽產がユ瑈種ǎ穦砆癸よ弧狝┮狦礚猭秈︽癚阶產ㄓΤㄇㄆ穦種и谋眔硂兜某セㄓ硂妓暗τぃ琌現┎琵˙┪э到
и辨產睲贰硂ㄇタ常琌м砃┦借タ
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 2 and 5, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材2の5兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 4
兵ㄒ材4兵
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材4(1)(a)兵の材4兵糤干材(1)(c)蹿タず甧更祇癳倒︗〆ゅンず
畊Τ闽材4(1)(a)兵タи某羆服〆ヴщ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"〆穦〆ヴ程ぶㄢセЫ某現┎は癸硂兜某阶沮ㄤ龟璶眔碞琌現┎稱〆ヴ程匡┮–〆常琌竡莉〆ヴ-
ぃ辨羆服〆ヴΤê或磜▂
ぃ筁琵и籔セЫ某秈︽ㄇ癚阶材眖м砃よㄓ弧Τ硂兵蹿籔⊿Τ硂兵蹿だ㎡狦⊿Τ硂兵蹿現┎瞶阶┪猭瞶硈セЫ某ぃ〆ヴ牡菏穦传杠弧現┎玂痙ミ猭Ы某ぃ〆ヴ牡菏穦舦沮и┮現┎程〆ヴ郭Θ某踞ヴ牡菏穦捌畊龟悔琌〆ヴ3セЫ某牡菏穦捌畊パミ猭Ы某踞ヴ硂暗猭竒蝴и某硂兵蹿ㄆ龟癸羆服〆ヴ匡セ⊿Τヴ︙磜▂
猵產菌羛么玡琌ㄢЫ某快ㄆ矪┪耕戳ミ猭Ы某快ㄆ矪菏诡ぇ簍跑Θ牡诡菏诡〆穦程щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦ㄆ龟セЫ籔硂菏诡诀篶琌Τ菌羛么狦現┎兵ゅず玂痙︗ミ猭Ы某ぃ〆ヴ舦и谋眔琌ぃ钡
現┎弧璶〆ヴ程ぃ現┎琌穞ボ安ら硈ミ猭Ы某ぃ眔〆ヴㄆ龟セЫ某琌カチ匡ㄓ硂ōだ獽琌カチ獺ヴ硂穦牡菏穦ずΤカチ玂毁カチ獺み狦弧60︗某讽い硈︗ぃ眔〆ヴи谋眔琌ぃ祇ネミ猭Ы某パ匡庢玻ネ牡菏穦い蝴ゲ璶獺狝à︹
и辨︗ㄆ秆硂ぃ筁琌兜だ淮稬タиセ某琌êㄢセЫ琌パセЫ某が匡玻ネиэ︓程ぶ璶〆ヴㄢミ猭Ы某舅逼и辨︗やиタ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 4 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support the amendment moved by the Honourable James TO. His proposed amendment to specify the appointment of at least two Legislative Council Members to the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) will introduce undue rigidity in the existing appointment system. The appointment of IPCC members is made on an ad personam basis. The objective is to select the best person for the job, having regard to the individual's ability, expertise and commitment to public service. While the Administration may appoint Legislative Council Members in their personal capacity to sit on the IPCC, as we do now, the existing system leaves sufficient flexibility to allow the appointment of the best person for the job. We therefore cannot agree with Mr TO's proposed amendment.
Mr TO's proposed amendment to appoint the Commissioner for the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) to sit on the IPCC is also not supported. The ICAC should not be distracted from its principal objective of fighting corruption by getting involved in the monitoring and reviewing of non-corruption related complaints against the police.
襖略ビ某畊и簗碞材(1)(c)蹿祇ēи瞷琌莱赣碞材4(1)(c)兵祇ē
畊琌
襖略ビ某璓勉癸ぃ癬︗某и辨щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"ず讽礛Θパ稧現盡ヴ瞷猭ㄒ砏﹚現盡琌牡菏穦讽礛Θ┮и辨稧現盡琌讽礛ΘΤㄇㄆ粇穦и稱р俱稧現そ竝秈иぃ琌硂種и谋眔稧現盡セō琌︗ㄣΤそ獺タи弧и粄莱赣Τㄢミ猭Ы某牡菏穦セЫ某琌パチ匡玻ネ稧現盡パ羆服〆ヴ琌縒ミぃ刘妮ㄤ琜篶狦牡菏穦癸穦癸蒥チ穦玻ネそ獺
材场稧現そ竝セōΤだ盡穨︗睲贰秸琩珹狡馒Τ磝搐︓瞷稧現そ竝穓琩┪Ι痙靡ン程沧常琌パ稧現盡∕﹚磅︽舦┮癸秸琩剪眡笵キ颗靡沮莱赣妓暗稧現そ竝–常钡﹚ゑㄒ蒥チщ禗牡よ垒ノ舦┪砱γ︓Τ讽ゑ琌パ稧現そ竝锣ざ︓牡菏穦┮稧現盡だ秆俱薄猵笵牡钉ずΤぶ甡竤ぇ皑砱γ┪垒ノ舦硂よ琌弘
材и-
ぃ穦盢俱稧現そ竝瞣疉ず妓笵瞶瞷現盡琌牡菏穦Θ螟笵俱現盡そ竝瞣疉ず盾牡叭矪矪把籔ㄇ秸琩┪菏诡垒舦舱麓珹稧現そ竝糵琩砱γ庢厨〆穦赣〆穦菏诡稧現そ竝ら盽璶牡叭矪把籔稧現そ竝菏诡〆穦ぃ琌穝翧ㄆ妓稧現盡局Τ硂或戈磝搐薄猵牡菏穦矗ㄑ腳禥種ǎ琵牡菏穦笵俱Ы墩癸牡砱γ薄猵の薄厨戈磝搐眔ゑㄤ狦牡菏穦眏蒥チ獺み穦Τ種ǎ矗ㄑ倒牡菏穦
MRS SELINA CHOW: I did not in fact speak on his amendment concerning clause 4(1)(c). In fact I did not choose to speak either.
CHAIRMAN: I did not take that to be a reply.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Oh, good. May I speak?
CHAIRMAN: The debate is now open.
MRS SELINA CHOW: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I would just like to, on behalf of the Liberal Party, express our opposition to Mr TO's amendment on this clause in view of the fact that we do not agree that the Commissioner, Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) should be obligated by law to sit in the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC).
During the deliberations of the Bills Committee, I have in fact expressed the grave reservation that the Commissioner, ICAC should be involved in any way in the overseeing of complaints against police officers in view of the fact that we have actually been very careful about exactly what the ICAC and the role of the Commissioner ought to be in terms of their investigative powers and so on, and I do not believe that to have the Commissioner sit on the IPCC would in fact help with that problem. In fact it would go the other way. It would actually involve the Commissioner in matters relating to police complaints which have absolutely nothing to do with the investigation of corruption, and therefore we are against this amendment.
〆穦畊临Τ诀穦祇ē氮臛セ畊穦琵ㄤ〆祇ē
郭Θ某畊и稱矗砏祘拜肈祔碞材4(1)(a)兵㎝材4(1)(c)兵秈︽∕だ秨∕и-
や材4(1)(a)兵ぃや材4(1)(c)兵
〆穦畊琵セ畊σ納臛阶Ч拨セ畊穦Τ┮∕﹚
郭Θ某璓勉и-
チ纯碞稧現盡┪ㄤ莱щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"硂拜肈秈︽癚阶挡狦и-
粄琌ぃ惠璶瞶パ璶Τ材琌だ拜肈牡菏穦琌矪瞶щ禗牡诡揭厨の牡诡垒舦拜肈讽礛Τㄇ垒舦薄猵疉の砱γ牡菏穦璽砫场だぃ疉の砱γ拜肈
材狦疉の砱γカチ┪ヴ︙常穦钡稧現そ竝щ禗膀セ-
谋眔稧現そ竝琌眏縒ミ秸琩诀穦钡稧竝щ禗и-
粄礚斗盢硂ㄢ菏诡诀睼瞔狦稧現盡牡菏穦穦カチ稰睼睹и-
粄礚斗硂贺逼
︓材4(1)(a)兵Τ闽程ぶ〆ヴㄢミ猭Ы某牡菏穦Θ硂翴и-
ボや
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr Chairman, I support both amendments proposed by the Honourable James TO for very good reasons. I feel that the involvement of Legislative Council Members would enhance community participation and also the involvement of Independent Commission Against Corruption would improve cross-fertilization of information and ideas and would enhance the independent nature of the Independent Police Complaints Council.
I so support.
〆穦畊玂琌稱碞襖略ビ某┮矗材4(1)(c)兵干祇ē
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I have already explained the Administration's position, that we are opposed to both amendments proposed by the Honourable James TO.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и稱虏虫莱郭Θ某┮弧だ拜肈ㄤ龟だ琌睲贰ぃ穦睼瞔狦琌砱γ拜肈カチセ碞穦稧現そ竝щ禗
и︙某稧現盡┪ㄤ﹚щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"㎡稧現そ竝ㄆ龟Μぃ琌闽砱γτ琌牡诡垒舦щ禗︙穦瞷硂贺薄猵㎡虏虫碞琌カチセぃ獺щ禗牡诡揭琌-
獽稧現そ竝щ禗Τカチ纯и弧ㄏ稧現そ竝セōぃ秸琩τ锣ざ倒牡菏穦-
谋眔パ稧現そ竝┪︓郭Θ某锣ざ倒牡菏穦癸-
穦み瞶玂毁-
谋眔程ぶ穦Τㄇ笵硂ㄇぃそ竡ㄆㄆ龟瞷︽琌パщ禗牡诡揭秈︽秸琩τ牡菏穦穦菏诡
或稧現盡镑踞讽菏诡à︹㎡ΜΤ闽牡よ獶砱γщ禗琌耕睲贰俱碩瓜礶琜篶ず笵カチ癸ㄇ戮︗牡疭щ禗ㄒ穓琩ы┪苯瑀穦瞷耕щ禗ㄆ龟稧現盡㎝ㄤ场穓栋戈㎝薄厨癸妓菏诡щ禗牡诡揭㎝牡钉垒舦и弧琌獶闽砱γ垒舦常Τ腊и-
瞶阶獽琌膀硂琌ぃ穦睼瞔Τ某粄稧現盡福竒盽癘本は砱γㄏ踞ヴ牡菏穦〆穦稱妓ゴ阑砱γ薄猵ぃ琌硂妓琌ゴ阑獶砱γ︽ぃ筁パㄣΤ盡穨璉春㎝醚┮穦秆硂ㄇ薄猵
〆穦畊セ畊竒∕﹚盢材4(1)(a)兵籔材4(1)(c)兵だㄢぃ某肈∕
Question on Mr James TO's amendment to clause 4(1)(a) put and agreed to.
襖略ビ某碞材4(1)(a)兵矗ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Mr James TO's amendment to clause 4, by adding subclause (1)(c), put.
襖略ビ某碞材4兵矗糤干材(1)(c)蹿ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材4(1)兵莱糤(c)琿ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗〆癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the amendment and 29 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ27は癸29琌ガタ綝∕
辩醇翬某璓勉и略酚穦某盽砏材37兵材(4)蹿矗某璝Τ〆セΩ穦某畊碞щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒㄤ緇兜某璶―秈︽翴∕砰〆穦斗翴∕牧羘臫癬1だ牧ミ秈︽Τ闽翴∕
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 4(1)(b) be further amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment is consequential to the enactment of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints Ordinance 1996 which changes the title of the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints to The Ombudsman.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 4 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンIII
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊玂の襖略ビ某だ箇ボ览碞材4兵矗タ赣兵糤干材(1A)蹿
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶玂の襖略ビ某だ矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶セ畊穦叫玂笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒそ戮
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 4 be amended by the addition of subclause (1A) as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment is in response to the Bills Committee's proposal to exclude any serving member of the Police Force from being appointed to the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). As I pointed out in my speech on resumption of Second Reading debate, this is already the existing practice and the amendment serves to make it explicit.
Mr TO's proposed amendment to exclude the appointment of former members of the Police Force to sit on the IPCC is objected by some Members of the Bills Committee as this would reduce the flexibility in appointing someone who has previously served as a member of the Police Force, but who has left it for some time and is found to be a very suitable person for appointment.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 4 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンIII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫襖略ビ某碞玂笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇタ祇ē埃獶玂ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫襖略ビ某笆某タ玂ぇタ莉∕ボ襖略ビ某ぇ览某タぃ莉硄筁
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и璶︗某秆睦иタ籔現┎タだΤ翴玂弧狦琌瞷ヴ牡诡現┎讽礛﹚ぃ穦〆ヴΘщ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"〆硂琌⊿Τ祇ネиタㄤ龟琌某玡纯讽牡诡ぃΘ牡菏穦〆琎ぱ癶ヰぃㄏ10玡讽筁牡诡ぃ礚阶︙狦纯讽筁牡诡碞ぃΘ〆
и矗硂贺暗猭琌材瞷俱牡菏穦╯澈琌"盡穨"ы┪"禜"璶㎡狦﹚璶彼杠и谋眔"禜"﹚耕"盡穨"璶瞷俱拜肈琌カチぃ獺ヴパ牡诡秸琩牡诡狦临〆ヴㄇ玡纯讽牡诡牡菏穦禜ㄓ琌そタ㎡
Τㄇㄆ穦弧êㄇ10玡讽筁牡诡莱赣竒⊿Τ或羛么ぃ璶а癘-
瞷Τ羛么斗跌琌そタ10玡讽羆牡さぱΤㄆ临讽羆牡┪妮瞷タ讽羆服诡狦Τщ禗瞣疉┕妮-
讽ネヌ璚и-
Ч逼埃穦癸ら妮盚薄㎝教秆㎡カチ穦τ谋眔踞紐㎡и辨︗镑σ納硂翴
︓現┎よи獺瞷︽現郸ウぃ穦σ納〆ヴㄇ玡纯讽牡诡牡菏穦êㄇ玡纯讽牡诡ㄤ龟Τㄤ癪膍ㄒ牡菏穦ぇ糷Ω讽戮芠诡︓秸琩荡癸⊿Τ瞶パ程沧∕﹚ê糷牡菏穦
狦現┎痷琌Τ港種碞莱瞶ㄒㄇ玡30玡讽筁牡诡︙瞷璶猍跌-
㎡現┎矗戳ㄒ20┪10玡讽筁牡诡莉眔〆ヴ狦琌程计る┪计癶ヰ碞ぃぃ筁現┎⊿Τ硂妓タ传杠弧現┎玂痙舦碞琌ㄏê琎ぱ癶ヰ現┎さぱ〆ヴ牡菏穦狦產ぃ種и硂兜タ挡狦碞琌硂妓程и-
临ぃ獺ヴ現┎
產ぃ璶а癘и-
瞷タ酵阶琌猭ㄒ琌盢Τ闽牡菏穦兵ㄒ猭﹚て猭砏て┮и-
ぃ甧砛Τ硂贺薄猵瞷狦現┎粄莱赣い丁辅茎砏﹚5┪10癶ヰ琿戳碞ノ盡穨醚ㄓ狝叭現┎碞莱赣矗タぃ筁現┎⊿Τ硂妓暗
и辨︗某やи矗タ
〆穦畊︗〆瞷碞玂笆某ぇタの襖略ビ某览某ぇタ秈︽ㄖ臛阶㏄辩睶┥某
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I am in fact one of the members on the Bills Committee who felt it is unnecessary to restrict the flexibility of appointment vis a vis police officers because it is quite obvious that the Administration would not be appointing any existing or present police officers, and so the amendment being moved by the Administration is really stating the obvious. But then again we cannot really object to it because it is something which the public expects is going to happen.
We object to Mr TO's amendment because we believe that it is unnecessarily restrictive. Not only is it unnecessarily restrictive, it can actually work against the effectiveness of the Council. Just now Mr TO said, "Well, is perception more important or professionalism more important?". I would like to think that both are very important, but I think at the end of the day it is the person who is being appointed that speaks for itself.
If the person is a symbol of integrity, it is accepted as someone who is widely respected, as an ex-police officer who has the integrity and who is respected, as someone who would be impartial and fair, then why should he be excluded from membership of the Council? In fact the Council would definitely
benefit from someone who is experienced and who has the integrity, who is fair-minded. In fact, it would add to the image of the Council. But I think at the end of the day what we need to consider is what best is available for the Council, experience plus, you know, a flexibility for appointment.
So, we support the Government's amendment and oppose Mr TO's amendment.
眎ゅ某璓勉畊и稱碞襖略ビ某タ莱㏄辩睶┥某種ǎ㏄辩睶┥某弧艶┦だ璶и谋眔襖略ビ某タ沫璶翴碞琌艶┦ぃ緍そタ┦瞷陪瞷牡ぃ穦踞ヴ〆闽龄癶牡踞ヴ〆硂襖略ビ某某ぃㄤい沫ぃǎそタ┦ㄇ癶牡パ筁籔ㄤ牡闽玒ㄒ闽玒狟ね闽玒戮叭闽玒闽玒τ穦そタ┦借好珼驹τ紇臫щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"穦そ獺襖略ビ某矗だ璶み芠翴碞琌艶┦ぃ緍そタ┦
㏄辩睶┥某矗狦び獽穦紇臫瞯иЧぃ硂弧猭Τ或闽玒瞯琌跌〆ヴêㄇ跌牡菏穦τぃ琌......
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I did not mention anything about efficiency.
眎ゅ某и琌娩钮祇ē娩р種ǎйㄓ
и谋眔ㄏΤ硂妓硂贺〆ヴ牡菏穦Θ狦硂舱麓Τ瞯ウ獽Τ瞯⊿Τ瞯獽⊿Τ瞯籔-
ōだゼゲΤ闽玒
谅谅畊
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I did not mention anything about efficiency. I would like to draw that to Mr CHEUNG's attention.
CHAIRMAN: What word did you use? Did you use "effectiveness"?
㏄辩睶┥某"Effectiveness"琌Τ┦籔Τ瞯琌ㄢㄆㄓ
郭Θ某璓勉畊и琌硂兵ㄒ〆穦Θи-
糵某兵ㄒ纯栋い癚阶êㄇ纯讽牡Θщ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"〆и谋眔硂琌闽禜㎝┮孔盡穨┪Τ癚阶
и︑猭琌狦牡菏穦い场常琌纯讽牡ê或禜獽だぃиだ種襖某硂翴ぃ筁狦讽い场だぃ琌癶牡τΤㄢΘ纯讽牡τ-
禜ぃ岿и谋眔は穦矗蔼牡菏穦禜狦弧纯讽筁牡礚阶癶ぃ踞ヴ菏诡牡诡硂贺暗猭ゼび筁祑┦ぃ庢ㄒㄓ弧腢抠ぃ璶瑀よㄇ纯竒瑀眃確-
腢ぃ璶瑀Θ蔼︙猵и-
ぃ琌酵阶瑀拜肈τ琌弧êㄇ禜ぃ岿癶牡禬筁琿丁ㄒ牡菏穦и谋眔琌莱赣Τ硂︑パ㎡材牡菏穦ずΤ︓ㄢ硂妓穦щ禗牡诡揭笵牡菏穦ずΤだ秆牡钉俱砰笲硂ㄤ龟Τ牡菏穦笲㎝Τ┦
讽礛瞷現┎現郸琌ぃ穦〆ヴ纯竒讽筁牡牡菏穦Θи粄莱赣玂痙硂紆┦〆ヴ祘い程琌吭高牡菏穦種ǎτ〆ヴゲ斗だみи谋眔硂妓碞埃襖某紐納
谅谅畊
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и稱虏虫莱郭Θ某芠翴
璶硄筁щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"ㄓ〆ヴㄤ牡菏穦〆и谋眔ゑ耕┣硂籔現┎┮弧ぃ璓硂莱赣琌パ羆服∕﹚讽礛郭某弧吭高牡菏穦種ǎ硂琌Τ種ㄤ龟〆ヴ穦吭高牡菏穦畊種ǎ
郭Θ某矗パ瑀筁ㄓ徊旧瑀薄猵и谋眔硂籔и-
瞷タ癚阶Ч琌ㄢㄆи-
瞷タ癚阶琌掉∕の菏诡à︹ぃ琌弧徊旧牡菏穦〆ぃ琌踞ヴ徊旧à︹
㏄辩睶┥某矗"integrity"拜肈и┯粄Τ牡诡禜常ぃ筁ㄏ玡︽禜牡菏穦瞷琌ぃそ秨τщ布琌ぃそ秨
郭Θ某弧ぃ场常琌癶牡硂癸禜Τ穕Τㄢ〆琌癶牡ぃ筁狦∕﹚щ布布计琌6癸5┪7癸6ê或布碞竒璶∕﹚ê琌Θミ猵⊿Τ笵︙σ納琌常琌硂妓そタи-
笵挡狦琌6癸5и-
ぃ笵щ布㏕礛セōΤそ獺ぃ筁そ獺玱礚猭琵眔そタ祘礚猭琵眔
狦硂伐癸ミ薄猵牡菏穦禜陪礛琌荡癸璶
㏄辩睶┥某璓勉畊и谋眔襖略ビ某種ǎ琌膀安砞碞琌"λ縯ゴ差"狦纯讽筁牡诡碞﹚穦蝴臔牡诡痲﹚ぃ阶そ瞶羆ぇ琌"︑ね"碞﹚蝴臔а癘牡诡ㄤ龟蛤и-
–妓牡钉ずΤ牡诡蝴臔牡钉そ獺蝴臔牡钉程蔼巨-
癸êㄇ甡竤ぇ皑は稰-
辨荷秖埃硂ㄇ甡竤ぇ皑-
掉-
ㄤ龟穦笵卢┮はτ菏诡êㄇㄏノも琿牡诡
и粄и-
ぃ莱赣"λ縯ゴ差"щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦礚猭莉眔硂ㄇ碔竒喷㎝タ竡稰纯竒牡钉ずヴ戮
法此某璓勉畊㏄辩睶┥某矗癶ヰ牡そタ矪瞶ㄆ薄иぃ逼埃硂┦吏挂穦Τぃ瞷┮и谋眔㏄辩睶┥某硂阶翴琌Θミ
ぃ筁и辨︗ㄆ痙種牡钉Τ疭┦借碞琌-
だ跌ㄆぇ丁闽玒-
竒盽盎琩ンネ┮ミ癬贺疭弘籔ゅ戮ぃ硂贺ㄆ闽玒カチΤ瞏ㄨ禜┮倒谋眔-
穦熬腊ら""τ紇臫そタ畊иぃ琌弧-
﹚ぃそタτ琌讽カチ笵牡钉いㄆ闽玒琌硂妓瞏玴羇ㄏ琌だそタ穦ㄏ谋眔ゼゲ镑そタ矪瞶
谅谅畊
襖略ビ某畊и辨坚睲и璶睲贰狦и產Τ硂妓禜......
〆穦畊某瘤礛Ω祇ē叫ぃ璶狡纯矗筁阶翴
襖略ビ某璓勉畊硂琌穝阶翴иフи︑琌
畊иぃ琌弧┮Τ牡诡常﹚穦熬腊牡诡и阶翴琌カチà-
ぃЧ獺牡诡﹚ッ环ぃ穦熬腊牡诡┮-
稰谋ぃЧ獺狝-
琌そタиぃ琌弧牡诡﹚穦熬腊牡诡ㄆ龟-
⊿Τ熬腊
眎ゅ某璓勉畊и谋眔ゲ斗矗阶翴и-
癚阶╯澈稧現そ竝Θщ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"〆某常は癸龟悔и-
某稧現そ竝踞ヴ牡菏穦Θ璉瞶パ琌-
癸牡钉ㄆ叭︓牡ㄆ叭常剪眡
〆穦畊眎ゅ某叫ぃ璶玡竒∕某肈
眎ゅ某畊ぃ琌и蛤Τ穝阶沮и-
某〆ヴ-
〆瞷и-
癚阶莱〆ヴㄇ癶牡Θ〆觅Θ瞶パ琌-
癸牡钉ㄆ叭剪眡и粄ㄏ癸牡钉ㄆ叭剪眡絋Τ玡┮弧粇穦穦蝴臔牡诡痲侥┮ぃ莱赣Θ牡菏穦Θ硂琌и-
芠翴
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, surely there must be some degree of trust, I hope, that the Administration would not, in the area of appointing members of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC), ignore either the consideration of a conflict of interests or the consideration of credibility of the IPCC to the community.
Very obviously I will not be recommending that someone who has just left the Police Force last month or even last year be appointed a member of the IPCC. But do we really have to be so restrictive to the extent that perhaps someone who has been in the Police Force for a year or two and left it for 20 or 30 years would be barred from appointment to the IPCC, no matter how suitable he is, for the rest of his life? Is service in the Police Force such a potent contagion that anybody who has served in the Police Force for any length of time seems to carry with him a deadly virus for the rest of his life?
Mr Chairman, I do not think that we need to be so restrictive. I hope that Members of this Council and the community will, at the very least on the basis of our past record, accept that the Administration in the matter of appointment of members of the IPCC acts with prudence.
I should add, Mr Chairman, that our position, that we do not need to be so restrictive on the question of membership, is supported by the IPCC itself.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕∕牧穦伙臫1だ牧
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈玂碞材4兵笆某ぇタ赣兵糤干材(1A)蹿ぉ硄筁
璝〆や玂タは癸襖略ビ某タ璝〆や襖略ビ某タ斗は癸玂タ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊﹟ろ1叫產癸┮ぇ∕瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Henry TANG, 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, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Michael HO, 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, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
Mr Eric LI abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the amendment and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ28は癸26琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊襖略ビ某パ玂某材4兵糤干材(1A)蹿ぇタ莉∕ぃ笆某兵糤干矗ぇ材(1A)蹿硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
Question on clause 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材4兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
12.57 pm
と1257だ
畊セ畊瞷既氨穦某と刊丁1セЫ盢非2確穦某
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
2.02 pm
と202だ
Council then resumed.
セЫ穦某繦τ確
畊セЫ瞷確穦某セЫ瞷Θ砰〆穦
Clauses 6 and 11
兵ㄒ材6の11兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to clause 6(1) as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment addresses the Bills Committee's concern on the need to enhance the public perception of the independent image of the Secretariat of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) and proposes to empower the IPCC to appoint its own Secretary and Legal Adviser, the two most pivotal posts in the Secretariat.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 6 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンIII
Clause 11 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンIII
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и觅Θ現┎某,硂籔иの独岸藉某祔矗某タぃ琌ゲ礛が逼ジぃ筁現┎玱腀種〆ヴ㎝猭臮拜牡菏穦徊もㄤ龟и-
兵ㄒ〆穦ずョ纯狦現┎镑甧砛牡菏穦〆ヴㄤ緇戮そ叭莉眔〆ヴ┦ご礛琌┮現┎ぃゲ砏﹚埃ㄢ戮ㄤ┮Τ戮常ゲ斗琌そ叭璝ㄤ戮场琌そ叭杠タ糂紌某弧眔睲贰薄猵碞穦钩и-
ミ猭Ы矪玡薄猵產笵硂拜肈琌穦疉の︙孔縒ミ┦瞯の盡穨┦и-
粄現┎某ごぃì镑и-
ョや程硂ㄢ戮︗ゲ﹚惠璶パ縒ミ踞ヴ
糂紌某璓勉畊и觅Θ襖略ビ某┮祇種ǎи粄現┎瞷某琌程иョ辨現┎ぃ璶Τ碭獶そ叭牡菏穦獽倒ぉ獺牡菏穦矪竒縒ミ-
莱赣癸ㄤそ獺⊿Τ借好狦玂痷硂妓稱獽琌岿︽癸˙и-
琌璶琌Ч縒ミ矪τ矪砏家琌ぃ穦Τヴ︙陆ぱ滦笲э跑и粄琂礛現┎ぃ腀種琵щ禗牡诡揭縒ミ硂某琌程琵˙現┎﹚璶倒ぉカチ獺現┎Ч琵牡菏穦縒ミ笲讽礛牡菏斗暗翴-
璶Θミ〆穦ㄓ菏诡矪и-
﹚琌璶场縒ミ笲硂琌˙硂琌ぃì镑
谅谅畊
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, may I raise a query as to why the amendment being moved by Mr WONG Wai-yin for the same clause does not have a charging effect? I do not know whether I should raise it here or elsewhere, but I think I have already put our position forward.
As far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we believe that the Administration is taking a step in the right direction, although eventually and ultimately we would like very much for the Council to have freedom to take on staff outside of Government. But that is not to say that such recruitment should not be subjected to certain accountability and certain rules.
So, we actually are in support of the Government's amendment and we oppose Mr WONG's amendment, but if I may, I do not know whether it is appropriate for me to, raise that question here?
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
〆穦畊硂兵ㄒ糵某筁祘い⊿Τ拜の琌Τそ┊┯踞拜肈艷祸某琌砏祘拜肈
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, if I may help. By looking at the clause, the amendment being proposed by Mr WONG Wai-yin, one of the subclauses to be added as subclause (4), which says: "Subsection (3) shall come into operation on a day to be appointed by a resolution of the Legislative Council", so, Mr Chairman, I wonder if it is correct that the charging effect would actually take place at the time when the resolution is passed, and that would be a separate matter, Mr Chairman.
〆穦畊谅谅艷祸某襖略ビ某琌砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某畊и-
σ納材6兵材(1)蹿ぃ琌材6兵材(3)蹿㎝材6兵材(4)蹿琌弧и-
σ納玂某タ硂琌⊿Τcharging effect
〆穦畊セ畊フ翴セ畊㏄辩睶┥某┮琌盢パ独岸藉某笆某某σ納穦ぃ穦Τパそ┊┯踞癸硂ンㄆ钩⊿璶―セ畊掉∕ぃ筁艷祸某坚睲硂翴セ畊ョ筁兵ゅㄓㄤ龟琁ら戳斗パ現┎矗┮瞷顶琿⊿Τパそ┊┯踞
㏄辩睶┥某畊琌龟琁ら戳玱獶パ現┎ㄓ∕﹚τ琌パミ猭Ы硓筁某ㄓ∕﹚┮Τそ┊┯踞獽ぃ琌パ現┎ㄓ∕﹚ぃ筁и種襖略ビ某┮弧и-
σ納琌Τ闽玂瞷某縒ミσ納и-
σ納斗闽σ納
〆穦畊糂紌某琌砏祘拜肈临琌稱把癚阶セ畊竒掉∕
糂紌某琌⊿Τパそ┊┯踞拜肈玥杠叫現┎秆睦
〆穦畊セ畊秆睦或⊿Τセ畊礚斗瞷陆琩猭兵ゅ∕﹚╯澈硂妓∕某琌ゲ斗パ現┎矗临琌パ某矗ㄏ某矗某矗獽穦Τパそ┊┯踞瞷顶琿玥⊿Τ
糂紌某⊿Τ獽玥杠獽璶叫現┎秆睦現┎⊿Τ矗
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I shall respond to the Honourable James TO's remarks when it comes to his turn to move amendments to clause 6(3) and 6(4).
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment put and agreed to.
玂ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊襖略ビ某の独岸藉某だ箇ボ览碞材6兵笆某タタ材6兵夹肈の赣兵糤干材(3)の(4)蹿
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶襖略ビ某の独岸藉某だ矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶セ畊穦叫襖略ビ某祇ē戈耕瞏
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材6兵ぇ玡夹肈のタ材6兵赣兵糤干材(3)の材(4)蹿タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊и-
兵ㄒ〆穦癚阶筁埃現┎矗の材6兵(1)蹿璹Τ闽┪㎝猭臮拜ㄆ龟牡菏穦矪琌惠璶珹ゴゅ戮︓琌盡穨┪м砃ㄒ洛厩臮拜单τΤㄆ矗の琘ㄇ薄猵и-
︓惠璶ㄇㄤ盡穨и-
種惠璶盡穨芠诡璸购硂琌だ璶糂紌某ㄤ簍勉Τ冈灿阶瓃︙硂穦璶ぃσ納丁拜肈и安砞-
常琌戮盢ㄓ祇甶︓戮芠诡琘﹙秸琩盡穨醚﹍沧琌Τ腊иぃ種牡诡┪纯讽牡诡ヴ牡菏穦〆瞷沧硄筁ぃ逼埃產刚稱狦暗ㄆ秸琩羆恨璝瞷牡菏穦〆ヴ盡穨芠诡τ牡菏穦獺ㄤ獺臕セōそタ┦и獺芠诡兜秸琩琌芠诡ㄇ灿瘆红ㄇΤ拜肈よи-
刚稱璝牡菏穦竨ノ暗20ㄆ畍暗盡穨芠诡┕–ぱ猭畑琌暗ㄆ畍ㄒ盢瞒ヴ浪诡羆ǹ冻笵眘ノ畍单璝叫盡穨芠诡阑芠诡琘ㄇ秸琩蛤秈︙魁ㄑ妓穓栋靡沮陪穦牡菏穦眏ㄤ菏诡и弧琌菏诡獶秸琩τ倒ぉ盡穨種ǎ某妓砞璸菏诡舱麓┪砞璸︙阑┪阑赣痙種或よㄇ琌翴单ㄆ龟Τ硂ㄇ盡穨琌だ璶
и辨︗ㄆ镑や硂兜タ⊿Τ逼埃〆ヴ场だそ叭︽現单ㄓ矗ㄑ腊┮獶秨﹍獽疉の現┎┮弧胑ㄆ┪┷竨单拜肈牡菏穦砞Τ碞ミ猭Ы矪秨﹍パㄓ秈︽┷竨и谋眔硂琌荡癸︽㎝Τ腊
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 6 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンIII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫独岸藉某碞襖略ビ某矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶襖略ビ某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫独岸藉某笆某タ襖略ビ某ぇタ莉∕ボ独岸藉某ぇ览某タぃ莉硄筁
独岸藉某璓勉畊セЫ硄筁パ玂矗タ琵妮猭﹚诀篶牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦"牡菏穦"〆ヴセō㎝猭臮拜
ㄤ龟讽〆穦糵某硂兜兵ㄒи-
ㄆ常辨俱矪縒ミ硂妓痷タ砰喷牡菏穦縒ミ┦現┎锚琘ㄇ芠種パ-
笆某タ〆ヴ㎝猭臮拜Τ闽矪縒ミ玥ユи-
〆穦矗タ
ㄆ龟〆穦癸Τ闽タ⊿Τ矗ヴ︙钵某и-
璓觅Θ俱矪縒ミさぱ弄┪臛阶硂兵ㄒи钮Τㄇㄆ秨﹍"锣""锣浹"セㄓ〆穦璓種パи〆穦畊ōだ〆穦矗タи獺瞷玱跑Θ祔惠璶щ布
タㄆボи-
辨俱щ禗牡诡揭縒ミぃ筁硂兵ㄒぃ瞣疉硂场だ┮и暴Τσ納︙タ瞷Τщ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒㄏ〆穦縒ミㄏ蒥チ粄牡菏穦縒ミ诀篶︗
и粄莱结ぉ牡菏穦〆ヴ㎝猭臮拜ㄤ戮珹м砃の盡穨硂妓痷タ砰喷ㄤ縒ミ┦獽赣穦沮兵ㄒ砏﹚磅︽戮㎝︽ㄏ舦ㄏ牡菏穦艶矪瞶Τ闽逼赣穦莱Τ舦∕﹚硂ㄇ莱秸︓牡菏穦そ叭临琌そ叭砰╰竨叫Τ闽τ牡菏穦斗パセЫ虑∕某﹚ら戳癬秨﹍︽ㄏ硂兜舦
ㄤ龟糵某硂兵ㄒ現┎⊿Τ玥は癸癸矪縒ミ⊿Τ玥は癸現┎矗瞶パ常琌ㄇ︽現м砃单瞶パ┤矪びτ竨叫ぃ続讽匡タи-
ㄆ弧瞷埃и-
ミ猭Ы矪縒ミ临Τㄤ诀篶╬铆盡㎝ビ禗盡单-
矪ぃ-
常竨叫続匡㎝Τì镑戮徊-
┪崩甶Τ闽兵ㄒ舦
よи-
獺穦Τㄇ翠蒥チ琌癸硂よ稰獶盽Τ砍届-
硂よΤ獺├辨暗翴ㄆ-
ぃざ種戮︗蔼ぃざ種琌Τ哎诀穦┪ぃざ種羱ぶ-
ご腀種暗硂琌現┎玱硈硂诀穦ぃ倒翠蒥チ琵-
砰喷琌贾種把籔硂よи-
獺翠蒥チいゲ﹚Τㄇ琌腀種把籔ビ眎そ竡玂臔蒥チ舦痲и-
ぃ踞み矪縒ミ竨叫ぃи-
秆睦璹-
ご∕﹚竨叫临琌膥尿痙ヴ硂ㄇ瞷ヴそ叭琌舦ユ倒牡菏穦畊τ
и辨ㄆ祔やи〆穦┮矗タ辨現┎ぃ穦は癸谅谅畊
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, I do not wish to waste Members' time to reiterate the arguments which I have already expressed during the Second Reading of the Bill.
I only want to say that our objection to Mr TO's amendment is based on the fact that it goes even further than the amendment proposed by Mr WONG in the sense that only the Chairman is given that power to appoint. And we believe that it is not appropriate to have the Chairman assume this power without any conditions of accountability or terms attached to that.
So, we oppose the amendment.
糂紌某璓勉畊и稱莱独岸藉某種ǎボ琵牡菏穦艶珼匡そ叭┪獶そ叭ㄤ龟и︑琌ぃ觅Θ硂種ǎи粄牡菏穦场戮常莱琌獶そ叭и-
筁祘讽い畊某ぶТ琌現┎玱Чぃ烩薄ご礛箈ぃ艶и痷璶禗玂カチ琌ぃ穦倒篡腇ぃ璶Τㄢ繷ヘ碞篡腇ㄏ琌縒ミカチ琌⊿Τ坝癚緇钩Τㄇ某弧さぱ笷ぃヘ璶﹚璶Τ縒ミ诀谋眔ㄓ牡菏穦琌痷縒ミ秈︽秸琩癸щ禗そキ癸牡钉ョそキ┮硂竒琌琵˙и︑ㄓ弧や硂兜タ琌ン璚ㄆ
︙玊く某璓勉畊иョ稱ビ瞷硂兜兵ㄒ琌兜Ы场эτ硂兜┮孔Ы场э琌ノ牡菏穦┮孔縒ミㄓ縒ミщ禗硂ㄤ龟琌螟钡よ琌ヘ玡吏挂и-
镑既︽硂˙弧иゲ斗眏秸ㄤ龟и-
程沧ヘ夹琌璶щ禗縒ミヘ玡ㄓ弧鲸恨и-
钡Ы场эノ牡菏穦ㄓ蠢澈礛ぃ莉現┎種砞ミ縒ミ矪-
ぃ窽胔好╯澈и-
琌痷Τ∕み琵ウ縒ミ笲癸ウΤ獺み腊ウ眔そ獺и-
ㄤ龟琌辨鲸恨硂妓ご礛ㄇ蒥チ癸ウ獺ヴ
и痷ぃフ或現┎穦Τ硂或к┶硈牡菏穦畊莱∕﹚竨叫┪そ叭┪パ瞷痙ヴご礛临Τ硂或玂痙ㄤ龟硂癸現┎ㄓ弧琌ぃ穦Τ紇臫現┎┮弧碭玥弧┤紇臫牡よ玻ネ笲睼睹硂ンㄆ薄ㄤ龟竒Ч⊿Τ牟の硂ㄇ玥и-
瞷琌σ納璶玥倒ぉ牡菏穦縒ミ┪程ぶ芠稰倒-
谋眔琌縒ミ矪狦硈硂妓暗ぃ╯澈現┎癸ミΤそ獺牡菏穦Τ港種㎡硂痷ㄏ獶盽ア辨и辨и-
產笷硂或眏疨種ǎ現┎稱稱ウ琌莱赣ê或眏疨–˙к┶琌莱琵牡菏穦ㄉΤㄇ縒ミ㎡材и辨〆穦Θ莱赣や硂よ鲸恨-
临Τㄇ拜肈痷琌酵ぃ胠ㄒ秸琩刮拜肈и笵〆硂よごΤセだ猍硂拜肈и痷ぃ谋眔Τ眏疨は癸瞶パㄤ龟縒ミ猭﹚诀篶ㄓ弧Θミ縒ミ矪琌膀セ璶―狦暗ぃ杠獽璶秆睦或暗ぃи-
セぃ莱赣庢ㄇ⊿Τ瞶パ虑ㄓк┶Θミ縒ミ矪┮иΩ眏秸辨產や〆穦タτ現┎ョや〆穦瑈種ǎぃ璶眏疨は癸縒ミ矪
糂紌某璓勉畊и祇翴種ǎ現┎禫琌硂妓眏疨は癸獽禫и眔睲贰牡菏穦﹚琌ぃ穦Τ縒ミぃ穦Τ縒ミ現┎ぃ硂琌ぃТ讽刚畒セЫ㎝捌-
琌縒ミ笲璝-
┮Τ妮常琌そ叭杠и獺-
穦勉戮-
笵セぃ暗ㄆê竤そ叭穦街璽砫㎡讽礛琌ρ馏-
穦狝叭眖Г硂┮孔獶そ叭繷烩㎡┮и絋龟禫ㄓ禫睲贰現┎痷ヘウ弧"и碞筁-
Ω┤或ㄤ龟场常琌и"痷琌腇畊иぃ琌弧腇и琌弧現┎腇
〆穦畊襖略ビ某セ畊某玂祇ēЧ拨氮臛ㄖ祇ē
独岸藉某璓勉谅谅畊タ糂紌某┮弧и-
糵某硂兜兵ㄒ筁祘い庢︽筁13Ω穦某иノ4ㄓ甧и-
〆矪挂碞琌"繴碞㏑"現┎Ν祇狦ミ猭Ыタ杠現┎獽穦Μ兵ㄒ硂ㄏи-
稰だ甡┤甡┤程或⊿Τぃ筁и-
糵某筁祘いョ粄璝現┎翴ぃ琵˙ㄤ龟单或⊿Τ繷ㄓご腊ぃカチビ眎タ竡薄猵琌–嫁ゴ计ㄌ礛玂﹙狦痷琌硂妓杠и-
ミ猭Ы某硄筁硂兜兵ㄒΤ︙種㎡┮и-
だ辨籔現┎ぃ耞硓筁糵某〆穦ㄓ癚阶......
〆穦畊独岸藉某叫碞硂场だ祇ē
独岸藉某畊и辨и-
砛Т程笷璓瞷タō〆穦畊иΤ砫ヴ赖叫ㄆやパ〆穦矗タиぃ〆穦琌惠璶玸―и-
ㄆぉやぃ筁弄祇ē產不某琌牡菏穦......
〆穦畊独岸藉某叫ぃ璶┰溜臛阶絛瞅叫碞硂よタ祇ē
独岸藉某畊叫琵и弧Ч程杠產不某弧獶盽や襖略ビ某碻硂よ碞琌块璶膥尿琌玱ぃや〆穦タиぃ笵產不某┮弧種︙и-
琌某盢〆ヴ戮舦ユ倒牡菏穦и-
ЫずΤ3︗牡菏穦捌畊╯澈-
琌粄ㄏ盢硂舦癳倒-
-
ぃ稱璶㎡и稰だ┣и-
某р〆ヴ戮舦ユ倒牡菏穦-
玱ぃ稱璶и辨钮钮и-
Ыず3︗牡菏穦捌畊種ǎ-
秆睦或и-
ミ猭Ыр硂舦ユ倒-
-
玱ぃ稱璶㎡
谅谅畊
郭Θ某璓勉畊иチ祇ē碞硂兜タチや牡菏穦砞ミ矪ョ觅Θ矪戮パ盡穨┪続ヴ牡菏穦磅︽戮叭のㄤ舦或㎡璶Τㄢ瞶パ材呸胯и-
莱や襖某タ狦и-
觅Θ牡菏穦莱ㄉΤ秸琩舦の莱砞ミ芠诡τ讽現┎矗い戳厨и-
稰ぃ骸種璶ǎ靡и-
琌斗璶綼ㄇ続ㄓ秈︽и-
璶тㄇ或ㄓ暗㎡讽礛琌︙綼ㄣ称ì镑τ続も矪ㄓ暗螟笵璶パ牡菏穦︑克︑暗硂膀セ琌ぃ埃獶牡菏穦〆常琌戮沟┮呸胯и-
璶ΤΤ矪硂琌材翴材タ惫迭穦磷┮孔斗パそ┊┯踞┮и璶―狦硄筁タぇ莱パ現┎荷е矗磅︽ら戳ミ猭Ы硄筁ぇ荷еネ谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support the amendment moved by the Honourable James TO or a similar amendment proposed by the Honourable WONG Wai-yin.
Either of these amendments would unnecessarily burden the IPCC with the responsibility of recruiting and managing supporting staff in the Secretariat. The Bills Committee did not, as far as I know, disagree with the Administration that the existing arrangements of seconding civil servants to the IPCC Secretariat had not in practice affected the independence of the IPCC. I do not think I can accept the assertion by the Honourable Miss Emily LAU that all civil servants are biased towards the police.
To address Members' concern regarding the need to enhance the public perception of the independent image of the IPCC, we have agreed to empower the IPCC to appoint its own Secretary and Legal Advisor. This should go a long way in addressing Members' concern. It is, therefore, unnecessary to empower the IPCC to appoint other supporting staff who report to the Secretary.
Members should note that, unlike other secretariats of statutory bodies, the IPCC does not have a full-time chairman or executive as its head. To empower the IPCC to appoint all staff of the Secretariat and to look after their career, pay, terms and conditions of service, and so on, would impose an unnecessary administrative burden on the IPCC or its Chairman.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и稱莱㏄辩睶┥某の︗某秆睦и㎝独岸藉某タ╯澈Τ或だ
〆穦畊襖略ビ某瞷琌祇ē氮臛丁┮碞┮Τㄆ兜氮臛
襖略ビ某и笵產砛穦盢и㎝独岸藉某タゑ耕и琌觅Θ独岸藉某タㄓи莉眔猭種ǎ狦璶俱牡菏穦把籔竨ノ戮庢ㄒㄓ弧ㄏ琌竨叫ゴ璶俱〆穦ㄓ暗∕某瘤礛и-
硓筁∕某現┎碞穦弧Τび羉ゅ咳竊狦р竨ノ舦倒畊㏄辩睶┥某碞弧"罺畊舦龟琌筁"讽礛狦疉の璶〆ヴ碞讽礛斗璶俱牡菏穦把籔ぃ筁灿稬竨ノ兵ン玥パ畊㎝矪瞶ぃ斗璶陈沸俱牡菏穦┮タ糶パ畊〆ヴ礚阶產谋眔兜タ琌ゑ耕タ絋⊿Τ拜肈狦玥某谋眔莱砞ミ縒ミ矪杠ㄏぃやи硂兜タぃ璶候辨や独岸藉某タ
Question on Mr James TO's amendment put.
襖略ビ某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ronald ARCULLI and Dr Philip WONG claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某甃ㄎ瞶某の独﹜グ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕∕牧伙臫丁琌1だ牧
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某糤干材(3)の(4)蹿タぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 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 for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Henry TANG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 votes in favour of Mr James TO's amendment and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ襖略ビ某ぇタ30は癸23琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊独岸藉某パ襖略ビ某ぇタ莉∕ぃ笆某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
瞷莱パ独岸藉某碞夹肈矗タ独岸藉某Τ⊿Τ非称琌璶セ畊盢穦某既氨5だ牧量絑⊿Τ逼兜祘
独岸藉某畊и璶―既氨穦某5だ牧
2.39 pm
と239だ
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
2.43 pm
と243だ
Committee then resumed.
砰〆穦確穦某
〆穦畊略︗璓簆ㄓ襖略ビ某碞夹肈タ┮礚斗タ
玂パ襖略ビ某碞材6兵夹肈のㄤぇタ莉∕ぃ碞材6兵夹肈笆某タ
Clause 11
兵ㄒ材11兵
襖略ビ某畊и笆某タ材11兵材(3)材(4)蹿タず甧更祇癳ぉ〆ゅンず
畊硂ㄢ兜タだㄢ场だ场だ琌Τ牡菏穦惠璶そ渤ユ┪厨┸臩ㄇず甧τ牡菏穦粄Τ闽ず甧琌莱┸臩獽ユ琘ㄇщ禗よ牡菏穦穦厨いр﹎单璝ㄏ﹎单砆奔羆服ご粄Τ闽ず甧┸臩穦紇臫翠杠扒ぃ┸臩
ир泊"穦"(might)эΘ"穦"ヘ琌砞ミ耕蔼牟祇翴ㄏ羆服稰硂ㄇ┸臩ず甧琌穦紇臫┪穦篶Θ癸翠扒ぃ┸臩︙璶盢"穦"э"穦"㎡ㄆ龟и-
瞷癚阶薄猵疉の牡菏穦σ納筁┮Τご粄斗璶┸臩传ēぇ牡菏穦粄硂ㄇ琌腨τ斗璶┸臩璝羆服ご粄斗璶盢硂ㄇ戈玂盞杠и獺牟祇翴夹非莱赣矗蔼
材场だ琌材11兵材(4)蹿赣兵疉の獶猭┸臩戈パи-
硂ㄇ竜︽兵ゅいゼゲ冈灿σ納ち薄猵и"⊿Τ猭虑┪瞶パ"(without lawful excuse)单泊硂盽ǎΤ闽玂盞兵ゅ┪竜︽兵ゅい種琌и-
览硂ㄇ兵ゅ硄盽ゼゲσ納ちㄒ薄猵璝и-
"⊿Τ猭虑┪瞶パ"獽ㄏ猭畑程沧σ納膀ㄇм砃┦单τ竜玡矗琌猭畑σ納穦把σの沮ㄒぃ穦倒ぉ┮孔"瞶瞶パ"糴惗秆睦临Τ硂秆睦┪氮臛瞶パ沮翠猭ㄒ材彻庢靡砫ヴ琌砆ō
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 11 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support the amendments moved by the Honourable James TO because they would defeat the very purpose of the secrecy provision. It is important that Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) Members should maintain strict confidentiality over information which come to their knowledge in the course of discharging their duties to monitor complaints against police cases except in the circumstances as set out in clause 11(2) of the Bill. This is to ensure public confidence that confidential information, particularly of a personal nature, will be protected by everyone.
Mr TO's proposed amendment to clause 11(3) would also fetter the discretionary power of the Governor to prevent the disclosure of matters which may prejudice security, defence or international relations or would be contrary to public interest if disclosed. Given the importance of the matters concerned, we are strongly opposed to such an amendment.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Ronald ARCULLI claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某の甃ㄎ瞶某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材11兵材(3)(4)ㄢ蹿┮ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 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 for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 25 votes in favour of the amendment and 30 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ25は癸30琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊襖略ビ某叫膥尿碞材11兵笆某タ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材11兵赣兵糤干材(4A)蹿タず甧更祇癳倒某ゅンず
畊硂琌兜Τ闽氮臛兵ゅй魁︑ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30兵硂琌и-
臛阶嘲糠某穦癸ㄤ剪眡琌兜兵ゅ贺薄猵砆簗戈氮臛瞶パ材(4A)蹿牡菏穦〆陪﹚璶玂盞-
Τ戈常琌瞣疉秸琩ン┪蛤玂ㄆ叭㎝盎琩ンΤ闽Τ伐狠薄猵琌タ渤ㄤ玂盞兵ゅ妓牡诡┪诀篶碞牡菏穦τē牡诡琘ンㄆ薄┪琘薄猵Τ獶猭笆垒ノ舦腨波┛戮のㄤ腨ア戮︽┪腨紇臫その翠のΤ闽そ渤胺眃㎝单硂ㄇ泊常ぃ琌и糶τ琌現┎ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材30兵玂盞兵ゅい現┎粄硂琌睲捶ぃ穦ノи-
┮臛阶"そ渤痲"硂糴惗瞶パ倒猭畑σ納砆氮臛瞶パ兵ゅ硂ぃ琌糴惗ㄣ砰ㄇ獶猭笆垒ノ戮舦┪腨ア戮腨紇臫翠单常Τㄒ硂ぃ钩耕Ν玡计臛阶いи-
酵の﹛よ玂盞猭いそ渤痲兵ゅΤ某┮兵ゅ竡び惗瘤礛иぃ種硂ǎ秆材(4A)蹿"そ渤痲"砆Μ"硂碭贺そ渤痲"睲贰絋ぉ磅︽
и粄〆薄猵莱赣玂盞材(4A)蹿┮瓃薄猵и-
璶盢ㄢキ颗珿ㄏ惠璶蔼玂盞ン稧竝秸琩单и-
ごσ納現┎某甧砛Τㄒ兵ゅ琵┸臩氮臛︓庢靡砫ヴ莱砆セōτぃ琌パ現┎靡и獺硂妓ぃ穦旧璓Τ垒ノ薄猵┮Τ〆常琌パ現┎〆ヴタ郭Θ某┮弧-
常琌ㄇ紈蔼辨紈称㎝眔獺ヴ穦璝薄猵ご稰ぃ眔惠璶┸臩現┎腨ア戮の獶猭︽и獺-
琌荡ぃ穦璊ㄓи辨︗某や硂兜氮臛兵ゅ現┎砞Τㄒ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 11 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンIII
郭Θ某璓勉畊иチ祇ēや襖某材4A蹿氮臛兵ゅ兜玥琌牡菏穦Θゲ斗玂盞-
矪瞶ㄆンだ庇稰カチ琌獺ヴ-
穦牡菏穦щ禗τ赣穦璽砫菏诡俱牡诡场ア戮薄猵赣穦钡牟戈琌庇稰莱赣玂盞и-
璶甧砛Τ疭薄猵琵砆氮臛秆睦︙璶┸臩戈襖某惫勉й魁︑ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ材32兵τ硄筁硂兵ゅ竒筁だ冈灿臛阶硂ㄇ氮臛琌続讽㎝砆睲捶糶ㄓぃ穦砆垒ノ硂薄猵程琌獺ヴ籔ぃ獺ヴ拜肈現┎だ獺ヴ稧竝磅︽獺-
ぃ穦繦獽┸臩и辨現┎獺ヴ牡菏穦Θ獺-
ぃ穦繦獽┸臩ㄇ璶戈埃獶Τ氮臛瞶パи-
琌や
谅谅畊
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Chairman, the Liberal Party opposes this amendment because we believe that this amendment would in fact allow the integrity of the Council to be somewhat compromised. It seems that it would in fact be up to the member of the Council to in fact decide whether this disclosure is justified. And we believe that if the Council is going to function effectively in a secure manner, in terms of taking evidence and deliberating, they should be doing so under circumstances where no disclosure, no public disclosure would actually threaten such frankness.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support the proposed amendment moved by the Honourable James TO.
The proposed amendment would allow the use of very broad grounds as a defence for unauthorized disclosure of confidential information which may include information of a personal nature pertaining to the complainant, the complainee or witness, whose privacy should be respected. This would be contrary to the purpose of a secrecy provision and would adversely affect public
confidence on the integrity of the IPCC system.
For these reasons we are strongly opposed to it.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Ronald ARCULLI claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某の甃ㄎ瞶某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材11兵糤干材(4A)蹿ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 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 for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Henry TANG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the amendment and 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ31は癸24琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊玂の襖略ビ某だ箇ボ览碞材11兵笆某タ赣兵糤干材(5)蹿
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶玂の襖略ビ某だ矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶セ畊穦叫玂笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒそ戮
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the I move that clause 11 be amended by adding subclause (5) as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
This clause is mainly consequential to the amendment to clause 6(1). Since the Honourable James TO's proposed amendment to clauses 6(3) and (4) have been passed, the Administration therefore has no objection to his proposed amendment which would extend the coverage of the secrecy provision to other staff of the Secretariat.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 11 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンIII
〆穦畊セ畊瞷叫襖略ビ某碞玂笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶玂ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫襖某笆某タ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊硂兜タ琌р玂盞兵ゅ瞇籠絛瞅耎︓и矗縒ミ矪êㄇ戮-
Τㄇぃ琌そ叭狦琌そ叭杠-
斗璶宽﹛よ玂盞猭璝ぃ琌そ叭矪戮ㄒêㄇ〆ヴ獽Τゲ璶-
τи籔現┎兵ゅだ琌現┎ê兜兵ゅ安砞產щ布は癸砞ミ縒ミ矪現┎ê兜玂盞兵ゅ︑礛ぃ穦瞇籠ㄇ獶そ叭琌產蹦縒ミ矪〆ヴそ叭の獶そ叭赣兵蹿獽ョ抖盿р赣玂盞兵ゅ莱ノ矪戮ō玥璝礛-
沟ノㄇ獶そ叭杠-
獽ぃ恨
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment put.
玂ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr James TO claimed a division.
襖略ビ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊襖略ビ某琌砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某ぃ琌畊安︗〆琌やиタ杠獽莱赣∕玂ê兜タ笆某タ
〆穦畊Τㄇ睼睹襖略ビ某玂琌弧やタ
襖略ビ某畊璝琌や杠硂タ莱赣琌璶∕玱笆某タ璝ぃ笆某硂タ獽⊿Τ拜肈笆某ぇ產獽斗は癸硂タ碞иタ∕
〆穦畊︗〆セ畊稱秆睦玂籔襖略ビ某だ矗タ碞材11兵糤材(5)蹿タ玂絛瞅耕襖略ビ某耕糴玂祇ē矗筁琂礛祇ネㄇㄆ薄ぃは癸蹦ê耕糴セ薄猵и-
逼Ω∕玂タ襖略ビ某瘤弧玂ぃは癸ぃボ玂Ы﹚や襖某タ璝琌璶襖某タ墓杠碞ゲ斗阑毖瞷∕タеだ牧產フ⊿Τ
略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈玂笆某碞材11兵糤干材(5)蹿ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊﹟ろセ畊ガ挡狦玡叫癸┮ぇ∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, 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 amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were eight votes in favour of the amendment and 33 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ8は癸33琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊パ玂ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫襖略ビ某笆某タ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材11兵赣兵糤干材(5)蹿タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
и秆睦產﹚璶兵ゅ瞇籠êㄇ琌獶そ叭矪戮┮硂琌ゲ斗
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 11 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンIII
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 11, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材11兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clauses 7 and 8
兵ㄒ材7の8兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 7 be amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
The amendment to clause 7(a) makes it explicit that the functions of the IPCC is to monitor and to review, not just where it considers it appropriate, but each and every complaint, the manner in which complaints are handled by the police.
The amendment to clause 7(aa) and 7(d) make it explicit that the functions of the IPCC is to review the findings of the investigations conducted by the police in respect of complaints and to make recommendations in respect of such findings.
The amendments are made in response to the Bills Committee's suggestion to clarify the monitoring and reviewing functions of the Independent Police Complaints Council Bill.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 7 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材7兵ǎンIII
襖略ビ某璓勉畊材7兵絋琌莱兵ㄒ〆穦某τタτ琌縒ミ㎝ぃ穦逼ジ独岸藉某┪и祔碞兵ㄒ材7兵┮笆某タиや玂硂兜タ瘤礛硂兜タ场だ妮м砃タセō絋龟镑坚睲セ兵ゅ惫勉ㄇぃ睲贰ぇ矪
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment to clause 7 put and agreed to.
玂碞材7兵ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材7兵笆某タ材8兵赣兵糤干材(1)(ba)の(1A)琿の碞材8(2)兵笆某タぇ材场だタず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊и獺硂琌さぱま癬程某兵ゅぃ笵現┎穦ぃ穦Μ硂兵兵ㄒぃ筁ヘ玡玥﹟ゼΤヴ︙ボΤ某и材7兵(e)蹿琌璶∕﹚秸琩挡狦τ独窥ㄤ军某癸ボ紐納粄莱パ牡叭矪矪掉耞τぃ琌パ牡菏穦∕﹚﹙щ禗Θミ籔パ瞷硂妓粇秆и粄Τ惠璶秆睦睲贰砛Τ某ぃ觅Θщ禗揭秸琩Ч拨牡菏穦临秈︽秸琩ㄏ牡菏穦ぃ秸琩硂琌﹍沧常穦Τㄇ秸琩厨┮孔"∕﹚挡狦"種ㄤ龟琌安牡菏穦〆綷弄秸琩厨祇瞷ㄤいΤ玡ベよㄒΤ嫁ゴ┪臖儿鹤单獽璶紉高猭臮拜ㄒ瞷セЫ矪猭臮拜┪琌現┎現竝猭臮拜沮硂妓靡沮㎝続ノ庢靡砫ヴΤ闽Θミщ禗琌Θミ
讽礛щ禗揭ゲ﹚Τㄤ猭粄Τ闽ぃΘミ庢靡へ牡菏穦〆玱穦粄Θミ牡菏穦絋龟莱赣碞秸琩厨矗︑猭粄щ禗琌莱赣Θミ
и禗︗某ㄆ龟┕い牡菏穦㎝щ禗揭竒盽穦碞琘﹙щ禗Θミ瞷╉瞷初计︗牡菏穦捌畊癸莱赣睲贰ぃ筁╉挡狦ぃ逼埃牡菏穦Τ︑猭и瞷笆某兵ゅ琌牡菏穦∕﹚ㄤ猭Τ︑㎝耞癸ΘミΤ獺籔舦
程и辨產フㄏ牡菏穦獺Τ闽ンΘミи笆某兵ゅ琌弧牡菏穦盢穦禗牡叭矪矪莱︙蛤秈琌advise腢旧┪倒ぉ種ǎτぃ琌㏑叫︗某猔種иぃ琌㏑牡叭矪矪璶﹚矪だ︓㏑現矗浪北Ч⊿Τ硂ㄆ現琌猭快ㄆτ牡叭矪矪玥琌Τ闽祘┮斗庢靡夹非┪沮Τ闽現郸∕﹚莱蹦︽笆и荡癸ぃ琌弧牡菏穦牡叭矪矪Τ程∕﹚﹙琌Θミ舦и琌弧牡菏穦σ納秸琩厨Τセō∕﹚玱ぃ逼埃牡叭矪矪ぃ∕﹚
︓牡菏穦∕﹚Τ笵紈и獺硂パ羆服〆ヴ牡菏穦癸琘﹙ン┮矗種ǎ┪挡阶ゲ﹚穦紇臫牡叭矪矪猭琌硂紇臫ぃ琌弧﹚璶宽眖硂琌材翴
材7兵(f)琿ず甧琌弧安牡菏穦ぃ骸種щ禗揭矗ユ秸琩厨︑︽秸琩Τ闽阶沮иぃゴ衡狡и稱禗牡菏穦疭琌牡菏穦〆ㄆ龟現┎纯牡菏穦ボ璝瞷┘種ǎオ叫羆服掉∕パ羆服∕﹚︙矪瞶и硂兜兵ゅ琌璶牡菏穦︑︽秸琩ヴ︙щ禗癚阶戳丁纯Τㄇ某現┎某┘癶˙ㄒэ牡菏穦莉眔羆服у甶秨秸琩現┎ご绊∕弧"No"杠и-
⊿Τ快猭
и辨產睲贰現┎讽Ы︓癸兵ゅず牡菏穦ゲ斗眔羆服種﹍秸琩砏﹚ぃ钡現┎陪礛みヘい眔稱猭碞琌щ禗揭秸琩牡菏穦璝ぃ骸種獽ユ倒щ禗揭秸琩璝ご礛ぃ骸種獽秸琩
ㄆ龟筁计纯Τ计︗牡菏穦〆ぃ琌チ囊┪チΘищ禗ボ稰"礚舽"㎝ぃ蔼砍ぃ耞秈︽┰亏驹牡菏穦〆瘤礛Τ洛ネ厨单戈程竒現┎秸琩眔玱ご礛琌靡沮㎝挡阶牡菏穦狦ボごぃ骸種讽Ы獽秸琩硂薄猵龟ㄏ牡菏穦ぃ眔璶烩и辨镑秆∕硂┮孔"挡"拜肈秸琩
材8兵Τ闽舦㎝砫ヴタ琌蛤笆某材7兵が㊣莱и辨︗某玡邻秈˙∕﹚
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 7 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材7兵ǎンIII
Clause 8 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration strongly opposes the amendments moved by the Honourable James TO. I have given in my speech at the resumption of Second Reading the reasons for opposing this proposed amendment to empower the IPCC to investigate any complaint where it is not satisfied with the investigation report of the police and to determine the acceptability of findings and results of investigation. I will not repeat them here.
I would, however, like to add that in the event the IPCC is not satisfied that the investigation of a complaint by the police, the IPCC may make a report to the Governor. The Governor may direct the Commissioner of Police as he sees fit or the Governor may set up a commission of inquiry to look into the handling of a complaint.
Mr TO's proposed amendments are unnecessary and highly inappropriate. There should be no illusion that these amendments are totally, totally unacceptable to the Administration. I therefore urge Members to consider seriously the implication of such amendments being enacted. I strongly urge Members to reject them.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊玂弧安牡菏穦㎝щ禗揭瞷種ǎオㄤ龟琌Τ秆∕よ猭碞琌パ羆服〆ヴ1秸琩〆穦秸琩и龟礚猭瞶秆︙玂穦硂妓弧酚現┎砮瞶阶狦璶秸琩琘ㄇン碞﹚璶パ盡穨秈︽﹚璶Τだや穿秸琩〆穦或快眔㎡ㄆ龟瞷璊瓣砍猭﹛秸琩Τ闽古牡舱ㄒΘ眔计ゑ牡菏穦常ぃ猵牡菏穦砞ミ矪临Τ闽м砃よ〆ヴㄇ盡穨矗ㄑ┮и龟ぃΤ或瞶パ現┎ぃユ倒牡菏穦秸琩玱粄秸琩〆穦镑秈︽盡穨秸琩㎝眔そタ挡阶
︓牡菏穦┮镑〆ヴ璽砫秸琩もㄑ匡拒絛瞅ㄤ龟琌惗庢ㄒㄓ弧狦и-
粄翠牡诡ぃ镑どヴΤ闽┪琌и-
ぃ辨〆ヴ-
杠璝и-
ぃ骸種щ禗揭秸琩厨ㄤ龟琌竨叫盡產臮拜ㄓ秸琩Τㄇゑ耕灿瓣產碞纯竒琘ㄇ盡穨ぃ镑τ璶叫瓣羛ü秸琩Ы喷靡叉縸荒┪琌叫璣瓣默孽初盡產碞臟ㄒㄆ龟赣そ纯竒〆ヴ盡產珹璣瓣臟臮拜╯︙穦祇ネ瓂ㄆン┮牡菏穦龟悔琌〆ヴよ盡穨秈︽絛瞅約獂瞏秸琩и临闽兵ゅい弧牡菏穦玂痙璶―牡叭矪矪ㄒ琘ㄇ薄猵ぇ矗ユ琘ㄇ厨┪琌て喷琘ㄇ﹀睪弘睪┪繷緑单狥﹁ㄆ龟眔現┎種㎝矗ㄑ戈方薄猵牡菏穦琌秈︽そタ㎝盡穨秸琩
Question on Mr James TO's amendments to clauses 7 and 8 put.
襖略ビ某碞材7の8兵笆某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr TSANG Kin-shing claimed a division.
纯胺Θ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材7の8兵虏ēぇ"秸琩舦"ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 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 and Dr John TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, 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, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Mrs Elizabeth WONG voted against the amendment.
Mr YUM Sin-ling abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of Mr James TO's amendments and 27 votes against them. He therefore declared that the amendments were carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ襖略ビ某タ28は癸27琌ガタ莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 8 be further amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments are made in response to the Bills Committee's suggestions to make it explicit two existing practices of the police. One is to empower the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) to require the Commissioner of Police to notify the complainant of the findings and the results of the investigation of the complaint. The other is to empower the IPCC to require the Commissioner to submit to the IPCC any report on any action taken in respect of the recommendations made by the IPCC on a complaint.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIII
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и種タ硂ㄢ兜兵ゅτ硂ㄢ兜タ琌兵ㄒ〆穦某
玂矗(da)琿璶硄щ禗Τ闽秸琩挡狦耞㎝挡阶τ現┎玥弧ㄤ龟瞷Τ硂妓暗и稱禗︗某ㄏ讽Ы瞷痷Τ硂妓暗硂兜タㄤ龟琌и-
某兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽糵某璶―玂硂ㄇ兵ゅ盢ぇ兵ㄒず瞷玱禗產弧璶矗1兜璶タ碞琌璶硄щ禗Τ闽挡狦螟笵ぃ硄щ禗Τ闽挡狦琌盽瞶盾硂ㄤ龟琌璶猭﹚て琘兜ゲ礛璶秈︽祘讽Ы瞷玱рΤ闽兵ゅ弧Θ琌兜タ琵˙
︓材(db)琿玥琌狦牡菏穦碞1﹙Θミщ禗某莱︙测癟Τ闽牡牡菏穦盢穦璶―牡叭矪矪碞┮蹦︽笆硄牡菏穦琌現┎瞷弧讽Ы竒睲睲贰贰璶―牡叭矪矪硄牡菏穦ぃ筁產ぃ璶ㄆ薄痷琌硂妓虏虫硂ㄤ龟琌牡菏穦〆筁硂ㄢぃ耞伐临璶╉Ω牡叭矪矪腀種牡菏穦獶セЫ某┪щ禗闽掉∕┪测癟挡狦传杠弧牡菏穦粄硂妓垒舦薄猵だ腨3玡玱Ч礚猭笵璶碭竒ぇ眔
畊临Τ兜璶翴琌現┎﹟ゼ兵ㄒぇず硂碭ぱи-
玂ㄆ叭〆穦ぇ舱癚阶Τ闽牡诡垒ノ舦拜肈ㄓ瞷讽Ы瘤礛牡菏穦Τ闽测癟挡狦ㄒΤ闽琘牡щ禗Θミ盢璶钡繷牡临琌綝┪戮单矪だ牡菏穦盢穦笵Τ闽挡狦щ禗玱ぃ穦钡莉硄传杠弧璝Τカチ矗щ禗щ禗揭穦滦щ禗孔ㄤщ禗Θミτ牡菏穦種赣秸琩挡狦粄щ禗Θミщ禗玱ぃ笵ら牡叭矪矪ぃ穦禗綝щ禗牡︽だ腨程沧綝戮ㄏ琌硂妓虏虫挡狦現┎ぃ穦硄щ禗或㎡現┎だ虏虫碞琌璶玂毁╬留и讽Τ畊穦某τ┮Τ畊某АЧ礚猭瞶秆硂或㎡安砞Τ牡暗ン眔古砛ㄆ讽Ы獽穦秨癘穦淋叫┮Τ癘玡ㄓ╃酚癘穦そガPC37084腹牡︙ミ┮牡叭矪矪箋秘贱彻倒钡临穦冈禗薄竒筁单笵瞶ㄓ弧硂ㄤ龟琌赣牡╬留ㄏ暗ㄆ硂ご礛琌╬留セぃ惠璶琌Τㄆ穦弧ㄓ璣玦τ莉箋颈彻璝綝カチщ禗デ琘ㄇ砏玥︓腨︓璶綝牡讽Ы玱荡ぃ矗ぃぃ禗そ渤︓щ禗ぃ莉硄璝щ禗笵挡狦弧琌ぃ琌穦だネㄓ腨嫁ゴ程斗钡繷牡ㄆ龟絋琌セЫ独岸藉某セる矗借高い痷Τㄇ闽摥硑靡沮щ禗ㄤ秸琩挡狦程琌フ堵糶繷牡
и-
讽礛種現┎癸硂ㄢ兜兵ゅタ龟悔狦玂ㄆ叭〆穦妮舱镑Νㄇ癚阶硂拜肈и獽穦笆某盢ぇ秈˙タ牡叭矪矪ぃ縒璶牡菏穦Τ闽测癟挡狦璶盢ぇщ禗硂暗猭琌だタ盽㎝だ瞶и辨現┎硂兵兵ㄒ璹ぇ镑笲ノ︽現も琿ЧΘ秸琩獽ミщ禗Τ闽挡狦
Question on Secretary for Security's amendment to clause 8 put and agreed to.
玂碞材8兵笆某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
独岸藉某璓勉畊и笆某秈˙タ材8兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊и確兵ㄒ弄臛阶竒虏虫ざ残硂兜タ璉春瞷и穦冈灿瓃硂兜某冈灿戈牡菏穦琌パせる秨﹍龟琁瞷牡菏穦芠诡璸购沮赣兜璸购牡菏穦Θ硄筁箇逼┪阑贝砐芠诡щ禗牡诡揭秸琩珹跌诡ㄆ祇瞷初の魁ㄑ单畊芠诡щ禗牡诡揭┮秸琩琌ン禣牡菏穦Θ竒Γ矪瞶赣穦ら盽戮叭ゼゲΤì镑丁竒盽把籔硂兜芠诡兵ㄒ〆穦粄牡菏穦磅︽菏诡戮叭莱赣竨叫ㄤ獶牡菏穦Θ芠诡芠诡щ禗牡诡揭秸琩硂ㄇ斗璶牡菏穦璽砫-
琌碔竒喷秸琩猭盡產┪穦藉笷瞶稱暗猭琌戮盽肂絪よΑ竨叫硂ㄇ芠诡琵-
繦琩┪芠诡щ禗牡诡揭矪瞶щ禗牡诡の碞芠诡┮眔﹚戳牡菏穦矗ユ厨и-
獺蹦硂ㄇ惫琁ぇ﹚矗蔼カチ渤癸俱щ禗牡诡獺み
畊セ略朝勉兵ㄒ〆穦矗硂兜タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support the proposed amendment moved by the Honourable WONG Wai-yin.
We have already explained to the Bills Committee that we intend to expand the IPCC Observer Scheme through appointing non-IPCC members to assist the IPCC in observing the investigation of complaints by the police. We have proposed to address this in a subsidiary legislation when the plan has been finalised. It would therefore not be appropriate to make such a provision before we have finalized the details.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
独岸藉某璓勉畊ㄤ龟兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽糵某玂ボ踞み螟竨叫続戮芠诡琌и-
兵ㄒ〆穦ㄆ玱ぃ種硂弧猭┮Τ畊兵ㄒ〆穦穦某ㄆ常やи〆穦笆某タ
兵ㄒ〆穦癚阶硂兵兵ㄒ纯籔現┎阶現┎程沧種琵и-
把籔钩牡菏穦┮龟琁芠诡羛蹈璸购硂琌羬芠诡璸购琵兵ㄒ〆穦Θ把и︑把硂兜璸购┾秸丁ぃщ禗牡诡揭ず璶―陆ㄇ癘魁の钡ǎщ禗畊芠诡
碞и-
竒喷┮眔Τㄇ狡馒祘虫癘魁碞竒Τ1︓畉ぃㄢ玴產稱钩眔1﹙竒Τê或戈璶τ牡菏穦薄琌–琍戳璶﹙Τ﹙瘤礛场だゑ耕虏虫ごΤㄇ狡馒琌惠璶Τ闽戈и讽羬芠诡纯竒克ō砰喷牡诡щ禗揭ㄆщ禗"辅ㄑ"畊и畊计ê︗щ禗牡诡揭ㄆ⊿Τ快猭癘ㄑ迭ǎ芠诡琌獶盽丁タΤㄆ┮弧穦藉笷絋龟Τ現┎贾種〆ヴ-
ㄇ吭高〆穦Θ┪牡菏穦〆琌-
セōら盽┪ㄤ〆穦竒羉τ踞ヴ牡菏穦芠诡玱羉临璶ㄇ厨獶戮〆ōだㄓи獺琌螟㎝Τ菏诡┮〆穦程種辨現┎竨叫盡穨戮芠诡-
琂Τだ丁碞Τ祇揣牡菏穦菏诡и辨セЫ砰ㄆやи兵ㄒ〆穦笆某タ谅谅畊
Question on Mr WONG Wai-yin's amendment to clause 8 put and agreed to.
独岸藉某碞材8兵笆某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊襖略ビ某叫膥尿碞材8兵笆某タ
襖略ビ某畊叫拜材8(1)(fa)㎝材8(1)(fb)兵だ秨щ布临琌и笆某礛パ∕﹚琌у硂ㄢ兜タ常⊿Τゲ礛癸ミ┪闽闽玒┪砛и笆某タの璓勉畊∕﹚
〆穦畊叫祇ē
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某材8兵糤干材(1)(fa)蹿の(1)(fb)蹿タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
Τ闽材(fa)蹿и璶琌辨睲贰牡菏穦ぃ阶笿ヴ︙щ禗常Τ舦盢锣ざぉ現┪稧現盡蛤秈и秆睦︙и穦σ納矗硂ㄇ锣ざΤㄇ踞み狦и-
硂ㄇ锣ざ牡菏穦穦ぃヴ︙秸琩獽р┮Τン锣ざ稧現盡┪︓現秸琩硂讽礛琌ぃΘミ材ㄆ龟現竝セō琌猭场ぃ穦璽砫秸琩ヴ︙材現セōョ璶沮猭㎝靡沮ㄓ∕﹚Τ闽琌璶矗浪北琌璶荡癸沮猭砏﹚ㄓ︽ㄆ︓稧現そ竝┪稧現盡玥虏虫稧現盡┪稧現そ竝琌羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒ㎝ňゎ胳革兵ㄒのΤ闽猭ㄒ┮结ぉ舦盡秸琩砱γ┪籔砱γ闽ㄇ竜︽狦牡菏穦锣ざぉ-
ぃ妮硂ㄇ絛瞅獽妓⊿Τ舦秈︽秸琩ㄏ-
辨秈︽秸琩琌ぃê或璶兵ㄒ睲贰㎡瞷琌р俱舱麓猭﹚て┮и辨镑兵ㄒêㄇ瞷竒琌ぃΘゅ秈︽ㄆㄏぇΘ兵ㄒ场だ
Τ踞み糤硂兵蹿ぇ牡菏穦獽穦繦獽锣ざㄆ龟硂琌荡癸ぃ穦牡菏穦Τ︑猭臮拜穦︽╯狦锣ざ1﹙倒稧現盡そ竝玱琌-
セ⊿Τ舦秈︽秸琩ê或锣ざ倒-
⊿Τノ︓锣ざぉ現狦牡菏穦猭臮拜粄セ⊿Τ矗ヴ︙浪北┦ê或ㄏ锣ざぉ現琌⊿Τノぃ穦矗浪北┮и獺硂琌眔и-
兵ゅ
︓材(fb)蹿玥牡菏穦Τ舦璶―牡叭矪矪璹ㄇず场玥┪羆场硄いΤ闽矪瞶щ禗牡诡ㄆ﹜玡斗紉高牡菏穦種ǎ礛璹и笆某硂兜タ琌虏虫材硂琌ēぇΘ瞶и-
┮弧ぃ琌┮Τ牡钉硄ㄒ┪羆场硄琌Τ闽矪瞶щ禗よㄆ﹜τ琂礛牡菏穦戮砫琌矪瞶Τ闽牡钉щ禗狦牡よ∕﹚璶妓矪瞶Τ闽щ禗ぃㄆ硄牡菏穦ê琌瞶ぃи-
┮硄筁タ弧程戳ご礛琌ユぉ牡よщ禗揭秸琩┮-
︙矪瞶硂щ禗┪蹦ノ妓祘陪琌㎝牡菏穦戮舦荡癸闽材現┎羘嘿讽Ы瞷︽矪瞶よ猭珹Τ斗璶璹紉高牡菏穦種ǎ玱粄盢暗猭糶Θ兵ゅ玥ぃ硂癸и-
ㄓ弧琌螟瞶秆狦硂琌猽ノ︓さ暗猭或ぃ糶Θ兵ゅ㎡讽Ы村弧︗某獺ンい矗ㄤ斑瞶パ碞琌┤ㄇ壕窰璹や┪娩絫璹璶骋沸牡菏穦╯┪吭高獽穦禣丁硂ㄇ常琌虏虫ㄆ﹜ㄤ龟牡菏穦ョΤ"Paper Resolution"狦痷琌虏虫э牡钉硄ê或锣ざ牡菏穦安⊿Τㄢ〆矗璶癚阶牡菏穦惠计ぱ獽ЧΘ"Paper Resolution"∕某传杠弧硂琌ぃ穦ぃゲ璶╈┑牡叭矪矪э硄猵瞷э硄ぇ玡硄盽常穦Τず场沫艭戳ㄤ龟讽Ы硂ず场沫艭戳丁牡菏穦ㄤい惠璶吭高诀篶ㄒΤ闽璹砮琌璶倒ㄆ场︓玂单╯瞷琌矗ユぉ牡菏穦舱麓╯τи粄硂猭﹚吭高诀琌荡癸ぃ穦┑Τ闽ぃ穦玠畓牡叭矪矪舦
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, first of all, I do not think there is any particular point prolonging this debate in having separate voting for these two subclauses. In any case the Administration does not support the proposed amendment moved by the Honourable James TO to empower the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) to refer any matter in respect of a complaint to the Attorney General and to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).
Referral to the Attorney General is unnecessary as the IPCC may already do so under clause 8(1)(g). The proposed amendment to empower the IPCC to refer any matter in respect of a complaint to the ICAC is inappropriate as the ICAC should not be involved in the handling of non-corruption related complaints.
The proposed amendment to empower the IPCC to require the Commissioner of Police to consult the IPCC on any amendment to be made to the Police General Orders or Headquarters Orders in respect of the handling of complaints is not supported because it would mean that the Commissioner must consult the IPCC on even the most trivial amendment.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и﹚璶は婚現┎阶翴碞琌и-
рICAC瞣疉獶砱γ秸琩┪╯ㄆ﹜ず
ㄆ龟и耕Ν玡祇ē竒睲贰狦Τ闽獶籔砱γΤ闽┪琌獶籔ňゎ胳革兵ㄒの羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒΤ闽杠ㄏ牡菏穦рщ禗锣ざ筁稧現盡常⊿Τ猭﹚舦蛤秈┮иぃ笵現┎琌粇旧и-
某иǎ甃ㄎ瞶某穘繷┪砛叫矗阶翴и辨笵牡菏穦妓盢籔砱γ礚闽щ禗锣ざ┕稧現そ竝τ赣そ竝ㄤ猭舦秈︽蛤秈и粄硂琌ぃ祇ネ
〆穦畊襖略ビ某祇ēセ畊ぃ讽氮臛
甃ㄎ瞶某璓勉畊沮и瞶秆稧現そ竝钡莉ヴ︙щ禗常﹚璶蛤秈ぃ琌蛤秈砱γ拜肈ㄏ琌籔砱γ礚闽щ禗琌璶蛤秈
〆穦畊琌Τㄤ某稱祇ē狦⊿Τ杠и穦叫襖某程氮臛
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и琌稱莱甃ㄎ瞶某祇ēず甧иぃフ︙甃ㄎ瞶某ヴΤ闽稧竝吭高〆穦〆ê或澈礛穦硂妓弧
ㄆ龟羆服疭稧現盡そ竝兵ㄒ㎝ňゎ胳革兵ㄒ常睲贰糶狦Τ闽щ禗┪锣ざщ禗琌籔砱γΤ闽稧竝蛤秈琌"shall"琌ゲ斗璶秸琩の蛤秈狦Τ闽ㄆン琌籔砱γЧ礚闽杠沮и-
硂碭Τ闽稧竝浪癚〆穦のミ猭Ы玂ㄆ叭〆穦紉高稧竝3ヴ竝種ǎ-
常絋ち禗и-
狦琌籔砱γ礚闽ㄆン稧竝琌ぃ穦蛤秈
Question on Mr James TO's amendment put.
襖略ビ某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
襖略ビ某畊莱だ秨∕
〆穦畊璝︗ぃ穦盢ㄢ兜兵ゅ睼瞔杠セ畊某ぃノだ秨だ秨よ獽癬ǎ兵ゅ常穦癬∕襖某琌箇戳Τ穦や材(1)(fa)蹿τは癸材(1)(fb)蹿
襖略ビ某畊и耕Ν玡Μ獺タ琌硂妓ぃ筁Τㄇ某瞷ぃ畊⊿Τ祇ē
〆穦畊ê獽だ秨∕
Question on the amendment to clause 8, by adding subclause (1)(fa), put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ材8兵糤干材(1)(fa)蹿ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on the amendment to clause 8, by adding subclause (1)(fb), put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ材8兵糤干材(1)(fb)蹿ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某и碞材8(2)兵矗タ材场だタず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊硂场だ琌闽羆服斗碞兵ゅ┮瓃ㄢパ牡菏穦ㄤ矗ユ厨セЫユㄤ琌8(1A)蹿┮厨硂琌и-
–Μ蹿玥琌......
畊叫拜琵иゑ耕睼睹
〆穦畊埃"竝獺宽眖赣璶―穦讽甡"τぇ"羆服靡宽眖┮矗璶―穦甡" 硂ㄇ常琌碞弄臛阶竒矗筁阶沮
襖略ビ某畊ê或и獽ぃ狡
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support the proposed amendment moved by the Honourable James TO.
The Commissioner of Police is best placed to determine whether any compliance with the requirements of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) might prejudice the security of Hong Kong or the investigation of any crime. In the event he is unable to comply with the IPCC's requirements he will, of course, explain to the IPCC on his decision. If disagree, the IPCC may make a report to the Governor who may direct the Commissioner as he sees fit.
I therefore urge Honourable Members to reject the proposed amendment.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊玂弧Τ闽牡菏穦沮材8兵τ璶―牡叭矪倒ぉㄆ﹜程続逼琌ユパ牡叭矪矪∕﹚
и辨產镑稸痙種兵ㄒ材8兵いΤㄢ翴琌и-
矗は癸材琌Τ闽紇臫翠┪甡翠玂薄猵材碞琌Τ闽秸琩ヴ︙竜︽ㄆ﹜Τ闽紇臫翠玂拜肈ㄤ龟產耕Ν玡┮臛阶兵ㄒ材11(3)兵闽玂盞拜肈兵蹿竒狦ヴ︙ㄆ兜琌穦甡翠玂ň徖┪瓣悔闽玒杠常琌パ羆服∕﹚τぃ琌パ牡叭矪矪∕﹚┮狦硂兵兵ㄒず甧琌璶璓杠碞莱赣パ羆服璽砫∕﹚ㄤΩ狦牡叭矪矪琌碞秸琩ヴ︙竜︽絫珿τ∕﹚琌宽眖材(8)兵砏﹚杠拜肈碞腨或㎡獺牡菏穦ㄆ睲贰碞琌赣计﹙ぷㄤ琌疉の嫁ゴ﹙常穦籔琘兜莱竜︽Τ闽拇弧┶┪脓牡单碞钩辩模┚某┮矗のㄒ妓狦牡叭矪矪∕﹚硂琌籔ヴ︙贺竜︽Τ闽┮牡菏穦獽ぃ秸琩┪璶―矗ユΤ闽厨ぃㄏ璶―矗ㄑ或ぃ︽硂妓杠и┤碞穦跑Θ–﹙闽嫁ゴщ禗ㄏ琌﹙牡叭矪矪ぃぉ猵兵ゅず弧琌"satisfied"⊿Τ矗のㄒ腨紇臫秸琩单惫勉
ㄤ龟牡菏穦㎝牡叭矪矪蛮よ琌穦癸琘ㄇ祘菏诡挡阶︓厨单ㄆ﹜Τぃ種ǎ或硂兵兵ゅ玱渡牡叭矪矪琵緍牡菏穦璶―㎡陪Τ闽硂拜肈琌莱赣パ蔼糷Ω耞硂讽礛碞琌羆服羆服Μ栋㎝╯牡菏穦種ǎの牡叭矪矪粄穦妓紇臫Τ闽玂の秸琩竜︽阶翴ぇ狦粄拜肈琌腨杠∕﹚牡叭矪矪礚斗宽牡菏穦璶―はぇ狦粄獶薄猵妮┪琌Τ闽竜︽籔щ禗ぃ闽玥穦∕﹚莱赣秸琩㎝蛤秈
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr IP Kwok-him claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某┮矗タ 碞材8兵埃穝糤材(1)(fa)蹿の(1)(fb)蹿ㄤタ某璶琌闽秸琩舦┮妮ぇ匡パ羆服蠢矪 ぉ硄筁
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the amendment and 29 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ26は癸29琌ガタ綝∕
Question on clauses 7 and 8, as amended, put.
竒タぇ材7の8兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr Ronald ARCULLI and Mrs Selina CHOW claimed a division.
甃ㄎ瞶某の㏄辩睶┥某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈盢材7の8兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 votes in favour of the amendment and 25 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某30は癸25琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause 9
兵ㄒ材9兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 9(2)(c) and 9(3) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
These amendments involve drafting points which we have agreed to make at the suggestion of the Bills Committee.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 9 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材9兵ǎンIII
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment put and agreed to.
玂ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
〆穦畊玂の襖略ビ某だ箇ボ览碞材9兵笆某タ赣兵糤干材(5)蹿
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶パ玂の襖略ビ某だ碞材9兵矗ぇタ赣兵糤干材(5)蹿
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶セ畊穦叫玂笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the amendment is to address the Bills Committee's concern about possible delay in the completion of the investigation of complaints by the police leading to an inability of the IPCC to fully discharge its monitoring function.
As the investigation of serious complaints invariably takes some time to complete we propose that the IPCC may ask the police for an interim report on the progress of investigation within six months to facilitate the IPCC in monitoring the investigation of such complaints.
The Administration does not support the proposed amendment to be moved by the Honourable James TO. His proposed amendment is impracticable as it refers to those matters in clause 9(2) which are specific to the final investigation report, not an interim report submitted by the Commissioner of Police.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 9 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材9兵ǎンIII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫襖略ビ某碞玂笆某ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶玂ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫襖某笆某タ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊琌竒砛и盢セ(2A)蹿э(5)癸盾и-
タ矪瞶莱琌硂兜タи琌┤ㄤ某粇穦ぃ笵瞷矪瞶琌兵
畊иタ籔現┎タ斑だиタ⊿Τ矗の牡叭矪璶或ぇずユい戳厨τ現┎タ玥琌矗璶―ら戳癬璸6るずユи粄牡菏穦┮璶―莱赣瞇籠兵ㄒ材9兵ㄤ场だ牡菏穦癸щ禗揭秸琩㎝Τ闽秈甶┮秈︽菏诡莱赣琌Τ硈砮┦狦牡菏穦礚舦璶―戈杠セ碞礚眖菏诡の狡浪Τ闽秸琩㎝秈
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment put.
玂ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊抖盿矗襖略ビ某高拜Τ闽セ┮が牟览﹚材9(2A)兵瞷材9(5)兵ㄢ玂㎝襖某常Τ種兵蹿瞷∕某肈琌材9兵糤材(5)蹿珿礚斗矗材(2)の(3)蹿い础材(2A)蹿某肈ㄢ琌某肈
略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈玂碞材9兵糤材(5)蹿ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, 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 amendment.
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 and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the Secretary for Security's amendment and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ玂タ29は癸26琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊襖略ビ某パ玂ぇタ莉硄筁ぃ笆某览某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
Question on clause 9, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材9兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 10
兵ㄒ材10兵
〆穦畊襖略ビ某の玂だ箇ボ览碞材10兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶パ襖略ビ某の玂だ碞材10兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶酚穦某盽砏材25兵(4)蹿セ畊穦叫襖略ビ某笆某タ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材10兵タず甧更祇癳ぉ︗〆ぇゅンず
Τ闽材10兵и-
耕Ν玡纯竒碞牡菏穦钡ǎ靡硂翴秈︽臛阶τ硂琌セ兵ㄒず讽璶翴┮╉よ兵ゅ﹚璶щ禗揭ユ秸琩厨牡菏穦秈︽狡浪钡ǎヴ︙靡現┎弧猭琌璝牡菏穦籔щ禗揭钡ǎ靡琌秸琩τ玡玥琌菏诡カチ┪靡碞穦τ稰睼睹
и阶沮琌材ㄓ弧埃獶赣靡矗獶盽瞶パㄓ弧狝牡菏穦〆玥牡菏穦ぃ穦牡よ秈︽秸琩钡ǎ靡и兵ㄒ〆穦穦某い纯竒庢ㄇㄒㄒ︗靡莉щ禗揭钡ǎ穦粄щ禗揭钡ǎΤ"磷碞淮"┪熬砇ぇ尔┪籛種ま旧弧琘セㄆ龟現┎讽礛穦弧ぃΤ薄猵-
琌魁紇ㄑ叫產癘魁紇诀ㄤよㄒ洛皘靡產いよ常琌ΤガЫΤ闽よ弧狝靡┪癸弧ㄇ杠璓紇臫タΑㄑ""ボㄑ赣靡ㄓ▆み祇瞷粄ㄆ薄ぃТ讽τ∕﹚璶盢ㄆ牡菏穦牡菏穦獽斗璶穦ǎ︓璶硈猭盡產絃拜靡絋﹚琌璊弧笵┪籛種篕щ禗揭硂妓牡菏穦獽璶щ禗揭魁紇盿Τ闽ㄑ场だㄓ芠獶﹚璶俱秸琩挡穦钡ǎ靡
陪現┎琌踞みス甧砛牡菏穦繦钡ǎ靡穦牡菏穦跑Θщ禗揭秨﹍獽钡ǎ┮Τ靡τぃ惠щ禗揭ЧΘい戳厨钡ǎ靡и┤ㄆ穦Τ硂よ紐納┮獽兵ゅ砏﹚牡菏穦璝璶钡ǎ靡ㄤヘ琌"for the purposes of monitoring or reviewing ......"琌菏诡┪狡浪ヘτぃ琌穝秸琩τ钡ǎ靡传杠弧и琌皐癸現┎┮キ颗秸琩硑Θ睼睹单阶沮の睦埃︗ㄆ好納τ﹚硂ㄇ兵ン
材10兵材(2)蹿矗の穦ǎ靡Τ或初τи-
臛阶纯矗の牡菏穦竨叫ㄇ盡穨芠诡┮钡ǎ靡パ牡菏穦〆钡ǎ︓琘薄猵パ牡菏穦盡穨芠诡猭臮拜┪琌盡穨秸琩钡ǎ靡ぃ筁钡ǎ靡ヘご礛琌浪癚㎝菏诡Τ闽秸琩τぃ琌璶秈︽キ颗秸琩
谅谅
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 10 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンIII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫玂碞襖略ビ某笆某某ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶襖略ビ某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫玂笆某タ襖略ビ某ぇタ莉∕ボ玂ぇ览某兵タぃ莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration objects strongly to the amendment moved by the Honourable James TO which would enable the IPCC to interview any witness after a complaint has been made.
The purpose of the interview of witness by the IPCC is to enable the IPCC to clarify areas of doubt on the part of CAPO's investigation. Without the police investigation report or at least an interim investigation report, we fail to see how this purpose could be served. Worse still, such a proposal could interfere with police investigation of the complaint, particularly if the witness is interviewed by the IPCC before the police have an opportunity to do so, or if the witness is confused about who is conducting the investigation of his complaint.
We believe our proposed amendment to enable the IPCC to interview a witness after the submission of an interim report is more appropriate and would enable the IPCC to make better use of the interview.
Mr James TO's amendments to other parts of clause 10 to enable the IPCC to designate other persons to conduct the interview is also inappropriate. The intention of the IPCC Interviewing Witness Scheme is to enable IPCC members to clarify any areas of doubt on CAPO's investigation. It would defeat the purpose if persons other than IPCC members could conduct the interview. If the IPCC decides that persons other than IPCC members should be present at the interview it can invite such persons under clause 10(2) of the Bill.
The Administration's amendments are to enable the IPCC to interview any witness after the Commissioner of Police has submitted an interim report on the progress of investigation of a complaint, unless the Commissioner is of the opinion that the interview would likely prejudice the investigation of any crime or complaint.
I believe the proposed amendments should address Members' concern while ensuring that the investigation of complaints by the police will not be impeded.
I urge Honourable Members to reject the amendments moved by the Honourable James TO and to support the Administration's amendments.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
郭Θ某璓勉畊Τ闽硂翴兵ㄒ〆穦糵某顶琿纯竒癚阶┮孔キ颗秸琩拜肈の牡菏穦㎝牡诡щ禗揭だ拜肈襖某タ牡菏穦竒筁某∕碞滦浪ヴ︙闽牡诡щ禗ヘτ钡ǎ靡硂兜兵ゅㄤ龟琌甧砛牡菏穦牡诡щ禗揭ゼ甶秨┪タ秈︽ヴ︙常Τ舦钡ǎ靡硂妓穦Τ簗瑌碞琌キ颗秸琩拜肈и讽矗ч癑よ碞琌ㄢ贺薄猵钡ǎ靡秈︽滦浪ㄤ碞琌牡诡щ禗揭竒ЧΘ﹚秸琩沮牡菏穦某∕┪璶―τユい戳厨ぇ碞琌某材9兵┮材(5)蹿┮薄猵璝牡菏穦粄ぃ骸種碞ノ某∕Α︽ㄏㄤ钡ǎカチ舦秈︽狡浪硂妓逼Ч磷┮孔キ颗秸琩拜肈琵牡菏穦㎝牡诡щ禗揭Τ絋だ碞琌睲贰ゲ斗パ牡诡щ禗揭秈︽材璶顶琿秸琩┮硂暗猭莱赣琌耕続讽現┎钡硂種ǎ某兵ㄒ材10兵糤材(1A)㎝(1B)蹿τ硂ㄢ兜兵ゅ常琌候Ι材9兵材(5)蹿パ現┎讽ЫΤ钡兵ㄒ〆穦Θ種ǎи粄硂琌続讽┮チや玂さぱ碞材10兵笆某タ谅谅畊
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и辨矗眶︗某現┎某材10兵(1A)籔(1B)琿ㄆ龟琌ぃ甧砛Τㄤ獶牡菏穦Θ虫縒穦ǎ靡传杠弧и-
耕Ν玡┮矗の矪盡穨㎝м砃獽ぃ穦ǎ靡ㄆ龟и-
琌砞稱Τㄇ薄猵琌⊿Τ牡菏穦〆初琌パ盡穨秸琩┪芠诡钡ǎ靡礛ユ厨倒牡菏穦癚阶τぃ﹚ゲ斗Τ1牡菏穦〆初
Question on Mr James TO's amendment put.
襖略ビ某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材10兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 26 votes in favour of Mr James TO's amendment and 30 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ襖略ビ某タ26は癸30琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊パ襖略ビ某碞材10兵笆某ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫玂笆某ㄤタ
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 10 can be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 10 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンIII
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment put and agreed to.
玂ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
独岸藉某璓勉畊и笆某秈˙タ材10兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊パ牡菏穦穦ǎ靡逼琌牡菏穦癸牡诡щ禗揭秸琩щ禗秈︽Τ浪癚τ蹦璶惫琁靡靡ㄑ琌璶戈牡菏穦癸щ禗耞ゲ斗糵稸╯
琵靡Ч㈱港篈ㄑ兵ㄒ〆穦某糤1兜兵ゅㄏ靡穦い┮┸臩ヴ︙戈Аぃ穦ら皐癸ㄤ猭祘Θ夯靡沮硂妓暗猭琌靡み矗ㄑΤ闽赣﹙щ禗戈
畊セ略兵ㄒ〆穦笆某タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 10 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, the Administration does not support the amendment moved by the Honourable WONG Wai-yin.
The Independent Police Complaints Council Interviewing Witness Scheme is an entirely voluntary scheme and no witness can be forced to attend the interview or to reply to any question during the interview. A witness may choose to have his lawyer present during the interview. However, we do not agree that a blanket immunity clause should be provided as this would mean that anything the witness said during the interview, including a confession to a crime which may be totally unrelated to the complaint, cannot be used against him.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
独岸藉某璓勉畊兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽糵某戳丁ゼ莉〆璓種タ常琌襖略ビ某┮某τи瞷┮笆某タ〆穦ず莉璓種┮и赖叫︗ㄆやиタ谅谅
Question on Mr WONG Wai-yin's amendment put and agreed to.
独岸藉某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 10, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材10兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 13
兵ㄒ材13兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 13 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment is made in response to the Bills Committee's suggestion that the Governor may consider causing reports other than the annual report made by the Independent Police Complaints Council to be laid in front of the Legislative Council.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 13 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材13兵ǎンIII
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 13, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材13兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 14
兵ㄒ材14兵
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材14兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊и硂兜タず甧ㄤ龟琌籔﹚ㄒΤ闽┮疉の拜肈璶琌╯澈琌莱パ羆服﹚ㄒ临琌パ牡菏穦﹚ㄒㄤ龟ㄢ璶だ碞琌╯澈琌羆服紉高〆穦ぇ临琌牡菏穦紉高羆服ぇ﹚ㄒ畊硂ㄤ龟碞琌砰拜肈現┎阶沮琌Τ闽菏诡薄猵埃瞣疉牡钉ぇ瞣疉ㄤ羆服続﹚硂ㄇㄒ兵ㄒ〆穦穦某畊產不某纯竒矗Τ阶沮ㄤ龟ㄢよАΤぃぶ猭ㄒ穿まㄒτΤㄒ庢ㄓи瞷倒產庢ㄒㄌи猭臟碞琌ㄒ臟そ﹚ㄤㄒ珹ㄆ籃玥ㄒ╉篜紆ó布碞璶籃蹿$2,000ㄆ龟硂竒琌兜ㄆ竜︽琌臟絛瞅ずㄆ竜︽臟そ琌猭﹚诀篶τ盢ㄓ牡菏穦穦妓Θ猭﹚诀篶и-
瞷ㄒ⊿Τ矗のㄆ籃玥ㄤ龟狦琌瞣疉ㄆ籃玥杠薄猵莱赣琌耕腨瞶莱赣パ笲块ㄓ﹚Τ闽ㄒ羆⊿Τ瞶パパ臟そ┪臟赋ㄆЫ﹚ぃ筁ㄆ龟玱琌パ臟赋ㄆЫ﹚硂ㄇㄆ籃玥琂礛硂妓и龟ぃフ或牡菏穦碞﹚ぃ︑︽﹚ㄒ
或и癸パ羆服﹚ㄒ穦Τ種ǎ㎡牡菏穦砫ヴ琌菏诡щ禗τΤ闽筁祘い妓笲ノㄤ舦┪﹚ㄒ常ゲ斗竒筁ミ猭Ы硄筁ㄏ羆服璶﹚猭ㄒ薄猵常琌妓ㄆ龟竒Τミ猭Ы璽砫р闽┮и㎝現┎阶沮ㄤ龟琌ゴ㎝產甡┤穦瞷垒ノ拜肈ㄤ龟琌螟硂琌Τチ匡ミ猭诀篶р闽ㄤ龟硂ㄇ常琌渤猭ずㄢ甅猭ㄤい甅粄琂礛琌猭﹚诀篶︑礛﹚︑ㄒи笵沮琘ㄇ猭ㄒㄏ琌猭﹚诀篶ぃ︑︽﹚ㄒゲ斗パ羆服﹚┮и辨產σ納牡菏穦┦借∕﹚妓∕иぃ穦粄ㄤい﹚琌癴ぃ笵┪琌パ羆服﹚ㄒ碞﹚琌膀娄ぃ癸и镑弧竒σ納拜肈┦借и粄牡菏穦吭高羆服ぇ﹚Τ闽ㄒτ程パミ猭Ы硂チ匡ミ猭诀篶р闽璓莱赣镑笷︓キ颗狦
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 14 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンIII
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I do not support the proposed amendments moved by the Honourable James TO to empower the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) to make regulations. The IPCC is part of the police complaints system and any regulations made would have an effect on the system as a whole. It would therefore be appropriate for the Governor as the authority to whom the IPCC is responsible to make the regulations having regard to the system as a whole.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材14兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊﹟ろセ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 Eric LI, 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, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Henry TANG, 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, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 votes in favour of Mr James TO's amendment and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ襖略ビ某ぇタ30は癸23琌ガタ莉硄筁
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 14 be further amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments are made to address the Bills Committee's concern to make it clear that the regulations will only be made to facilitate the IPCC to discharge its functions and duties.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 14 (See annex III)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンIII
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment put and agreed to.
玂ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 14, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材14兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
INDEPENDENT POLICE COMPLAINTS COUNCIL BILL
щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒ
SECRTARY FOR SECURITY: With regrets, Mr President, I withdraw the Independent Police Complaints Council Bill.
畊沮穦某盽砏材52兵璽砫兵ㄒ某┪そ戮ミ猭Ы穦某穦某秨﹍秈︽弄┪弄赣兵ㄒ祘ガ篗┪┿矪瞶赣兵ㄒ挪玂篗赣兵ㄒセЫぃ穦碞赣兵ㄒ秈︽ㄤ祘襖略ビ某琌砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某畊甧砛某癸現┎硂Ω篗兵ㄒ祇ē┪畊穦璶―玂秆睦︙穦ê或ぃ璽砫ヴ篗硂兵ㄒ㎡
畊程杠竒ぃ妮砏祘拜肈竒祇ēセ畊粄ぃ倒诀穦氮臛琌ぃ癸硂妓臛阶⊿Τ或種–︗某А耞∕﹚︙膥尿秈︽祘︙ぃ秈︽框狙セЫぃ碞硂拜肈膥尿癚阶
襖略ビ某砏祘拜肈
畊叫矗砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某畊┕ョΤ妓ㄒ畊ョ甧砛某碞篗兵ㄒㄆン祇ē硂珹糂ホ某︓赣ㄆ勉戮讽畊甧砛碞勉戮祇ēиぃ笵穦Τ勉戮ぃ筁畊狦⊿Τ碞祇ēи┣或硂Ω掉∕籔玡ぃ叫秆睦
畊璝琌砏祘拜肈セ畊穦掉∕法此某稱矗砏祘拜肈璝ぃ琌糤眏阶沮杠セ畊龟ぃ稱癚阶砏祘拜肈璝琌砏祘拜肈玥パセ畊ㄓ掉∕法此某稱矗琌临琌砏祘拜肈
法此某畊и稱矗砏祘拜肈и-
パさ贬10癚阶瞷425だ叫玂秆睦或現┎璶篗硂兵兵ㄒ
糂紌某畊и稱叫拜琌Τ舦沮穦某盽砏甧砛某碞硂ンㄆ臛阶硂ㄆ璶畊莱赣フ┮狦琌Τ舦杠笲ノ舦㎡谅谅
琖皇某畊и稱拜拜ぃ笵玂癸兜兵ゅぃ蔼砍璝ぃ蔼砍ヴ︙兵兵ゅ或ぃ讽獽Μ㎡瞷и-
禣丁钡临璶秈︽碭ぱ穦某临Τぃ笵临Τ或┷иぃ或快琌璶蛤㏄臂㎡
畊璝︗粄琌Τㄒセ畊斗陆琩魁琌或ㄒセ畊ぃ粄ê琌ㄒぃ璶弧セ畊硂琌ぃ甧砛臛阶セ畊璶陆琩ㄒ讽祇ネ或ㄆ薄
ぶ城某砏祘拜肈
畊セ畊稱既氨穦某琌璶干種ǎ叫矗
ぶ城某畊︓陆琩ㄒ籔ê琌︑パぃ筁琂礛Τ舦掉∕碞酚掉∕ㄓ快硂琌沮穦某盽砏τ暗礚斗陆琩
畊セ畊癘眔Τㄒ讽薄猵琌狦礛τ讽畊琌甧砛某臛阶セ畊ぃ幢﹚ㄏ讽痷硂妓セ畊穦まノㄒㄓさぱ掉∕临ゼ∕﹚瞷既氨穦某10だ牧
4.27 pm
と427だ
Sitting suspended
穦某既氨
4.40 pm
と440だ
Council then resumed.
穦某繦τ確
畊瞷確穦某セ畊陆玡魁ㄤい癘更るら糵某1994沟赌璹兵ㄒ┮祇ネㄆン
〆穦糵某顶琿い讽毙▅参膚辩ゅ胺ネ祇ē弧"狦览某璹タ〆穦糵某顶琿い莉眔硄筁и-
╆簆礚匡拒薄猵斑Τ盢セ兵ㄒ篗"讽〆穦畊叫產ê某阶碞钩妓钡琌糂ホ某祇ē程硂妓弧"辩ゅ胺ネ弧筁璝璹莉眔硄筁穦Μ硂兵ㄒ狦現┎ΩΜ硂兜兵ㄒぃ秈︽弄┪弄砆崩陆缓床禣㎝戳狝叭礚猭э到杠璝瞷硂薄猵и穦┯踞砫ヴ皑勉戮畊ネи略朝勉"
〆穦糵某顶琿糂某タ程沧莉眔硄筁弄毙▅参膚朝笵瞶挡阶"膀瓃膀セ玥иΜ硂兜兵ㄒ"钡祘⊿Τヴ︙秈甶弄篗杠獽ぃ秈˙膥尿ミ猭┮襖略ビ某弧Τㄒㄤ龟ぃタ絋⊿Τ硂妓ㄒ
襖略ビ某畊и拜拜瞷現┎粄Τㄇㄆ兜ぃ钡τ篗兵ㄒ叫拜沮穦某盽砏琌甧砛籔穦︗某笆某弄и種琌硂ぃ琌現┎兵ㄒτ跑Θ兜某兵ㄒパи-
ㄤい︗某独岸藉某ㄓ笆某弄獽êご硄筁
畊セ畊癸穦某盽砏瞶秆琌兵ㄒ秈甶琌パ穦∕﹚ㄒ弄虏嘿Ω獽セЫ秈︽弄璝竒筁〆穦糵某顶琿獽秈︽弄ヴ︙丁ず兵ㄒ常琌パ矗兵ㄒ某┪﹛┮璽砫璶Μ杠ㄤ琌ぃ穖筁ㄓ瞷穦某盽砏э瞶阶ㄢ薄猵篗ㄆ龟ョ祇甶Τ薄猵篗и-
弄獽ミㄨ秈︽弄讽Τま秈Α弄┮竒筁祇甶弄琌斑顶琿祘秨﹍丁篗兵ㄒ框狙и-
ぃ┮腀ㄓ快瞶
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I would like to seek clarification on the Standing Orders. Is there any necessity of giving notification before the Bill can be withdrawn at the Third Reading?
畊セ畊弄Τ闽兵ゅ琌礚斗箇セ畊弄筂"璽砫兵ㄒ某┪そ戮ミ猭Ы穦某穦某秨﹍秈︽ぃ琌穦某秨﹍玡τ琌穦某秨﹍秈︽弄┪弄赣兵ㄒ祘ガ篗┪┿矪瞶赣兵ㄒ"セ畊砛ノ璣ゅ弄筂"The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, by announcement in Council at the beginning of proceedings for its second or third reading, withdraw or postpone the bill." ┮硂琌ぃ斗竒箇
糂紌某琌砏祘拜肈
糂紌某畊闽и拜砏祘拜肈沮穦某盽砏琵и-
秈︽臛阶硂ンㄆ琌獶盽碔阶┦и-
ョ辨玂ミ猭Ы秆睦︙璶硂妓暗⊿Τ氮и拜肈谅谅畊
畊セ畊纯掉∕セ畊ぃび腀種碞讽璶拜肈僚箇τ甧砛某矗兜龟借某
眎ゅ某畊и讽礛フ掉∕瞶沮┪芠翴叫畊σ納翴璶ㄆ兜τ皍薄矪瞶產常笵さぱ穦某琌ミ猭Ыるらぇ玡程穦某传杠弧さぱи-
Τ芠翴狦ぃ甧砛臛阶杠и-
讽いΤ讽计ヘ某琌礚诀穦某穦臛阶ぃ钩筁и-
Τㄇ某Τ诀穦矗┮и辨畊σ納穦硂或疭τ甧砛и-
Τ癚阶诀穦
畊砛硂妓Τㄇㄆ薄琌ゑ耕甧秆∕拇弧–Ω穦某莱Τぶ某臛阶斗酚ず叭〆穦玥快薄猵さぱ穦某挡ぱ玡蛤セ畊酵稱快猭秆∕
襖略ビ某畊и蛤秈糂紌某拜肈弧獶盽ぃ腀種僚⊿Τ箇祇ē┪臛阶叫畊σ納玂さぱ⊿Τ箇沮掉∕Τ舦硂妓暗Τ舦拜肈琌êㄆン琌祇ネ琌祇ㄆン
畊襖略ビ某セ畊竒弧筁ぃ琌⊿Τ快猭璝璶掉∕杠ぃ琌硂穦穦某芔τ琌蛤セ畊癚阶よΑㄓ秈︽璝璶セ畊ミㄨ掉∕セ畊琌ぃ腀種暗璝︗璶セ畊σ納硂ンㄆ杠セ畊琌σ納璶セ畊ミㄨ∕﹚玥セ畊龟ぃ腀種硂妓暗
ッ笷某穦某盽砏材68兵"ㄣΤ既氨磅︽琘兵穦某盽砏ヘ┪某埃獶ㄆ玡箇┪竒ミ猭Ы畊種玥ぃ眔笆某"传ēぇ畊ЧΤ舦既氨磅︽穦某盽砏琘兵兵ゅ┪┮Τ兵ゅ┮и叫―瞷既氨磅︽穦某盽砏┮Τ兵ゅ结ぉи-
舦琵и-
瞷笆某臛阶Τ闽玂瞷篗弄琌続讽σ納㎡琌Τ硂舦
畊叫弧筂セ畊ぃフ琌まノ岿材68兵
ッ笷某畊沮材68兵產琌Τ舦既氨磅︽琘兵┪场穦某盽砏┮и璶―笲ノミ猭Ы畊舦ゼΤㄆ箇薄猵既氨磅︽琘兵┪场穦某盽砏琵结ぉミ猭Ы舦そ秨臛阶玂礛篗弄某谅谅畊
畊材68兵ぃ琌硂種材68兵種琌セ畊僚箇戳甧砛某矗某既氨磅︽琘兵盽砏笷琘ヘぃ琌パ畊既氨磅︽盽砏セ畊琌⊿Τ硂舦
ッ笷某畊ê或и叫―僚и-
箇戳┪襖略ビ某箇戳既氨磅︽场穦某盽砏ㄏи-
碞玂篗弄硂ンㄆ秈︽臛阶硂某璝琌パ襖略ビ某矗杠琌⊿Τ箇⊿Τ箇杠琌Τ舦琵ゼΤ箇τ笆某某谅谅畊
畊セ畊辨ぃ琌硂妓矗セ畊氮糂紌某纯弧筁セ畊ぃ腀種僚箇戳Ω祇ネセ畊璶僚箇戳ㄓ既氨磅︽穦某盽砏セ畊琌ぃ腀種癸龟借某セ畊ぃ腀種璶セ畊暗ㄢ˙ひ材琌璶セ畊琌僚箇戳ㄏ某笆某兜某ㄓ既氨磅︽琘兵穦某盽砏砛セ畊琌痷Τ舦僚箇戳琵笆某兜龟借某ㄢセ畊琌ぃ腀種暗セ畊弧筁セ畊σ納叫ぃ璶璶―セ畊硂穦某ミㄨ氮滦┪ぃ
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, is it in order for a Member to make a request off the chair after we adjourn the sitting today to have a motion debate on the matters that have been related to by some of our colleagues without adequate notice during this sitting?
PRESIDENT: I have said to that effect.
襖略ビ某畊и辨┮弧杠ㄓσ納┪硂碭ぱи-
﹟穦庢︽穦某戳丁弧σ納挡狦
畊セ畊竒弧
襖略ビ某и穦タΑビ叫
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, in the precedent that you have cited, the Secretary on that occasion had given certain explanations for withdrawal. I wonder if under the present Standing Orders, Mr President, you could invite the Secretary to at least inform this Council of his reasons for withdrawing the Bill.
畊弧┪弧ぶ弧眔Τ笵瞶┪⊿笵瞶琌ぃパ畊掉耞弧量笵瞶ぃ镑璶量ㄇ硂ぃ琌セ畊Τ舦暗弧眔び穦獶某弧璶璽癬砫ヴê琌砫ヴ弧眔びぶ獶某琌砫ヴ硂ぃパ畊掉∕セ畊獽璶ざ現獀耞
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I understand that. But I do wouder if the Secretary has given any reason at all. So it is just an invitation to him to give any reason that he considers appropriate.
畊セ畊盢跌叫―叫セ畊σ納セ畊ぃ穦さぱミㄨ∕﹚
糂紌某畊иフ弧ぃ稱瞷∕﹚┪狦ㄆΤ某矗┪穦σ納琌ぱ┪或琵и-
臛阶ぃ筁и獺穦フ瞷竤薄撮產常辨Θ癚阶よ瞶沮產瞷癘眔睲贰┮籔ㄤ弧琵и-
ぱ臛阶ぃ瞷硉驹硉∕琵и-
е翴рㄆ薄Ч挡畊и琌硂妓辨и獺穦琵и-
ぱ臛阶
畊糂紌某セ畊瞷掉∕琌パ兵ㄒ竒篗弄臛阶琌ぃ秈︽璝︗璶―臛阶硂ンㄆ┪叫玂秆睦杠硂ㄇ璶―ユ倒セ畊σ納セ畊ぃ穦ミㄨσ納セ畊璶既氨穦某琌襖略ビ某弧Τㄒセ畊坚睲祇谋ぃ琌ㄒ璝璶硉驹硉∕叫︗ぃ璶酵砏祘拜肈τ琌酵酵︗粄妓逼程瞶硂薄猵セ畊掉∕セ畊粄硂妓逼程瞶璝︗ぃ骸種硂逼產常ぃ膥尿弧玥獽琌癸セ畊掉∕蝶阶τ璝璶蝶阶セ畊掉∕ゲ斗矗龟借某璝セ畊甧砛產矗砏祘拜肈常琌摸拜肈杠ê硂ミ猭Ы獽ぃ穦Τ砏痻
ッ笷某畊и稱坚睲Τ闽穦某盽砏材69兵赣兵ゅ弧"癸セ穦某盽砏ずゼΤ砏﹚ㄆ﹜ミ猭Ы┮斗宽碻よΑの祘パミ猭Ы畊∕﹚ミ猭Ы畊粄続讽把酚璣瓣某皘篋ㄒの祘矪瞶"盽弧ぬ吹.宾篋ㄒи稱叫拜畊穦丁硂ぬ吹.宾篋ㄒい纯Τ某皘現┎﹛篗笆某ぇ琵某皘Θ臛阶谅谅畊
畊セ畊穦σ納セ畊﹚穦暗硂˙ま瓃材69兵琌癸ま瓃材68兵琌Чま岿瞷穦某膥尿
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BILL
戳菏窽籃滦兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 19 March 1997
確るら笆某弄臛阶
MR RONALD ARCULLI: As Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Long-term Prisons Sentences Review Bill, I wish to report to Honourable Members the major issues discussed by the Bills Committee on this Bill.
The purpose of this bill is to make statutory provision for the composition and functions of the Long-term Prisons Sentences Review Board in place of the existing Administrative arrangements for review of long-term prison sentences, including detention at her Majesty's pleasure, carried out by the Board of Review (Long-term Prison Sentences).
Under the Administration's proposals in reviewing the sentences for three existing categories of prisoners, namely, HMP prisoners, young murderers sentenced to mandatory life sentence since 1993, and other discretionary life prisoners, the Chief Justice would make recommendations to the Governor for approval on the appropriate minimum punitive term to be served.
The prisoner is provided with an opportunity to make written representations to the Governor on the minimum punitive term to be set before the Governor takes a final decision. At the end of the minimum term the Board would consider making recommendations to the Governor on whether the prisoners' sentences should be changed. For discretionary life cases sentenced after the commencement of this bill, the trial judge would specify in open court as part of the discretionary sentence a punitive minimum term to be served and would submit a written report to the Governor setting out any special considerations or circumstances to be taken into account in future reviews.
To provide greater fairness to existing prisoners serving discretionary life sentences or HMP prisoners, the Administration has agreed to the suggestion of the Bills Committee of providing the prisoner an opportunity to make written representation to the Chief Justice for the Chief Justice to take into account when
making recommendations. This is in addition to the prisoner's opportunity to make representations to the Governor. The Administration will, during the Committee stage, move an amendment to this effect.
To bring in line with the treatment accorded to new cases, the Administration has agreed in response to the Bills Committee to add a provision to require that the Chief Justice's report to the Governor in respect of existing discretionary life sentence cases should set out any special considerations or circumstances to be taken into account in future reviews. The relevant amendments will be introduced by the Administration.
As regards the Committee's other suggestion of providing an appeal channel for existing prisoners aggrieved by the decision of the Governor on the length of the minimum term similar to that for new cases, the Administration has explained that the differential in treatment in respect of existing cases and new cases is inevitable since the trial and sentencing in respect of the existing cases are over.
When the Governor determines the minimum terms for existing cases his decisions are administrative and cannot be subject to the appeal mechanism applicable to the judicial decisions in the new cases. Since a prisoner would now be given two opportunities to make representations, there are sufficient safeguards to protect the interests of the prisoner. Further appeal channel is therefore unnecessary. The Committee accepts the Administration's explanation.
The Bills Committee is concerned whether it is practical for the statutory Board to conduct review on the sentences of the prisoners as provided under the bill, particularly now that the Board would be given new powers to order post-release supervision and conditional release under supervision without compromising the quality of review. The Administration has explained to us how the existing Board of Review long-term sentences operates. I hope the Board could, in the light of experience, review its mode of operation and conduct more meetings if necessary.
The Administration will be working on the regulations for the carrying out of the purposes of the Bill. They will be subject to the Legislative Council approval by resolution. An amendment to this effect will be made by the Administration. The Committee is concerned about the timetable to implement these regulations. In this regard, I should be glad if the Secretary for Security could say a few words on his plan.
In response to the Committee's concern, the Administration has clarified that the courts ruling of a recent judicial review case brought by an HMP prisoner does not affect the proposals in the bill. Arising from this particular case, the Administration has conducted a fresh review of twenty HMP cases. I am glad to know that as a result, four HMP prisoners were granted release on licence and two had their indeterminate sentences commuted to determinate sentence. The remaining cases will continue to be reviewed regularly by the Board. To ensure that the arrangements for their release are consistent with the provisions in the bill, the Administration will move an amendment deeming these released prisoners to have been conditionally released under the bill.
I wish to thank the Administration for taking on board many of the suggestions put forward by Members of the Committee. The Committee stage amendments to be moved by the Administration is a concerted effort of Members and the Administration.
Mr President, with these remarks and subject to the agreed amendments to be made by the Secretary, I commend this Bill to the Council.
辩模┚某璓勉畊デ竜莱赣続讽胓籃琌礚穦は癸ぃ筁瞷穦竒禫ㄓ禫種醚倒ぉデ┪デ竜︑и穝诀穦и獶盽や﹚戳滦デ戳荷秖薄猵硓筁Τ兵ン睦单よ猭蠢窽よ猭兵ㄒ┮矗某タ琌绰硂ゅよ祇甶硂琌眔﹚
ぃ筁碞某い猭﹚戳菏窽籃滦〆穦笲㎝舱Θよи粄ご礛ΤぃぶよΤэ到
и程踞み琌〆穦眔ì镑や穿┦戈方Τ滦渤戳菏窽瞷滦〆穦–3る秨穦Ω–Ω穦某璶矪瞶110﹙–Ω穦某璶矪瞶ê或秖獺〆穦矪瞶祘跑Θ琌"ǐ皑"セ礚快猭瞏╯–﹙縒疭薄猵刚拜硂妓秈︽滦癸滦琌そキ㎡〆穦狦琌–Ω穦某郎ゅンτぃ琌龟秆滦デ猵ゲ礛瑈"酵"︑礛だぃ瞶稱滦瞋"ǐ筁初"ㄒ︽そㄆи玃叫現┎粄痷σ納拜肈ら璹ミ妮猭ㄒの猭﹚〆穦タΑ舱Θ硓筁璹ミ絋τ腨滦祘絋玂滦琌"龟借滦"τぃ琌ǐ筁初現┎ョ莱赣σ納硓筁糤〆穦や穿Τ矪瞶秖滦
碞〆穦Θ舱и琌舧玂钡兵ㄒ〆穦某璹兵ㄒ材6(2)兵璹〆穦斗程ぶΤ1睦э筁︑穝よㄣΤ盡穨醚㎝竒喷Θи獺禫硂摸戳眖ㄆ睦ヴ滦〆穦Θ盢穦滦ΤΘи辨讽Ыら〆ヴ〆穦Θ荷〆ヴㄇΤ闽よΤ竒喷
畊兵ㄒ埃穦ら﹚矪瞶よΑの滦籃诀穦盢筁竒砆Τ竜璝摸デ珹"单璣祇辅"獵ぶデ单﹚穝籃滦诀τи程闽猔琌︙Τ程е丁ず硂ㄇ竒砆戳窽デ﹚絋戳翠舦猭兵ㄒ材5(4)兵砏﹚"ヴ︙秂┪╇窽τ砆管︑パΤ舦羘叫猭皘矗糵ǔ硉∕﹚ㄤ╇窽琌猭妮獶猭莱睦"и谋眔瞷23﹙砆戳窽单璣祇辅獵竜デ陪笻は舦猭璶―ǔ硉∕﹚╇窽戳砏﹚
兵ㄒ某砆獵垦炳デ珹紀埃玡А莱矪瞶"埃皍薄矪沧ō菏窽畊猭﹛ョ斗碞┮Τ单祇辅某続讽ゲ斗狝戳τ某穦ユパ羆服у礛戳窽滦浪〆穦獽滦-
σ納-
莱ゲ斗狝戳骸莉睦夯"
兵ㄒ某礚好赣уデ﹚耕睲捶诀獽戳滦某ごΤぃìぇ矪眔╯
癸ぷㄤ琌单璣祇辅獵ぶ竜デ兵ㄒ礚砏﹚畊猭﹛某続戳ユ羆服程沧∕﹚玡倒ぉ紇臫畊猭﹛朝瓃舦眔猔種琌現┎某らン盢パ糵猭﹛∕﹚戳硂盢ㄏ砆镑ミ碞砆戳莱赣琌ぶ朝瓃狦玡玱⊿Τ畊猭﹛戳某玡倒ぉ紇臫朝瓃舦礚好硑Θぃそキ瞷禜ㄆ龟管紇臫掉∕讽Ы碞ㄤ戳祏矗種ǎビ禗の矗ㄑヴ︙搭σ納诀穦硂盢穦腨笻は"︑礛そ竡"玥闽硂翴иだ舧玂盢穦〆穦糵某顶琿笆某タㄏデΤ诀穦畊猭﹛矗ユ朝瓃ㄏ畊猭﹛某σ納Τ闽芠翴
и闽猔材拜肈琌兵ㄒ某砞ミ"ゲ斗狝戳"τ戳窽滦浪〆穦骸∕﹚琌睦赣竜デ硂逼癸獵竜デ戳辨э筁︑穝礚好琌ゴ阑и獺獵籔Θ竜デぇ┮璶跋だ璶琌獵竜デデ竜み醇ゼΘ剪穦莱矗ㄑ诀穦ㄏ-
Τ诀穦э筁︑穝珿狦滦浪〆穦粄-
絋礹э玡獶τ莱ぉ矗Ν睦猭ㄒ莱倒ぉ诀穦τ獺硂ョぃ穦癸そ渤篶Θи辨ら龟悔笲戳窽滦浪〆穦莱赣紆┦矪瞶穦"ゲ斗狝戳"ずョσ納ら︽現﹛某倒ぉデ矗Ν莉睦诀穦
程綝窽禬筁19τ单璣祇辅"ぶデ"猭滦Θ蔼单猭皘掉∕まノㄆ禗砠祘兵ㄒ翠猭ㄒ材221彻材70(3)兵璶―羆服钡倒ぉ㏑ボ︙の︙贺兵ン睦赣单砆"ぶデ"琍戳羆服碸﹚眃ガ竒σ納赣20﹙Τ4︗莉Τ兵ン睦ㄢ﹚㏕﹚戳ㄤ緇14﹙玥璶单セЫ硄筁硂兵兵ㄒ穝猭ㄒ﹚㏕﹚戳и谋眔硂妓矪瞶ㄤ龟ぃ讽よㄏセЫさぱ抖硄筁硂兵兵ㄒи獺穦硄筁硂兵ㄒ︙龟琁Τ闽某ご琌ゼぇ计赣〆穦ご舱Θ顶琿玥琂礛赣у獵ぶデ琌"单璣祇辅"竡綝窽玥翠現┎Τ砫ヴΤ笵竡ミ蹦︽笆疭舦耴玡秆∕硂у"单祇辅"τ砆窽ぶデ玥盢"单璣祇辅"拜肈痙倒舦耴い瓣い瓣現┎疭琌疭跋現┎ご礛瞶ぃиョ踞み疭跋現┎Θミぇパ︽現羉ぃ穦纔矪瞶硂у"ぶデ"拜肈и辨現┎稸σ納硂拜肈
ぃ筁礚阶琌︙贺よ猭и斑辨琌赣у獵ぶデ痷镑Νら莉-
絋龟戳埃-
の-
產ㄓ㎝仓るㄓ紐納
畊セ略朝勉や览兵ㄒ
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the Bill before us seeks to further enhance the transparency, efficiency and fairness of our prison sentence review and remission system. It will ensure, among other things, that the procedures for reviewing the long-term prison sentences are governed by statutory procedures. These improvements will benefit prisoners and their families, as well as the whole community.
I am grateful to the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI and members of the Bills Committee for the time and care they took to study the Bill since it was introduced into this Council in March. They have made very useful suggestions, which helped us improve the Bill in a number of areas.
Mr Ronald ARCULLI has just summed up the views of the Bills Committee, which the Administration generally accepts. The Bills Committee has also forwarded to us comments from The Hong Kong Bar Association, the Society for The Rehabilitation of Offenders Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Christian Kun Sun Association Limited. We have carefully considered these organizations' views and have reflected them in the Bill as far as possible.
I should also mention that arising from a fresh review of the cases of 20 prisoners serving sentences at Her Majesty's pleasure by the Governor, four of them have been released on licence pursuant to the repealed section 70(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. However, as this section did not set out in detail the release arrangements, we had to rely on the provisions on conditional release in the Bill as guidelines for implementing their release. One of the concerns of The Hong Kong Bar Association was how their release could tie in with the Bill. To address this concern, we have, with the agreement of the Bills Committee, included a Committee stage amendment deeming persons released on licence under section 70(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance to have been conditionally released under the proposed legislation.
Regarding the outcome of the fresh reviews, I should point out that the reviews followed the same procedures as the regular reviews undertaken by the Board of Review, Long Term Prison Sentences, but with an additional option considered, which is release on licence pursuant to section 70(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance. The final decision taken by the Governor was based on recommendations from the Board, which considered a range of factors in the review process, including the nature of the offence, the prisoner's progress and prospects in terms of rehabilitation, the need to protect the community from possible harm that could be inflicted by the prisoner, and so forth. The Board also considered all the relevant reports concerning the prisoners, and all the representations and petitions submitted by the prisoners themselves and by other people on their behalf. The cases of HMP prisoners still serving indeterminate sentences will continue to be reviewed by the Board on a regular basis. Within six months after the commencement of the proposed legislation, the minimum terms of HMP prisoners with indeterminate sentences will be determined. Mr President, notwithstanding the different views between the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung and the Administration, let me take the opportunity to express my admiration for the untiring efforts of Mr LEUNG to speak for these HMP cases.
The principal amendments in respect of the Bill which I will propose at the Committee stage are:
(a) firstly, to specify that at least one member of the statutory Board must be a person who has expertise and experience in the rehabilitation of prisoners;
(b) secondly, to require the statutory Board to also consider, in the review process, whether the prisoner has served the punitive part of his sentence;
(c) thirdly, to repeal rule 69A of the Prison Rules, which provides a statutory basis for regular reviews of prison sentences, and to re-establish this statutory basis in the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Ordinance;
(d) fourthly, to give the prisoners concerned at least 14 days, rather than seven days, to look at the relevant materials to be considered by the statutory Board;
(e) fifthly, to state explicitly that persons released on licence under the repealed section 70(3) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance are deemed to have been conditionally released under the proposed legislation;
(f) sixthly, to stipulate that the associated Regulations would be subject to the approval of the Legislative Council;
(g) seventhly, to empower the Governor to remove any member from the statutory Board who has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment, irrespective of the length of imprisonment;
(h) eighthly, to allow prisoners to make written representations both before the Chief Justice makes recommendations on the minimum terms of their sentences and before the Governor takes a final view; and
(i) ninthly, to specify that when the Chief Justice makes recommendations to the Governor on the minimum terms, he should also set out any special considerations or circumstances to be taken into account in future reviews.
The Bills Committee has suggested the possibility of including provisions on oral representations. The proposed Bill does not itself provide for oral hearings but it allows prisoners to make written representations before their cases are reviewed by the statutory Board. The existing Board has been consulted on whether oral hearing procedures should be adopted in the review proceedings. The Board considers that oral hearings represent a major departure from the existing practice, and we should examine all the relevant issues carefully before deciding on the best way to proceed. The Board is also concerned that there are already a number of new elements in the Bill and the Board will need time to make a transition to the new mode of operation. Therefore, they have suggested that we should deal with the question of making further provision for oral hearings in slower time, after the primary legislation has been enacted and after the Board has been given some time to adjust to the new mode of operation. Moreover, section 12(5) would give the statutory Board a discretion to allow oral representations in particular cases. In other words, the existing Board believes in a step-by-step approach and is of the view that the statutory Board should have the discretion to introduce oral hearings in a gradual manner. We agree with the Board's view.
I understand that the Bills Committee has also expressed concern on when the Regulations will be made. Let me assure Honourable Members that we are giving priority to the preparation of the Regulations, with a view to completing the drafting work in about August and submitting the Regulations to the legislature as soon as possible thereafter if possible by September or October.
Mr President, I recommend the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Bill to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BILL
戳菏窽籃滦兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 16 to 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28 to 33, 35, 36, 37, 39 to 42, 44 and 45 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材135791016︓202224252628︓3335363739︓4244の45兵莉眔硄筁
Clauses 2, 4, 6, 8, 11 to 15, 21, 23, 27, 34, 38 and 43
兵ㄒ材246811︓152123273438の43兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 2, 4, 6, 8, 11 to 15, 21, 23, 27, 34, 38 and 43 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments contain the principal improvements to the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Bill which I have already referred to in the Second Reading Debate. 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
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンIV
Clause 4 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンIV
Clause 6 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材6兵ǎンIV
Clause 8 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンIV
Clause 11 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材11兵ǎンIV
Clause 12 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材12兵ǎンIV
Clause 13 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材13兵ǎンIV
Clause 14 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンIV
Clause 15 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材15兵ǎンIV
Clause 21 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材21兵ǎンIV
Clause 23 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材23兵ǎンIV
Clause 27 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材27兵ǎンIV
Clause 34 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材34兵ǎンIV
Clause 38 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材38兵ǎンIV
Clause 43 (See annex IV)
兵ㄒ材43兵ǎンIV
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 2, 4, 6, 8, 11 to 15, 21, 23, 27, 34, 38 and 43, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材246811︓152123273438の43兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Schedules 1 and 2
1の2
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The amendments contain other improvements to the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Bill which I have already referred to in the Second Reading debate. 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
览某タず甧
Schedule 1 (See annex IV)
1ǎンIV
Schedule 2 (See annex IV)
2ǎンIV
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Schedules 1 and 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ1の2ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
玂厨孔
LONG-TERM PRISON SENTENCES REVIEW BILL
戳菏窽籃滦兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BILL
ㄆㄆ﹜が猭兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 April 1997
確るら笆某弄臛阶
MR ERIC LI: Mr President, no one can question the aim of enhancing inter-government co-operation in the fight against serious cross border crimes.
It is the scope of this Bill and the very broad terms in which it was originally drafted that has given rise to concern from the accounting profession and others, for example, the Hong Kong Association of Banks.
In principle, the Hong Kong Society of Accountants believes that tax investigations should be excluded from the scope of mutual legal assistance legislation and treaty agreements. Enforcement of tax laws is very much a domestic matter. Tax regimes differ widely throughout the world. Hong Kong is acknowledged to have a straightforward, uncomplicated regime which does not impose taxation on its citizens on a worldwide basis. At the same time, countless foreign nationals and foreign corporations have chosen to live and invest here because of our simple, readily-understandable tax system in operation. These investments have brought significant contribution to Hong Kong's growing prosperity. There are significant dangers inherent in giving assistance to enforcing foreign tax laws in Hong Kong which could have implications for Hong Kong's attractiveness as a place to invest.
Given the simple, domestically-oriented tax system we have here, I am convinced that Hong Kong has more to lose then to gain in opening the door to "possible fishing expeditions" in the territory by foreign governments against their taxpayers. This is why I argued for matters relating to tax investigations to be taken out of the Bill and, in principle, for mutual assistance in tax matters to be considered separately by competent tax authorities and professionals rather than diplomats, where the pros and cons can be more carefully evaluated and balanced. This is in fact the more common international practice.
However, the accounting profession recognizes that the constraints of time and of certain recently signed agreements in mutual legal assistance have put considerable pressure both on the Bills Committee and the Administration. I therefore accept that, under the circumstances, the Government has taken sufficient steps through the Committee stage amendments to preserve and protect as far as possible the existing level of confidentiality in communications between tax advisers, auditors and their clients. The accounting profession welcome these proposals and, although they do not go as far as we originally proposed, that is, to reintroduce the same proposed Committee stage amendments of the Administration for the now withdrawn Evidence (Amendment) Bill which would have the effect of disapplying the whole Bill to tax investigations.
Notwithstanding the above, I would still wish to register concern in respect of a few aspects of the Bill that may need to be reviewed at the earliest possible time in future.
Both the Hong Kong Society of Accountants and the Law Society expressed concern about the low threshold for what constitutes an "external offence" and an "external serious offence" in relation to which a request from another government for assistance will be triggered. Much of the Bill depends on these definitions because it is an investigation into or prosecution of such offences that could lead to witnesses being compelled to give evidence, to disclose confidential material, or to premises being searched or property being seized and sent out of Hong Kong.
Originally an "external serious offence" was defined as an "external offence punishable with imprisonment for more than 12 months or any greater punishment". Following representations to the Bills Committee, the threshold has been increased to a maximum penalty of not less than 24 months (or death). There is concern that external offences which carry a maximum prison term of 24 months may not necessary be the kinds of major international crime that warrant the invoking of the extensive and strong powers of this Bill. As regards the definition of "external offence" which is a sufficient trigger point for many of the provisions of this Bill to be employed, this has not been amended and remains simply "an offence against a law of place outside Hong Kong". While there are certain safeguards in the Bill, for example, against self-incrimination and to discourage investigations which are primarily "fishing expeditions", I believe there is still a need to sound this note of caution.
Another point that should be noted is that the Bill provides no specific protection for innocent third parties whose property is transmitted overseas for the purposes of evidence, where that property is subsequently damaged or lost. It is true that the Committee stage amendments will make it harder for a requesting party to demand that the original of a thing be sent overseas. The Attorney General will need to be satisfied that the original rather than a duplicate is essential, and he or she will be able to require an unqualified undertaking that, if sent, the original will be returned at the conclusion of proceedings. However, this does not address in full all the concerns expressed. Apart from the issue of loss or damage, proceedings following an investigation may, of course, drag on for a very considerable long time.
Finally, there are various places in the Bill where the Attorney General is given the discretion to determine a very important issues, for example, under clause 15(9) in relation to the disclosure of information that is bound by a secrecy obligation or duty of confidentiality under other legislation or elsewhere. Under a Committee stage amendment, the Attorney General must determine first whether it is in the public interest of Hong Kong to override existing secrecy provisions. Also, under clause 5(1), the Attorney General must refuse a request for assistance if, in his or her opinion, it is of a particular kind or would be likely to lead to certain consequences. Examples are if the request relates to "an offence of a political character" or if "the granting of the request would seriously impair the essential interests of Hong Kong".
While the Administration has assured us that such decisions by the Attorney General would be subject to judicial review (and while I would, in any case, hesitate to question the judgement of the Attorney General), concern was nevertheless expressed that it would be of more comfort if a specific appeal to the Court against such decisions was provided for in the Bill.
Mr President, the present Bill in front of the Council is by no means a perfect one. But given its worthy aim and the unusual circumstances. I will support the resumption of the Second Reading of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Bill, with these additional remarks and notes of caution, Mr President.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, whilst I agree that as a responsible member of the international finance and commercial fraternity, Hong Kong should play its role in giving and indeed receiving legal assistance in criminal matters, however, there are two areas that are of particular concern to the Liberal Party.
The first involves the giving of mutual legal assistance during an investigation stage of a criminal case. The concern here, Mr President, is that we must guard against fishing expeditions by authorities outside Hong Kong. We are told that we need not have such fears simply because our system of criminal justice, under the common law, is somewhat different from those countries that operate under their own criminal code. In those instances the investigation process is part of the prosecution procedure. Mr President, I simply want to put a marker down of the Liberal Party's concern. We caution against any enlargement of the definition of "criminal matter" in the Bill.
The second point, Mr President, involves the scope of any mutual legal assistance agreement. By scope I mean the type of criminal offences included in any mutual legal assistance agreement. Of particular concern is the inclusion in any such agreement of any matters involving taxation or revenue matters.
We have been shown, for instance, a copy of the agreement already entered into by the Hong Kong and the United States Governments which has yet to be ratified by this Council. However, as presently advised, I would need an awful lot of persuasion for me to vote in favour of the Hong Kong/United States MLA agreement as it includes taxation, duties or other revenue matters. I would be extremely reluctant to expose our community, our businesses, our banks for instance, and our professional people to the rigours of a request for assistance in a run-of-the-mill tax offence or any similar type of offence from the United States.
Mr President, Mr Eric LI has spoken with great eloquence on the tax and other issues and I do not propose to repeat his arguments. However, as a lawyer, I cannot say I share his level of confidence but I do take some comfort in the fact that this Council will be the guardian of Hong Kong's overall interests.
With those remarks, Mr President, we support the Second Reading of the Bill.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I support the Second Reading of the Bill. I should like to elaborate on one point in the speech of the Honourable James TO as Chairman of the Bills Committee. I refer to the question of the right of silence. This right has been recently confirmed in the Court of Appeal.
Under the common law system in Hong Kong, a person does not have to answer any question by a police officer or any other officer investigating a crime if he does not wish to do so. He does not have to make any statement. Of course, he cannot be compelled to answer a question if it tends to incriminate him. But whether or not it tends to incriminate him, he does not have to answer the question unless he wishes to do so. This is his right of silence. When he is called as a witness in the trial, it is somewhat different. He may be compelled to answer all relevant questions unless the answer tends to incriminate him.
This right of silence is preserved under the present Evidence Ordinance which allows a foreign authority to make a request to the Attorney General to take evidence from a person in Hong Kong because he can only do so if criminal proceedings have started to take place or are likely to take place. The person who is compelled to give evidence for a foreign court has the same right as if he is giving evidence for a court in Hong Kong, that is, he may be compelled to answer all relevant questions except when they tend to incriminate him.
The problem created by this Bill arises from the fact that it allows evidence to be taken for a foreign authority at the investigating stage, whereas one cannot be compelled to answer any questions at this stage in Hong Kong. Now, one can only refuse to do so if the answer itself is incriminating. This is a diminishment of his right of silence. Moreover, it creates the anomaly that where a person does not have to answer the questions of a Hong Kong police officer he does have to answer those of a foreign investigating authority.
Mr President, we are told that this right of silence is not a huge right. Apart from the right against self-incrimination what remains may not mean very much. Nevertheless, there we have a right and it is entitled to protection. Further, while the right may be restricted by law if there is sufficient justification, we have to first assure ourselves that it is fully justified and that effect of the restriction is reduced to a minimum. Obviously, it is important for Hong Kong's public interests to establish international and mutual legal assistance to deal with crime.
I am glad to say that in the end an acceptable solution has been found, and I commend the diligence and ingenuity of the Administration team. Mr President, as reported by Mr James TO, the proposed safeguards include the following:
(a) a person questioned will be protected by all the protections available to him in a trial proceeding in Hong Kong, including against self-incrimination;
(b) he cannot be compelled to give any evidence which he cannot be compelled to give under the law of the foreign jurisdiction from which a request is made;
(c) the evidence which is taken can only be used for the prior specified investigation of the foreign authority and cannot be used in Hong Kong in any way or for any proceedings at all, criminal, civil or disciplinary, save for perjury and contempt of court in respect of the evidence he gives;
(d) where his safety or interests justifies it, the court may order to have the evidence taken in camera.
With these safeguards, even if the right of silence is not left intact, at least very little of practical significance to the person concerned is given away.
Mr President, I would urge Members to support the Bill and all of the amendments the Administration will be moving at the Committee stage.
Thank you, Mr President.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊セ略ㄆㄆ﹜が猭兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ某蹲厨兵ㄒ〆穦糵某筁祘㎝挡狦
兵ㄒヘ琌璹ミ猭ㄒ碞翠㎝猭恨烈跋﹛ㄆㄆ﹜が矗ㄑ㎝眔砏恨
兵ㄒ〆穦〆炊筂钡讽Ы絋Τ惠璶籔汲防竜︽ョ粄翠ㄑ舦莱莉眔だ玂毁斗絋玂ì镑玂臔兵ㄒ〆穦吭高翠畍穦㎝翠穦璸畍そ穦ぇ纯竒籔讽Ы秈︽ぞ癚阶╯莱赣ノ或よ猭ㄓ絋玂玂絧纐舦ぃ穦綝獻デ疭琌êㄇ斗璶秸琩顶琿ㄑ
某眏秸穦痲㎝ㄑ玂絧纐舦ㄢぇ丁ゲ斗眔瞶キ颗讽Ы癸某矗闽猔ㄆ兜縩伐莱兵ㄒず璹玂毁惫琁ㄑ矗ㄑ玂毁沮硂ㄇ肂玂毁兵ゅ砏﹚ㄑ咎虑翠猭ち瞷Τ舦┶荡氮拜肈珹ぃ旧璓セō竜舦┪ぃㄏ︑︑炒竜舦斗璶矗ユ㎝靡沮盢度パΤ闽猭祘掉﹛┮靡沮㎝τ┮矗拜肈ョゲ斗Ч籔タ秸琩ㄆㄆ﹜Τ闽猭恨烈跋┮莉眔靡沮ぃセ翠ヴ︙猭祘い砆ノ靡沮碞┮眔靡沮秈︽Τ闽鞍靡竜┪桨跌猭畑竜猭祘玥妮ㄒΤ斗璶ㄑ薄猵ぇ掉﹛超Α秈︽猭祘
︓矗ユよ讽Ы〆穦糵某顶琿タ硓筁荡癸玂靡よΑ癸锣肚タセ玂毁絋玂硂ㄇタセユ临瘤礛讽Ы竒璹瓃玂臔惫琁翠穦璸畍そ穦ご礛踞み兵ㄒ穦祙叭恨秨よ獽ぇㄏ-
眏璶―┸臩め戈眖τ翠秈︽祙叭秸琩庢盢Τ穕翠祙瞯τ絋玂戈玂盞磕いみ膙赣穦ョ踞紐猭恨烈跋穦ノ兵ㄒよ獽秈︽紉祙祙叭竜︽㎝Τ闽紉祙秸琩よ┕┕螟睲贰购だ讽Ы莱某矗闽猔ㄆ兜〆穦糵某顶琿タ獽р祙叭戈玂盞の癸猭恨烈恨烈跋ňゎ-
垒ノΤ闽诀ㄓ笷ら盽紉祙ヘ秈˙睦埃穦璸畍そ穦好納讽Ы纯把σ籔祙叭臮拜盡穨僚舦Τ闽璣瓣猭ㄒ﹚璹摸兵ゅㄏ祙叭臮拜㎝Τ闽计莉眔僚礚斗碞祙叭竜︽碞秸琩τㄑ┪矗ㄑ妮-
癩玻祙叭ゅンΤ闽戈
讽Ыョ種癸兵ㄒタㄏ龟琁蛮娩﹚㏑斗璶竒ミ猭Ыуτぃ琌セ某ぃ∕┪ぃ矗璹∕某祘硄筁硂ㄇ某ョゲ斗伐祘才兵ㄒ砏﹚兵ㄒ碩タぇ盢斗璶猭恨烈跋璶―矗ㄑㄆㄆ﹜Τ闽靡沮㎝戈玂毁讽Ыョ竒糵稸矪瞶Τ闽タ絋玂某タㄆ兜ňゎ猭恨烈跋垒ノΤ闽诀ぇ緇ご礛汲防瓣悔竜︽よ矗ㄑ┮惠璶膀娄
セ略虑诀穦稰谅讽Ы秨篈钡某種ǎ癸某矗闽猔ㄆ兜縩伐莱
セ略朝勉叫︗某やセ兵ㄒ㎝祔現┎〆穦糵某顶琿┮矗┮Τタ
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊翠琌瓣悔常蒥籔ユ┕钵盽繵羉珿Τゲ璶籔瓣ミぃΑがぷㄤ琌瞷ㄆ竜︽禫镣瓣悔てΤ闽ㄆ竜︽が逼琌ぃぶ瞷セ翠猭ㄒいΤ靡沮兵ㄒの砪瑀發癚眔痲兵ㄒい场だ兵ゅ甭舦翠┎矗ㄑ猭琌硂ㄇΤЫ┦の琌虫
セ兵ㄒ絋ミ琌翠現┎矗ㄑ籔Τ闽诀篶が碞ㄆㄆ﹜猭兵ㄒパセ兵ㄒ甭舦Τ闽诀篶秸琩戳丁眏笹靡ㄑの矗ユ靡硂琌翠磅猭诀篶ぃ淮︽ㄏ舦礛τ〆穦糵某顶琿現┎矗兜タ眏靡秸琩戳丁砆眏笹靡玂毁τヴ︙矗ㄑ靡ㄑ常ぃ翠ヴ︙ノ硚掉﹛ョΤ舦だ瞶沮や秈︽超测癟矗ユ靡沮璶―癸よ耴临靡玂靡チ羛粄硂逼琌钡
畊闽猔ㄆ兜琌Τ闽矪瞶祙叭ㄆ﹜パ兵ゅい珹瓣現┎碞腨祙叭竜︽璶―翠矗ㄑ螟碞蝶祙Μ祙の腨┦祙叭竜︽购兵帹珿チ羛踞紐硂兵兵ㄒ程沧穦瞋瓣現┎セ翠щ戈坝紉祙ㄣ硂癸瓣щ戈ㄓ翠щ戈獺み琌ゲ礛穦ゴчΙ程現┎ョ矗璝タ盢琘ㄇ盡穨の琘ㄇゅン僚兵ㄒチ羛粄硂瘤礛ぃ琌程Τ秆∕拜肈よ猭埃穦籹硑穝盡穨疭舦ョ穦硑Θㄤ盡穨穦ョ璶―盢-
僚硂兵ㄒぇ睼睹薄猵ぃ筁硂弧琌礚快猭ぇい秆∕快猭ㄏ-
秸琩戳丁綝眏ㄑ┪矗硂よ靡沮
畊〆穦糵某Τ闽兵ㄒ癸磜▂の螟硂琌パ現┎矗ユセ兵ㄒぇ玡翠竒籔瓣の緿瑆帽璹Τ闽ㄆㄆ﹜が某τセ兵ㄒ琌沮硂ㄢ兜某兵蹿﹚ㄓ堡翠┎帽竝硂ㄢ兜某吭高そ渤ぷㄤ琌ㄇ盡穨刮砰ㄒ琌ㄢ畍そ穦㎝穦璸畍そ穦单τ硑Θ矗ユ倒セЫ兵ㄒ某兵蹿┮τ瞷祙叭の眏笹ㄑ拜肈ㄏЫずㄆ糵某兵ㄒ琂璶臮の瓣悔丁獺臕璶伐玂毁翠痲ぃ穦筁だ穕甡珿チ羛辨現┎帽竝ㄤ籔瓣Τ闽が某ぇ玡莱吭高よ珹刮砰種ǎら瞷ぃゲ璶睼睹の紐納
畊セ略朝勉チ羛や兵ㄒのタ
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Bills Committee, the Honourable James TO, and other members of the Committee for their careful, and speedy, examination of the Bill. I am also grateful to the Committee for their support of the principles of the Bill, and for the constructive suggestions which they have made to further refine the provisions of the Bill. In the light of their suggestions, I will move amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage.
The Bill provides a statutory framework to implement the bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance which we are concluding with other jurisdictions. It sets out conditions and procedures for providing assistance in the areas of taking of evidence, search and seizure, production of material, transfer of persons to give evidence and confiscation of the proceeds of crime. This Bill is important in enabling Hong Kong to co-operate with other jurisdictions in the fight against international crime.
As I mentioned earlier, members have made suggestions to further refine the Bill. We have responded positively to these suggestions and I will move relevant amendments at the Committee stage. I shall explain the major amendments here.
Firstly, the Bill gives power to take evidence at the investigation stage. The Bills Committee was concerned that under the Bill, a person compelled to give evidence at this stage should have appropriate protections. To better protect individual's rights, we will introduce more safeguards by way of amendments to subclauses (2A), (9), (11) and (12) of clause 10. These amendments will enable witnesses to refuse to answer questions which they could refuse to answer under Hong Kong law if the proceedings were Hong Kong proceedings, in particular, the privilege against self-incrimination is preserved. Evidence obtained at foreign request will not be able to be used in Hong Kong proceedings except for the offences of perjury or contempt of court. We believe the amendments strike the right balance between the need to provide assistance to foreign investigations and protection of the basic right of individuals.
Secondly, on investigation into tax offences, the existing Bill is only intended to allow assistance to be given if the requests relate to offences and not the assessment or collection of tax. However, it was pointed out by Members that it was very difficult to differentiate between requests for investigations of tax offences and those for tax assessment or collection. In view of this, I will move amendments to clause 3(3) to put it beyond doubt that the Bill cannot override the secrecy provisions of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Additionally, a new clause 5(1A) places a positive duty on the Attorney General to refuse a request in relation to an investigation into a taxation offence if the requesting jurisdiction is not a prescribed place or if he is satisfied that the primary purpose of the request is the assessment or collection of tax. Amendments to clauses 10(10), 12(12) and 15(9)(aa) provide that tax advisers or auditors are not required to give evidence which is or relates to tax documents or subject any tax documents to search and seizure or production orders.
Thirdly, the Bill provides that Orders implementing bilateral agreements can modify the Bill. The Administration is of the view that modifications in these Orders are necessary as mutual legal assistance practices varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, I shall move amendments to clause 4 to put it beyond doubt that the bilateral agreements must be substantially in conformity with the provisions of the Bill. All the modifications will be summarized in a schedule to the Order for the Legislative Council to consider. Further amendments will require that such Orders will not be able to operate unless they are positively approved by this Council.
Fourthly, on the transmission of original documents to foreign jurisdictions, I shall move amendments to clause 10 to restrict the transmission of original documents to the requesting jurisdiction unless the Attorney General is given an unqualified undertaking that the original will be returned. This amendment will protect individuals in Hong Kong.
Finally, the Bill does not prohibit the rendering of assistance to countries with which Hong Kong does not have a bilateral agreement. On the advice of the Bills Committee, we will introduce an amendment to the effect that where there is no bilateral agreement assistance shall be refused unless sufficient assurances of reciprocity for future requests by Hong Kong are received.
These amendments are designed to ensure that the basic rights of individuals in Hong Kong affected by requests by foreign jurisdiction are appropriately safeguarded, while at the same time permitting Hong Kong to be able to co-operate with our law enforcement partners overseas in combating trans-boundary crime. It is important that the Bill be enacted so that Hong Kong can discharge its obligations under the bilateral agreements we are concluding.
Mr President, with these remarks, I recommend the Bill to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BILL
ㄆㄆ﹜が猭兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 to 34 and 36 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材1671113161820212224 ︓34の36兵莉眔硄筁
Clauses 2 to 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23 and 35
兵ㄒ材2︓58910121415171923の35兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Apart from the key proposals which I have referred to in my Second Reading debate speech, most of the amendments are drafting and technical in nature. They serve to remove ambiguities, and introduce minor procedural changes to better protect the rights of persons providing assistance. All the proposed amendments have been agreed by the Bills Committee.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンV
Clause 3 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンV
Clause 4 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンV
Clause 5 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンV
Clause 8 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンV
Clause 9 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材9兵ǎンV
Clause 10 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材10兵ǎンV
Clause 12 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材12兵ǎンV
Clause 14 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材14兵ǎンV
Clause 15 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材15兵ǎンV
Clause 17 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材17兵ǎンV
Clause 19 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材19兵ǎンV
Clause 23 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材23兵ǎンV
Clause 35 (See annex V)
兵ㄒ材35兵ǎンV
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clauses 2 to 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23 and 35, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タぇ兵ㄒ材2︓58910121415171923の35兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Schedules 1 and 2
1の2
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedules 1 and 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
These form part of the Committee stage amendments which have been endorsed by the Bills Committee.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendments
览某タず甧
Schedule 1 (See annex V)
1ǎンV
Schedule 2 (See annex V)
2ǎンV
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on Schedules 1 and 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タぇ1の2ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
New Schedule 1A
穝璹1A
Schedule read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(7).
竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(7)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that new Schedule 1A as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
This forms part of Committee stage amendments which have been endorsed by the Bills Committee.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the Schedule proposed, put and agreed to.
弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Schedule read the Second time.
兵ゅ竒筁弄
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that Schedule 1A be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New schedule 1A (See annex V)
穝璹1AǎンV
Question on the addition of the new Schedule proposed, put and agreed to.
糤干穝ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
玂厨孔
MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS BILL
ㄆㄆ﹜が猭兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997
1997チ挂璹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 19 February 1997
確るら笆某弄臛阶
MRS SELINA CHOW: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I support the Second Reading of the Bill. When the Bill was first introduced I had reservations about taking away an acquired right which is the right to land enjoyed exclusively by British nationals who have lived here for seven years under the law. I had no difficulty with any newcomers from Britain in view of the change in our constitutional links with the United Kingdom on 1 July 1997. My concern was that those who have already acquired the right would not be able to ascertain their right to remain here as a resident after that date.
The situation has now changed. Although the British and the Chinese sides have failed to agree 100% on the issue of permanent residence after the changeover, public announcement on both sides as well as the Bill on the matter considered by the provisional legislature have clarified the position for all those concerned. Those who have the right to land and have been living here in Hong Kong immediately before the handover would be in a position to apply for permanent residence status if they wish. Those who do not choose to apply would still be allowed unconditional stay administratively.
Furthermore, according to the resolution of the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, all provisions granting privileges to British Commonwealth citizens which are not reciprocated will be null and void on 1 July.
It is, therefore, preferable that those who hold the right to land will be assured of the permission to unconditional stay rather than to be left with the uncertainty of their status if this Bill is not passed.
Mr President, the Administration's amendment should be supported as it does provide for certainty. Mr James TO's amendment, on the other hand, does not. Furthermore, it provides for the commencement by resolution of this Council, which is contrary to convention and unnecessarily begs questions of when, how and why in the guise of flexibility. We therefore oppose Mr TO's amendment.
Mr President, we support the motion.
朝胞糭某璓勉畊硂兵ㄒ┮疉のず甧琌璣瓣疭舦и-
粄硂拜肈瞶莱い璣ㄢ瓣帽竝羛羘и-
現┎獽莱矪瞶堡現┎⊿Τ種も矪瞶硂拜肈︓羛穦Μ穦﹙щ禗弧獵皑爵絃㎝诀初絃瞷秖璣瓣骋眖ㄆㄇ砰骋笆穦璶―и-
現┎借高㎝蛤秈讽玂瘤礛┯粄挂矪矪琌沮チ挂兵ㄒ材61(2)兵甧砛璣瓣そチ帽靡翠ボ翠┎るら玡礚種璹硂兵兵ㄒ
畊и-
羛穦τ秈︽览兵ㄒボи-
穦矗╬兵ㄒ皐癸チ挂兵ㄒ材61兵璹и-
某埃ㄇぃぶ僚ㄒユ虫祘靡ㄓ翠单ゲ斗挂矪矪笲ノ材61(2)兵舦讽僚ヴ︙帽靡ㄓ翠ゲ斗兜硆痙兵ン碞琌-
ぃ沟и辨璣瓣︑パ挂帽靡硂兜疭舦棒峨猭簗瑌現┎ぃ跑块骋
パи-
绊玃ㄏ現┎璶矗現┎兵ㄒ現┎さるらр現┎兵ㄒ1997チ挂璹兵ㄒ籔и╬兵ㄒら舅現┎兵ㄒ某るら璣瓣そチ挂疭舦瘤礛Τ闽璹⊿Τ牟の材61(2)兵Τ暗羆ゑ⊿Τ暗猵璣瓣疭舦るら莱ぉ現┎ㄏ璶磷磷ぃㄓ
畊現┎兵ㄒ㎝и兵ㄒ矗ま癬穦癹臫㎝癚阶︓瞷ㄇ琌τ獶ē阶┗狦и兵ㄒ莉眔硄筁碞穦┮Τ瓣秈翠盿ㄓ螟τэ跑翠琌瓣悔カ猵и-
谋眔ㄆ龟ぃ琌礚阶︙и粄璣瓣ぃ莱ㄉΤ疭舦硂埃琌Ыず计ㄆ醚拨澈临┮Τ膟そキ︗竚и谋眔蝴臔そキ瞶玥琌玂翠Θ痷タじて瓣悔カ璶
畊現┎兵ㄒ籔и兵ㄒよ琌現┎璶琌璹璣瓣疭舦癸ㄤ玻ネ方繷材61(2)兵玱⊿Τ璹硂穦瞷拜肈タи┮弧ヴ︙Τ闽チ挂兵ㄒ常莱赣玂毁セ"ゴ"碞穨诀穦и獺ㄤ瓣產㎝よ常琌Τ拜︙ぃ獺現┎︙ぃ獺現┎︽現惫琁и粄硂ぃ琌獺籔ぃ獺拜肈τ琌Τ簗瑌︙и-
ぃ玂毁セ骋碞穨硂ミ初ㄓ璹兵ㄒи絋獺ㄏ璹兵ㄒ⊿Τэ跑翠瓣悔カ猵ぃ穦ㄓщ戈谋眔Τ螟
畊и蔼砍и芠翴眔盢ㄓ疭跋現┎現粄畊......
畊朝胞糭某叫Г襖略ビ某叫矗砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某и-
瞷臛阶琌挂舦猭ㄒ朝某篗兵ㄒτョ朝瓃ㄢ闽玒钡俱琿祇ē常琌Τ闽赣ㄆ兜畊琌у硂妓臛阶
畊襖略ビ某硄盽弄臛阶セ畊穦甧砛絛瞅耕約癚阶ㄆ龟俱璉挂琌Τㄢ兵兵ㄒ纯竒矗筁朝胞糭某叫膥尿
朝胞糭某谅谅畊掉∕
畊タ┮弧ㄢ兵兵ㄒ種琌τㄢ兵兵ㄒ讽ま祇翴琌パ翠"ゴ"щ禗Τㄇ璣瓣穖-
逗窲硂妓瞷現┎籔и癸兵ㄒ┮璹
畊盢ㄓ現┎癸и-
芠翴稰粄и谋眔蔼砍ぃ筁и穦膥尿菏诡盢ㄓ現┎Τ垒ノ材61(2)兵倒ㄇよ┪瓣產チ疭舦-
帽靡ㄓ翠ㄉΤ帽靡セ翠舦ョ跑块骋羛穦穦膥尿菏诡盢ㄓ現┎谅谅畊
襖略ビ某璓勉畊セ略1997チ挂璹兵ㄒ〆穦畊ōだ祇ē兵ㄒ〆穦纯籔現┎讽Ы庢︽6Ω穦某ㄤい珹ㄢΩ籔刮砰庢︽穦某纯╯12種ǎセ盢翴量瓃兵ㄒ〆穦坝某㎝挡狦
琵セ虏ざ兵ㄒ璉春ヘ玡パ翠籔璣瓣舅疭闽玒璣瓣そチ挂ōだよㄉΤ疭笿璣瓣そチ猭﹚挂舦琌ㄤㄉΤ疭笿场だêㄇ硄盽セ翠硈尿﹡︘ぃぶ7璣瓣そチ眔セ翠挂舦ョぃヴ︙硆痙戳の兵ン┮-
ぃ砆缓癳瞒挂砆患秆瞒挂沮讽Ы戈眔挂舦璣瓣そチ仓璸羆计Τ22 000讽いΤ场だ瞷ぃセ翠
ㄏ璣瓣そチ挂ōだよ籔ㄤ瓣瓣チ霍讽Ы某蹦╰ミ猭㎝︽現惫琁某眡场だ︽現惫琁ㄒ砏﹚玡ㄓセ翠碞穨﹡痙┪―厩璣瓣そチゲ斗Τ続帽靡パるら秨﹍龟琁瞷矗ユ某σ納兵ㄒ珹篗綪璣瓣そチ挂舦ミ猭某êㄇ局Τ挂舦璣瓣そチ盢虑兵ㄒず兜筁寸┦兵ゅ莉眔礚兵ン硆痙ōだ琵セ虏虫ざ残挂舦籔礚兵ン硆痙ōだだ玡琌兜猭﹚舦局Τ兜舦ぃヴ︙硆痙兵ン患秆瞒挂よΤ疭逼τセ借妮︽現惫琁局Τ兜ōだ璝璶玂痙赣ōだ獽斗瞒挂12るず翠患秆硂ㄇ瞒挂逼耕虏虫
讽Ы粄览某よ爱瞓玏辅Ω筁秆∕ㄆぃ穦るらぇ痙ヴ︙ぃ薄猵讽辅龟膀セ猭材兵Τ闽獶い瓣膟﹡痙舦逼┮惠セ猭ㄒ﹚才戈璣瓣そチ獽莉眔﹡痙舦
兵ㄒ〆穦癸рごゼ莉眔挂舦璣瓣そチ籔ㄤ瓣瓣チ跌く癸某礚某ぃ筁兵ㄒ〆穦〆癸︙矪瞶êㄇ眔挂舦璣瓣そチ拜肈玱Τぃ種ǎ场だ〆粄êㄇ莉眔挂舦莱莉玂痙赣兜舦-
粄パ局Τ礚兵ン硆痙ōだ璝瞒秨セ翠禬筁12る獽穦赤ア赣ōだ礚兵ン硆痙ōだ猭﹚挂舦獶讽暗猭-
粄篗綪璣瓣そチ兜眔猭﹚舦戳辨-
ごゼ絋﹚﹡痙舦ぉ庢龟ぃ钡兵ㄒ〆穦钡莉场だ種ǎΤ種ǎㄤ〆玥粄璣瓣そチ挂ōだよ┮ㄉΤ疭笿莱繦翠籔璣瓣疭闽玒るるらΤ┮э跑τ砆篗綪硂妓才呸胯
パ〆ぃ種ǎ現┎讽Ыの兵ㄒ〆穦る┏種莱盢赣兵ㄒ┿︓﹡痙舦逼璹ぉσ納讽兵ㄒ〆穦せる甶秨現┎讽Ы〆穦虏ざΤ闽﹡痙舦拜肈程穝秈甶薄猵︗某獺眡薄猵ビㄤミ初赣兵ㄒ莱るら玡莉眔﹚с璶τē現┎讽Ы粄程そガΤ闽﹡痙舦笷Θ某95%ㄆ兜冈薄莱埃よ好納τるら玡﹚赣兵ㄒ磷舦簿ユ玻ネぃ薄猵現┎讽Ыョ狦赣兵ㄒぃるら玡硄筁璣瓣そチるら獽Τ戈ビ叫挂舦┪﹡痙舦硂種璣瓣そチㄉΤ疭笿るら眔┑尿ョ瘆胊讽Ы璹現郸種ぃ才挂ㄆ叭よ盢璣瓣そチ籔ㄤ瓣瓣チ跌く現郸ヘ翠疭︽現跋現┎癸钡ぃ﹚膀Τ惠璶Τ闽現郸睲捶絋の砮过璓兵ㄒゲ斗るら玡ぉ﹚
狦るら﹟ゼ﹚Τ闽﹡痙舦猭ㄒ场だ〆闽猔赣兵ㄒ﹚盢穦ア挂舦ōだ璣瓣そチ︗現┎讽Ыボ瘤礛るら玡﹚セ﹡痙舦猭ㄒ琌程瞶稱暗猭ぃ琌荡癸Τゲ璶るら膀セ猭盢穦Θ翠猭场だτ挂矪矪ョ酚膀セ猭材兵∕﹚︙局Τ﹡痙舦狦﹟ゼΤセ﹚冈灿猭ㄒ挂矪矪膀セ猭材兵炊硄ゅ竡∕﹚龟悔讽Ы惠矪瞶獶い瓣膟酚膀セ猭材兵ビ叫莉眔﹡痙舦┮羘のユ戈狦セ﹚猭ㄒ挂矪矪碞赣﹙程∕﹚玡ネ玥挂矪矪沮赣猭ㄒ兵ゅ程∕﹚
兵ㄒ〆穦ЧΘㄤ坝某〆ごゼ碞赣兵ㄒ笷璓醚セ痙某┪現囊祔臛阶冈瓃ㄤミ初
セ瞷酵阶碞兵ㄒ矗砰〆穦糵某顶琿タ現┎讽Ы矗斑タ琌闽赣兵ㄒネら戳兵ㄒ璹ら戳琌るら現┎讽Ы穦矗兜タ盢赣ら戳эせるらセ穦痙玂碞拜肈某祇ē
セョōだ矗兜砰〆穦糵某顶琿タ盢兵ㄒネら戳タ"パミ猭Ы虑∕某┮﹚ら戳"セ砰〆穦糵某顶琿矗赣兜タセ穦冈灿秆睦兜タ紇臫
畊セ瞷チ囊矗種ǎチ囊種Τ闽挂舦砏﹚и-
種硂兜兵ゅ籔璣瓣疭舅闽玒Τ闽Τ惠璶
瞷琌癚阶丁拜肈и-
谋眔狦璶êㄇ竒猭局Τ挂舦舦疭琌讽-
Τㄇぃ翠-
ō璣瓣┪ㄤ瓣產и-
ぃ莱赣Τ琿痷戳ㄏ-
ぃ砛絛瞅ず莉眔膀セ猭材兵砏﹚﹡痙舦讽礛и種ㄇ局Τ挂舦セ礚猭糹︽㎝骸ì膀セ猭材兵材蹿砏﹚τ莉眔﹡痙舦拜肈琌и-
ぃ稱よパセЫΤ闽挂舦猭﹚舦τセЫ礚舦糵某礚猭盢硂兜猭ㄒσ納睲贰ウ-
镑Τ硈砮┦Τ闽眔膀セ猭挂舦
и笵現┎ぃ碞穦沮膀セ猭材兵璹ㄇ荷е琵-
ビ叫и-
ご璶σ納せるら現┎矗璹ネら戳讽ぱ翠ㄆ龟⊿Τ兵Τ㎝Τ猭ㄒ狦и-
琌蹦ノ膀セ猭材兵硂兵蹿穦び糴肞и-
谋眔Τ闽猭灿竊︓┮斗恶厨戈┪êㄇ戈┮惠Τ闽靡┪庢靡へ硂ㄇ常穦籔ビ叫矗ㄑ戈㎝靡の镑︙盢Τ闽戈ユ倒チ挂ㄆ叭矪Τ闽и-
荡ぃよ弧よ玱⊿ΤΤ猭ㄒ-
沮膀セ猭材兵ビ叫﹡痙舦
и┮矗タㄆ龟镑セミ猭诀闽┪盢ㄓミ猭诀闽丁讽-
粄Τ闽﹡痙舦猭ㄒ镑龟琁笷-
骸種祘矗Τ闽挂舦и-
砞稱ㄏるら琿戳丁琌ㄢ琍戳┪计琍戳┮孔挂舦セōぃ琌ン癴ぃ笵ㄆぃ琌ぃ臭暗猭瘤礛и-
ぃぃ莱膊攀崔チ框痙ㄓㄆ薄и-
礚斗⊿ΤТ到逼薄猵盢ウ礚猭猭结ぉㄇ惠璶ビ叫﹡痙舦舦の璹﹚絋猭砏﹚狦и-
璶ǐ硂伐狠ㄤ龟瞷狥﹁ㄒセЫㄇ啦腹┪ㄇ┮孔菌朝格璶钩"はきは"场砆篖瘆и-
琌るら獽рウ-
场ゴ瘆㎡и-
ぃ穦硂妓暗и-
穦蹦瞶┦暗猭
иビチ囊﹚やΤ闽挂舦и-
腀種玥硄筁硂兵ㄒㄏ盢ㄓミ猭诀闽镑-
骸種穝﹡痙舦猭ㄒ丁硂挂舦猭ㄒ
畊セ略朝勉叫某や兵ㄒ
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊150玡翠Θ璣瓣崔チ眖ê秨﹍璣瓣翠獽局Τ纔禫︗繦丁瑈硊璣瓣ㄉΤ疭舦薄猵ら亥睭て琘ㄇ兜ヘ-
ご礛局Τ籔渤ぃ纔ㄒ挂逼よ獽┕璣瓣そチㄓ翠ㄉΤ12る帽靡硆痙τ戳丁翠弄の﹡︘ぃ穦ヴ︙︘骸7-
莉眔挂舦硂兜猭﹚舦はㄤ瓣產そチㄓ翠弄の﹡︘玥惠璶ビ烩帽靡-
︘骸7ョ眔礚兵ン硆痙硂兜︽現ㄢゑ璣瓣ㄉΤ︗︑礛纔禫礛τ硂贺纔禫︗琌翠琌璣瓣崔チ┮界畊現┎ョ┯粄璣瓣そチㄉΤ挂舦の挂纔磃Ч琌膀璣瓣翠疭︗
繦翠舦耴い瓣璣瓣そチ筁┮ㄉΤ疭舦ョ莱繦菌τ硊翠┎セるら硓筁︽現逼盢璣瓣ㄓ12る帽靡戳罽祏6るτ翠弄の﹡︘ョ单ㄤ瓣そチ惠璶ビ叫帽靡硂タタ琌翠┎種醚菌锣跑τ莱逼珿结ぉ璣瓣そチ挂舦兵ゅ璉弘盢穦ア薄猵и-
咎或玂痙硂竤璣瓣そチ疭舦㎡猵崔チ舦竒睭て癶ぃ虫ゎ瞷挂逼よㄤㄣΤ崔チ︹眒疭舦ョ膥筁寸続莱程纯竒ま癬翠カチ癚阶荐杠肈璣羛ü洛厩ネㄓ翠磅穨僚盡穨刚拜肈タタ琌沮玥τ癸現郸続讽逼
硂竤局Τ挂舦璣瓣そチぃ穦兵ㄒ璹τア翠﹡︘舦-
ご礛局Τ礚兵ン﹡痙舦筁寸逼┕腶τゼ∕﹡痙舦ㄣ砰逼眔秈˙坚睲俱砰τēêㄇ逼伐糴肞獺硂竤璣瓣そチ穦贾翠ッ﹡︘癸眔兜ゑ挂舦纔禫Τ玂毁のΤ舦痲﹡痙舦琌ンぃ螟暗ㄆ薄膀セぃ管硂竤舦拜肈は硂砰瞷舦簿ユ璣瓣籔ㄤ瓣穦璓玥
畊セ璹兵ㄒヘ琌皌菌の舦跑綞ττぃ琌現郸锣跑琘摸舦猵璹兵ㄒョ矗兜筁寸┦逼ㄏ硂竤局Τ挂舦璣瓣そチぃ璓腨紇臫ㄏ-
镑Τだ丁ビ叫ㄎ﹡痙舦蠢
癸襖略ビ某タチ羛粄セ兵ㄒ莱赣荷е硄筁㎝ネㄏ丁疭琌紇臫莉眔睲捶獺秆锣跑挂現郸ヴ︙礚珿┑粇常穦糤ぃㄏ紇臫礚┮続眖
畊セ略朝勉チ羛や兵ㄒの現┎タ
法У地某璓勉畊讽ミ猭Ы癚阶1997チ挂璹兵ㄒи-
Μよ種ǎ癚阶い疭琌猭㎝钡紇臫常矗琌続﹜ミ猭も琿ㄇ琂Τ舦痲紇臫êㄇ玡局Τ挂舦璣瓣ㄆ龟挂矪さるら秨﹍龟琁╰惫琁ㄓ秆∕翠璣瓣崔チτ硑Θ璣瓣ㄉΤ疭舦拜肈龟悔Τㄇ疭舦竒
︑パ囊ㄆ竒筁Ωは滦癚阶㏄辩睶┥某量瓃и-
程ミ初и-
や硄筁セ兵ㄒ疭琌現┎矗せるら龟琁τ瞶阶计ぱ硂疭舦ア┮и獺竒パㄆてΘㄆ︓琌ㄆて礚ㄆ翠ㄇ坝穦璣瓣计坝穦珹璣瓣坝穦常ボやセ兵ㄒ︓セヴ戮诀篶ㄤいΤ璣瓣-
⊿Τ粄硂兵ㄒ癸-
ぃそキ
ぃ筁畊и稱矗拜肈癚阶兵ㄒセЫ蛤穦癸硂拜肈絋耕ぶ癚阶ê碞琌纯Τ穝﹡チи-
ボ-
甝甝穝ㄓ簿﹡璣瓣-
ご翠Θッ﹡チ硂琌︑秏ぇ薄狦硄筁硂兵ㄒ碞穦-
ぶ舦痲-
硂兵ㄒ皐癸琌璣瓣疭舦龟悔玱穦-
﹡チぶ舦痲硂琌-
┮矗瞶阶
畊и纯冈灿σ納硂拜肈ㄆ龟穝﹡チΤ-
﹚舦痲и粄硂琌眔薄㎝粄刚⊿Τぶチ壁Τ疭秏芠├い瓣琌ㄤㄤ琌︹礚阶-
肚ぶ︙矪-
﹍沧稱-
êㄤㄇチ壁ㄒ璣瓣默孽ら簿﹡瓣┪獶瑆-
⊿Τ硂贺眏疨秏㎝み篈┮い瓣琌疭Τㄇぃ種-
埃︹㎝い瓣琌硂翴и玥⊿Τ╯
畊皐癸硂拜肈и-
よ璶薄璶猭虫眖猭àㄓ弧и-
璝硂猭ㄒ弧穝﹡チぃ紇臫ê或獽螟ウ猭薄瞶㏕礛莱︙秆∕㎡挂矪莱и拜肈弧材穝簿チ┕璣瓣琌⊿Τ紇臫︓材ぃ穦紇臫材-
ごΤ靡蛤翠璣妮そチΤ闽材玥穦Τ拜肈и粄猭瞶瞷螟临Τ龟悔螟
畊穝﹡チ簿﹡璣瓣Τ簿﹡瓣┪ㄤよ讽硂ㄇ簿チ肚材┪材-
秏芠├竒睭て簿﹡瓣材穦粄︑琌瓣τぃ琌い瓣┮и-
璶―-
Τ秏芠├璶ッ环蛤矪よΤ闽玒㎡и-
ゲ斗薄瞶秆∕硂拜肈
畊и粄狦穝﹡チΤ眏疨秏芠├-
稱玂常蛤翠闽玒Τ诀穦眔翠ッ﹡痙舦杠ㄤ龟Τよ猭矪瞶ゼゲ﹚璶硂兵ㄒ秈︽
琍戳羬ミ猭穦穦某и矗硂よ猭い瓣瓣膟猭埃êㄇ瓣ネパ烩瓣瓣膟τ︑礛ぃ琌い瓣そチい瓣瓣膟猭いㄤ龟ごΤ兵蹿弧瓣琌い瓣瓣膟碞瓣膟猭龟琁纯ボ盢ㄓ疭跋矪瞶跑瓣膟舦ユぉ挂矪翠挂矪矪瞶诀篶狦и-
盢ヘ环ㄇи辨玂盢ㄓ疭跋玂碞挂矪︙矪瞶跑瓣膟诀篶硂よㄇひ
い瓣瓣膟琌眖ㄓ常⊿Τ睲捶よ猭┪祘琵笵︙㎝︙莉眔у菌Τ╱Τㄒㄒ︗帝瓣皑紈纯發繦玻囊㎝瓁秈︽㏑疭薄τΘい瓣そチΤ︗穝﹁孽膟の计︗瓣纯莉у炊筂ㄓ弧龟⊿Τ笵瓣︙い瓣瓣膟и粄翠耴い瓣莱钡局Τい瓣膟㎝﹡痙舦籔チ壁ぃ﹚琌ㄆ局Τい瓣瓣膟ぃ﹚琌簙壁临琌ㄤチ壁︓ぃ来簙粂
и粄把酚硂兵ンσ納琌环秆∕穝﹡チ材稱翠﹡チ拜肈盢ㄓ璣瓣ネ瘤礛-
琌翠﹡チ猭-
セōぃ琌い瓣そチ璝-
痷Τ種翠и-
琌甧砛-
翠ビ叫い瓣瓣膟㎡穝﹡チ琌穦-
莉眔耕だ计ㄏ-
ビ叫㎡ビ叫莉у穦臥措笵琵-
穝眔翠ッ﹡チ︗τぃ穦硂兵ㄒ硄筁ㄏ穝稰ア辨
и辨現┎盢ㄓ╯︙矪瞶瓣膟猭㎝跑瓣膟单ㄆ﹜盢硂拜肈σ納絛瞅ぇず
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. This Bill does one thing and one thing only; it removes the right to land of resident British citizens and provisions directly related to this right. If this Bill is passed, not only will no British citizen be able to acquire the right to land in future, which I accept in view of the change of sovereignty, but those who have already acquired the right will have their right stripped from them, which I oppose. Because it is unconscionable, and because it offends the most fundamental principles.
Let me explain in as few words as I can.
A "British citizen" is not an ethnic Briton. It is a person who is a British citizen within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1997. So he may well be a Hong Kong ethnic Chinese who has acquired British citizenship.
A "resident British citizen" is a British citizen who has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years.
Under section 8 of the present Immigration Ordinance, such a person has the right to land in Hong Kong. This means he has the right to enter, live and work in Hong Kong, free from immigration control. He can be removed from Hong Kong only by a specified procedure under the Immigration Ordinance.
According to the Government's rough estimate, there are about 22 000 British citizens with the right to land. An unknown proportion of them have settled here for decades. There are also those who, having served long in Hong Kong's civil service disciplinary forces and acquired the right to land, now live elsewhere but return to Hong Kong regularly.
Living in Hong Kong year round or not, these people are very much part of the Hong Kong community. They have contributed to the life here, and Hong Kong has become their home.
If this Bill is passed today, these people will lose their right without that right being replaced by any other right. Instead, they are promised "unconditional stay". The difference between the two is enormous and fundamental. Although on the face of it, both allow one to enter, live and work in Hong Kong without a visa or work permit, the former is a statutory right, while the latter is only an administrative arrangement.
What is given by administrative arrangement can be cancelled by administrative discretion. Indeed, an unconditional stay is lost if one is away from Hong Kong for more than 12 months unless one can convince an immigration officer of special circumstances. With the right to land, one can always come back to Hong Kong no matter how long one has been away. In human terms, the difference is between security and insecurity, between being a belonger and an outsider, between being here by right and being here on sufferance.
It is said that in the past, a resident British citizen can acquire the right to land because of the special relationship between Britain and Hong Kong. When that special relationship ends, this "privilege" of the British should also come to an end. This argument may address the question of not allowing British citizens to acquire such a right in future. It does not address the inequity of depriving those who have already acquired that right of their right.
In an attempt to meet this criticism, the Administration cites the United Kingdom 1971 Immigration Act as an example where the previous right of Hong Kong British subjects to enter the United Kingdom was removed. A requirement of "patriality" was imposed. Non-patrials have no right of abode, for example, no right to land or settle.
Hong Kong people had reacted strongly against the 1971 Act. It will always remain as a blot on Britain's record. Yet that Act did not go so far as to interfere with those Hong Kong British subject who had entered and settled in the United Kingdom. Indeed, under the 1971 Act, these non-United Kingdom British citizens were expressly given the right of abode, although the gate was closed against those who had not entered and settled before the Act came into effect in 1973.
What we have strongly criticized in others we should not do to others ourselves. I should be shocked and shamed if this Council connives with the Administration to do even worse than the 1971 United Kingdom Act.
Mr President, the Bill is equally unacceptable from the view of policy. Under Article 24(4) of the Basic Law, non-Chinese nationals who have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for not less than seven years and have taken Hong Kong to be their home, will qualify for the even better right of abode as permanent Hong Kong residents. It is an extraordinary thing to do, to deprive a person of the right to land he has acquired, when he may well be eligible for a much better right in a matter of days.
I would have much less difficulty supporting this Bill, had legislation been passed by this Council to secure the eligibility of the right of abode of the people affected. However, in spite of the great efforts made in this Council, no such legislation was introduced, and will never be passed now by this Council. Since the future rights of the people affected are still left in limbo, to pass this Bill will be an act of the utmost irresponsibility.
Mr President, I am aware that the Office of the Chief Executive (Designate) has published a Bill on 6 June 1997 to amend the Immigration Ordinance to incorporate and give effect to Article 24 of the Basic Law. There is no chance for the thorough consultation and scrutiny crucial to such legislation. The legal profession, whose views have been invited, is studying it under great pressure of time. But anyone who cares to read the Bill will see that many provisions require clarification, perhaps substantial amendment. An example relevant to Article 24(4) of the Basic Law is paragraph 3 of that Bill. This appears to qualify Article 24(4) in a number of ways. Under paragraph 3(2), it appears that a person who may have the status of permanent resident has to apply to the Director of Immigration for his approval. In other words, his right is subject to approval. This certainly sounds strange. Moreover, there are no provisions in that Bill as to how the Director may exercise his power of approval. Paragraph 6 on transitional provisions exempt one from application but it does not apply to anyone who is not already a permanent Hong Kong resident.
Mr President, can it be right to throw these people into the anguish of uncertainty by depriving them of their right to land right now? What great harm can be done by allowing this very small number of people to keep their present right until the right of abode law with respect to them becomes clear and established? We have been told China "does not object" to the present Bill removing the right to land. Even China has not expressed a strong wish for its immediate removal. What can be the compelling reason for us to do such a thing? Mr President, I cannot and will not do it. I object to this Bill. Thank you.
︙玊く某璓勉畊硂ㄢㄓи把セЫ臛阶讽矗舦硂拜肈獽谋眔琌︓蔼礚ㄆ薄常璶琵隔讽矗崔チ獽谋眔ㄆ常ぃそキ拎碿璶ぉ蠢痙ㄇ勃格ぃ甧г畊さぱ臛阶硂兵ㄒ硂ㄇ現獀"乎帹"拜肈疊瞷ㄓ讽礛璣瓣┕局Τ翠挂舦琌洪璣瓣㎝翠疭闽玒τ硂贺疭闽玒ㄏ璣瓣局Τ疭舦㎝纔眖τ陪ボ獶璣瓣膟ㄤ瓣膟┪盖壁猍跌常谋眔璶ミ絣硂贺舦τ硂贺絣獶舦筁寸玡ネぃ
畊и-
チ囊種崔チ┮框痙ㄓㄇ疭舦㎝纔琌и-
璶矪瞶眔そキ瞶㎝Τ┦ㄇぃ硂ㄇ礛丁赤ア硂妓璶舦磓ぃ快┪ぃ盢ㄓΤㄇ匡拒讽礛Τㄆ穦弧ㄤ龟膀セ猭竒そガ-
莱赣笵妓ビ叫﹡痙舦-
Τㄇ︓矗Ν眔单и璶眏秸翴硂ぃ虫ゎ疉の﹡痙舦拜肈临Τ挂舦拜肈材Τ闽﹡痙舦猭瞷﹟ゼ硄筁材硂猭ㄒ临ゼ冈荷矪瞶挂舦拜肈и-
辨Τ甅Ч称猭矪瞶﹡痙舦㎝挂舦拜肈︓êㄇ紇臫璣瓣笵莱妓匡拒㎝Τㄇ舦τㄤ瓣膟┪ぶ计壁盖笵︑矪或︗竚畊и-
玥㎝現郸穦や硂兵ㄒи-
ぃ種璶ミネ┪せるらネ硂翴
ㄤ龟иΤㄇ┣︙Τㄇㄆ珹チ羛ㄆ穦硂或眏疨眎ゲ斗硄筁硂兜兵ㄒ临璶ゲ斗舦簿ユ玡ネㄤ龟и-
ㄆ疭琌チ羛ㄆ竒盽常弧狦疉の舅逼皌膀セ猭龟琁疭琌るらネ猭ㄒぃ琌パ瞷ミ猭Ы矪瞶τ琌莱赣パ羬ミ猭穦┪疭跋現┎矪瞶ê或硂ㄇ皌舅猭龟琁猭ㄒ﹚璶セЫ硄筁㎡讽礛癸ǎ秆и-
琌ぃ種и-
瞷蛮夹非硂ㄇ猭ㄒ琌るら龟琁紇臫るらㄆ薄琌眔いよ種㎡иぃ谋眔い璣碞硂拜肈笷Θ某璶翠ミ猭
羆珹ㄓ弧畊и璶眏秸翴璣瓣ㄉΤ硂兜舦琌菌框痙ㄓ拜肈硂琌и-
竒盽篋弧杠瞷礛Τ┮э跑讽礛Τみ瞶非称ㄆ龟硂兵ㄒ琌Γ崩ㄓ惠璶Τ耕逼法У地某矗拜肈眔и-
贝癚┮孔膟ぃ﹚琌產┮稱琌フブ涧繷緑-
Τ琌簿チ法У地某┮弧﹡チ-
稱秆埃膀セ猭そガ┪羬ミ猭穦┮矗筁舦挂よ盢ㄓΤ或逼㎡ㄒ妓矪瞶挂舦穦Τㄇ玥┪兵ン㎡硂ㄇ癸紇臫常琌璶
ㄏи-
盢硂ㄇ┮孔疭舦┑翴ぃ穦Τ或拜肈и眏秸и-
璶Τㄇ薄ㄓ矪瞶硂拜肈и-
辨盢ㄓミ猭诀闽タΑ笆某硄筁﹚ネら戳и-
眏疨璶―盢ㄓ俱砰挂猭ΤТ到逼ㄏ紇臫"Τ┮続眖"琵さぱ硂兵ㄒネ
и略朝勉や兵ㄒ弄㎝襖略ビ某タ
郭Θ某璓勉畊иチ祇ēや兵ㄒ弄㎝弄
и粄璣瓣┮ㄉΤ疭舦莱繦崔チ沧挡挡硂妓穦璣瓣㎝ㄤ瓣跌く癸瞷璣瓣そチㄉΤ硂猭﹚挂舦疭笿琌パ璣瓣舅蛤翠Τ疭闽玒珿繦崔チ恨獀Ч挡硂疭闽玒挡璣瓣┮局Τ纔磃莱挡
︓篗綪硂猭﹚舦暗猭Τㄒи糵某兵ㄒ矗硂拜肈и-
琌Τㄒ穿拜肈ヴ︙猭﹚舦莱硄筁猭祘璣瓣耕и-
Ν秈︽-
玡纯硂妓暗艷祸某Τ矗の硂翴璣瓣┮纯綝у蝶翠硂妓暗穦ま癬у蝶㎡и粄琌穦Τу蝶﹚穦ぶ崔チ恨獀挡硂琌菌框痙ㄓ璶и-
矪瞶拜肈硂贺舦Ν边璶琌丁τи-
さΩ硂兜疭猭﹚挂舦τぇ琌礚兵ン硆痙и谋眔硂暗猭弧琌く︓竡荷
璝и-
璶ㄇ玂痙杠ㄤ龟琌⊿Τ硂┦沮и┮疭跋快そ纯そ秨羘璝и-
ぃ秈︽ミ猭挂舦-
盢ㄓ穦ユ倒疭跋ミ猭诀闽ミ猭挂舦Ν边璶耞
襖略ビ某矗タ某パらミ猭诀闽某∕ㄓр拜肈耞и-
さぱ礚斗耞現┎玂タ某せるらネ矗硂某襖略ビ某ㄤ龟莱氮ㄢ拜肈材琌稱盢硂砫ヴユパ疭跋材ミ猭穦矪瞶矪瞶硂琌ㄆ丁びи獺種ぃ琌硂妓材璝杠ユパ羬ミ猭穦矪瞶ê或硂蛤チ囊ミ初ぃи獺-
ぃ穦倒羬ミ猭穦-
︙璶羬ミ猭穦硂某∕㎡硂ㄓ琌ぃ璓
и-
さぱ莱赣セЫ耞ぃ莱寐耞捣硈ミ猭Ы龟莱"揣紌糃辟疭舦"∕﹚
и-
や玂祔矗タ谅谅畊
6.45 pm
と645だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy, the Bill before us seeks to amend the Immigration Ordinance to bring the immigration status of British citizens into line with that of nationals of other foreign countries.
I am grateful to the Honourable James TO and Members of the Bills Committee for the great care they have taken in scrutinizing the Bill.
As I explained when I moved the Second Reading of the Bill in February this year, naturally there has to be changes to the special immigration status of British citizens as the special relationship between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom comes to an end on 1 July 1997. The British community here have expressed a wish for such changes to be clarified, decided and put in place well in advance of 1 July 1997. The package of measures we introduced in April, which included both legislative and administrative changes, was to address such concerns.
The Bills Committee expressed considerable concern that as far as possible, there should be no time gap between the abolition of the right to land under our Bill, and the acquisition of the right of abode by those British citizens who are eligible to claim permanent resident status under Article 24(2)(4) of the Basic Law. We take this point. I shall therefore move a Committee stage amendment to change the commencement date of the Bill to 30 June 1997.
The Bill, as amended by the Committee stage amendments which I shall propose, will give certainty to the status of British citizens in the future, as well as minimizes the gap between the loss of the right to land and the acquisition of the right of abode. I believe that this is the best arrangement that can be put in place to address Members' concern.
The Honourable Miss Margaret NG holds the view that any given right should not be taken away. While we agree that this should be the case in normal process change, we hope Honourable Members will appreciate that the current changes are brought about by the unique circumstances of the change of Hong Kong sovereignty. We believe that the changes we propose are appropriate in these circumstances and are generally acceptable to the British community here.
With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I recommend the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1997 to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
瞶畊ボ
Miss Margaret NG claimed a division.
艷祸某璶―翴∕
瞶畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕翴∕牧穦伙臫3だ牧
6.53 pm
と653だ
THE PRESIDENT resumes the Chair.
畊確穦某
畊略矗眶︗某瞷窖∕ぇ某肈1997チ挂璹兵ㄒぉ弄
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷ガ挡狦
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, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 Philip WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Miss Margaret NG voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 51 votes in favour of the motion and one vote against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
畊ガ觅Θ某51は癸1琌ガ某莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997
1997チ挂璹兵ㄒ
Clause 1
兵ㄒ材1兵
〆穦畊玂の襖略ビ某だ箇ボ览碞材1兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶玂の襖略ビ某だ碞材1兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶セ畊穦叫玂笆某タ琌璽砫セ兵ㄒぇそ戮
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 change to the commencement date of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 1997 which I have already referred to in the Second Reading debate, and also some technical amendments consequential to the amendment of the commencement date of the Bill.
I understand that the Honourable James TO will move a Committee stage amendment to change the commencement date of this Bill to a day to be appointed by a resolution of this Council. I can see two disadvantages with such an approach.
First, there is practically no time for the current Legislative Council to pass a resolution to specify the commencement date of the Bill. If we leave this to the future legislature to decide then there is no guarantee when such a decision will be taken. It does not give the British community the certainty which they would like to have now.
Secondly, for practical reasons the date to be specified by a resolution of the Special Administration Region legislature can only be after 1 July 1997 by which time the provisions under Article 24, sub-paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 4 of the Basic Law will have come into operation. It will in effect allow the right to land status currently enjoyed by British citizens to perpetuate beyond 1 July 1997. This will give rise to a situation, albeit probably for a short while, whereby British citizens who have resided in Hong Kong for seven years will be entitled to both the right to land status as well as being eligible for the right of abode status at the same time.
The Administration believes that the commencement date of 30 June should be clearly specified rather than being left to a future unspecified date. This will provide certainty for British citizens affected and it is entirely within the spirit of the Basic Law.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 1 (See annex VI)
兵ㄒ材1兵ǎンVI
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫襖略ビ某碞玂矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶玂ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫襖某笆某タ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊狦иタΘи辨現┎ぃ璶Μ硂兵ㄒ狦Μ兵ㄒぃ挂舦碞癴ぃ笵
玂弧狦и矗タ莉眔硄筁碞穦Τㄢ翴┮孔ぃぇ矪и谋眔ㄤ龟琌菲絔の材玂弧セЫ⊿Τ丁糵某ê兜Τ闽∕某τ礚玂靡るらミ猭穦︙穦秈︽璹┪硄筁┮﹚┦の絋﹚┦琌璶瞷碞莱璶Τ絋﹚┦ぃ筁蛤┮弧材翴玱籔材翴阶沮は弧狦せるらぃ杠-
るら碞穦Τ挂舦穦Τ舦ビ叫膀セ猭材兵材蹿┮更﹡痙舦
材翴タタ婚ジ材翴狦-
ㄢ贺舦常局Τ杠碞ぃ穦Τぃ絋﹚┦瞷琂礛ㄢ贺舦常局Τ兜ビ叫莉眔у碞局Τ赣兜舦庢ㄒㄓ弧狦るら挂舦ê或パるら︓ら笵荡癸Τ舦笲ノ挂舦ビ叫膀セ猭材兵材蹿﹡痙舦ㄆ龟玂材翴タタ呸胯婚ジ材翴
猵︙孔絋﹚┦㎡氮琌-
赤ア舦и-
チ囊ぃ觅Θ艷祸某┮弧舦阶ぃ筁и-
谋眔Τㄇ赤アㄇ舦猭ㄒ⊿Τ弧︙-
Τㄤê或и-
或穦や兵ㄒ弄㎡и-
獺膀セ猭材兵材蹿更-
干ㄇ舦拜肈琌ゼΤ冈灿猭兜Τのìи-
骸種猭ㄒ璹硂兜舦ㄆ龟┮孔ê﹚┦セōㄤ龟琌店鞍-
ぃ筁琌﹚笵︑赤ア舦痲盢ㄓ︙玥临ゼ絋﹚ㄏ琌玂┮弧ぃ絋﹚┦ㄆ龟癸-
ㄓ弧琌⊿Τぃ絋﹚はτ琌贺舦Τㄢ贺匡拒玂材翴竒氮︑拜肈и-
礚斗癚阶
и辨某やΤ晃钡┦讽琘ㄇ赤ア舦и-
丁倒-
辣干蠢舦︓Τㄇ弧琌蔼糷Ω舦パセ挂舦跑﹡痙舦硂妓琌璽砫ヴ暗猭
Question on the Secretary for Security's amendment put.
玂ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr IP Kwok-him, Bruce LIU and Mr Howard YOUNG claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某郭Θ某の法У地某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈玂碞材兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
〆穦畊瞷窖∕琌玂碞材兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁传杠弧璝觅Θ玂ぇタ襖略ビ某タ獽ぃ∕瞷フ⊿Τ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, 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 LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
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, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Miss Margaret NG, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mrs Elizabeth WONG voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the Secretary for Security's amendment and 22 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ玂ぇタ31は癸22琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊襖略ビ某パ玂碞材1兵矗ぇタ莉∕ぃ碞材1兵笆某览某タ硂籔ぇ∕﹚ぃ璓
Question on clause 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材1兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 23
兵ㄒ材23兵
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 23 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. This is a technical amendment consequent to my amendment to put the effective date of the Bill at 30 June.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 23 (See annex VI)
兵ㄒ材23兵ǎンVI
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Question on clause 23, as amended, put and agreed to.
竒タ兵ㄒ材23兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕莉硄筁
Clauses 2 to 22, 24, 25 and 26 were agreed to.
兵ㄒ材2︓222425の26兵莉眔硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
Third Reading of Bill
兵ㄒ弄
THE SECRETARY FOR SECURITY reported that the
玂厨孔
IMMIGRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997
1997チ挂璹兵ㄒ
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill.
竒タ硄筁砰〆穦糵某顶琿笆某弄瓃兵ㄒ
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕莉硄筁
Bill read the Third time and passed.
兵ㄒ竒弄硄筁
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
確兵ㄒ弄臛阶
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
1996ㄆ竜︽璹材2腹兵ㄒ
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 4 December 1996
確せるら笆某弄臛阶
︙玊く某璓勉畊и稱矗祘и獺璶癸セ兵ㄒ某∕︓ぶ惠璶ㄢиǎ玂筁と逗Г硂狦膥尿边10┪11⊿Τ丁逗瘤礛さぱи-
畒常癸玂ぃ骸ぃ稱ぃ琵玂逗ぃ笵畊琌稱既ヰ穦琵玂ヰ穦ㄠ琌斑璽砫﹛
畊︙玊く某叫ГΤ患倒セ畊眎兵璶―セ畊ㄇ∕﹚瘤礛セ畊眖ゼ弧筁硂琍戳穦某ぱぱ璶8既氨穦某琂礛ず叭〆穦纯竒矗某и-
矗ΝΝ9秨﹍穦某︓阀边8セ畊程種Τ硂稱猭刚刚材ぱ荷秖8オЧ穦8玡竒秨﹍矪瞶兵ㄒ程矪瞶Ч拨ぃ㏕﹚8床穦硂ョ琌セ畊瞷稱猭安璝瞷ご矪瞶щ禗牡よ縒ミ菏诡〆穦兵ㄒ┪"い硚炳祘玶"璶ㄓ穝臛阶杠セ畊痷ぃぱ穦某盢秨︙Ч挡セ畊ぃ幢弧琌8︓9101112璶贬ゼ﹚ぃ礛杠и-
ぃ5ぱずЧΘи-
斗璶矪瞶ちㄆ叭瞷セ畊辨荷еЧΘи-
瞷タσ納兵ㄒ︓璶ぶ丁瞷琌710だ璶產︑粄璶妓Τ某ミ初竒獶盽絋-
∕﹚惠璶量ぶ琌﹚量ê或临琌量璶翴セ畊辨琌硂妓矪瞶
璝玂ぃざ種杠ノ┬丁ㄇぶ狥﹁妓筿跌芠穦某秈︽安玂璶ノ刊硂妓逼
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, as far as I am concerned, I would rather august this Council to carry on.
︙玊く某畊膀セ猭材兵砏﹚翠疭︽現跋莱︑︽ミ猭窽ゎ兜︽ㄤい珹ヴ︙玵瓣だ吊瓣產捍笆玵睹腁滦いァチ現┎︽讽ЫΤ闽セ兵ㄒミ猭Ы把σ戈篕璶ず更瓃ウ碞兵ㄒ某吭高羛羛蹈舱いよ筁祘の矗ユ兵ㄒ瞶沮
セ兵ㄒ璶ヘ琌ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ材I场糤璹腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽ㄏ赣兵ㄒ籔材兵砏﹚璓璹赣兵ㄒい籔玵癴の捍笆竜︽Τ闽瞷Τ兵ゅの荷は琈炊硄猭砏﹚
セ兵ㄒ竒矗ユセЫずぃ刮砰某ボぃ穦把糵某セ兵ㄒ沮セ秆-
粄硂よミ猭琌パ璶皌膀セ猭龟琁のら続ノ疭跋┮ぃ莱パ瞷ミ猭Ы糵某┪硄筁τ莱疭跋Θミパ疭跋ミ猭诀闽矪瞶
畊и㎝兵ㄒ〆穦ㄆ常ぃ種硂猭и-
谋眔セЫΤだのì镑舦糵某瞷︽猭ㄒ讽礛狦ら疭跋ミ猭诀闽粄Τ或よぃТτ斗璶璹┪︓ぉ崩陆ウЧΤ舦硂妓暗セЫ┮糵某兵ㄒ斗才膀セ猭玥瓣チ穦︽ㄏ膀セ猭材κせ兵┮结ぉ舦紀埃セ兵ㄒи-
獽琌セ硂玥癸セ兵ㄒ秈︽糵某и-
ョ獺セ硂﹙Ξパи-
糵某兵ㄒ盢穦才膀セ猭и-
常辨翠舦簿ユセ兵ㄒご穦膥尿疭跋龟琁
7.11 pm
711だ
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
瞶畊辩醇翬某既穦某
︙玊く某瞶畊パセ踞ヴ畊兵ㄒ〆穦庢︽13Ω穦某埃籔讽Ы庢︽穦某兵ㄒ〆穦ョ穦ǎ翠畍そ穦"畍そ穦"翠畍穦"畍穦"瓣悔猭舱麓翠舦菏诡の翠癘穦钮-
癸兵ㄒ種ǎ紉高-
癸兵ㄒ〆穦┮矗タ某種ǎ
セ瞷略虏瓃兵ㄒ〆穦纯坝某璶ㄆ兜現┎讽Ы獺セō┮矗某琌碞ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ龟悔瞶τ︽璹沮膀セ猭砏﹚硂ㄇ璹籔そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そのセ猭ㄒ璓讽Ыョ獺硂兵竒筁続讽璹猭ㄒ秈︽続莱て玥莱舦簿ユ膥尿続ノ讽Ы眏秸ウ礚種虑矗ユ兵ㄒ玠搭瞷翠ㄉΤ舦の︑パ
よ沮场だ刮砰種ǎ膀セ猭材兵琌翠疭跋琁兜舅猭砫ヴ砏﹚疭跋莱ミ猭窽ゎヴ︙玵瓣だ吊瓣產捍笆玵睹の腁滦︽兵ゅセōゼ璹﹚ヴ︙猭﹚竜︽ョ⊿Τ窽ゎ腁滦のだ吊瓣產︽ゼΤ﹚闽腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽絋猭﹚兵ゅ薄猵硂ㄇ竜︽セぃ
セ蹲厨Τ闽腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽癚阶猭のㄤ刮砰癸糤璹腁滦竜︽ぃや瞶パ琌
(a) 翠現┎琂礚砫ヴョ礚ゲ璶硂兜竜︽ミ猭ㄤ炊硄猭続ノ跋ョゼ璹Τ腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽
(b) 瞷璹﹚贺惫琁の竜︽珹そ兵ㄒい砏﹚ìだ玂毁その
(c) ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ材2兵ゼ竒璹竒筁続讽эぇ盢穦穝璹兵ゅ材5の5A兵某腁滦のだ吊瓣產︽じ
︓だ吊瓣產竜︽畍穦瘤礛⊿Τ钡癸Τ闽ミ猭惠璶矗は癸赣穦某安讽Ы糤璹赣兜竜︽獽璶璹﹚埃兵ゅ坚睲或笆絛氓礚斗璽綝浪北猭砫ヴ弧兵ゅい┮そ秨ゲ斗才硑Θ"陪の繧"兵ン靡デΤ闽竜︽ㄤ刮砰ぃや糤璹硂兜竜︽瞶パ㎝は癸腁滦竜︽畍そ穦埃獶琌玵癴┦借薄猵玥璸购猌縴管羛瓣現┎羛瓣ヴ︙场だ┪ヴ︙璣瓣妮猭舦ぃ妮ㄆ竜︽翠癘穦粄莱璹膀セ猭材兵埃癸祇︑パ硑Θ腨腁滦のだ吊瓣產阀├
σ納刮砰祇種ǎの竒筁坝某场だ某挡阶琌ぃ莱糤璹腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽秈˙秈︽癚阶兵ㄒ〆穦璓種笆某タ埃兵ㄒず材4の5兵ㄇ某猔種沮膀セ猭材兵翠Τ猭珹炊硄猭ず常穦舦簿ユ玂痙パ翠の场だ炊硄猭続ノ跋常⊿Τ璹﹚硂ㄇ竜︽某い兵ゅ┮璹デ竜︽パ瞷︽猭ㄒ矪瞶讽Ы礚ゲ璶瞷Τ猭砏い硂ㄢ兜竜︽
瘤礛チ囊ぃ種兵ㄒず硂ㄢ兜穝糤竜︽粄莱赣荷е璹膀セ猭材兵埃Τ闽腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽チ囊ョσ納瞷現獀吏挂羬ミ猭穦硂よミ猭琌墩ゲ︽┮и-
某莱赣瞶ミ猭р腁滦のだ吊瓣產阀├㎝Τ闽玵癴┦借竜︽兵ゅㄖチ囊粄某い兵ゅゲ斗Ч才そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔その翠舦猭兵ㄒ璹τ竒筁続讽続莱て舦簿ユご礛琌︽兵ゅゼㄓ翠疭跋ミ猭诀闽盢礚斗碞硂ㄢ兜竜︽ミ猭τら﹚猭ㄒ穦┪管瞷翠ㄉΤ︑パの舦疭琌祇︑パ硂贺ぃЫョ繦ぇτ埃チ囊某祔穦冈荷ざ残赣囊ミ初の矗タず甧
ㄤ某粄礚斗虫虫才材兵砏﹚璹﹚贺膀非┪癸琂﹚玥Т-
種材兵セō礚糤璹硂ㄇ竜︽τΤ闽よョ⊿Τ矗瞶パ靡Τ惠璶瞷Τ猭い硂ㄇ竜︽兵ㄒ〆穦竒筁冈灿τ过┏癚阶ゼ祇瞷Τヴ︙暗猭琌琂璹﹚硂ㄇ竜︽τぃ穦甡翠ㄉΤ舦の︑パ
︓Τ闽玵癴の玵癴┦借竜︽兵ゅ某笵瘤礛畍そ穦の翠舦菏诡玥や糴Τ闽玵癴瞷︽猭琌瓣悔猭舱麓玱粄穝の糴Τ闽兵ゅ暗猭国硂ㄇ兵ゅ竒璹獽穦砆跌穝猭ㄒτ砆ぃ眖筁┕猭秆睦のㄒい磃
某炊筂種パ丁の戈方┮龟ぃ莱癸Τ闽玵癴の玵癴┦借竜︽兵ゅэ硂兜莱パ猭э〆穦τぃ琌パ兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽ぃ硂妓暗獽莱赣蹦讽Ы某璹硂ㄇ璹┦借癸淮稬τぃ穦癸猭阀├瞷Τ瞶秆硑Θэ跑の紇臫
ㄏΤ闽猭ㄒ甧秈︽続莱て讽Ы兵ㄒ材2兵某瓣產羛瓣矗瓃ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ材2(1)(c)兵いぃ続ノ啊矗瓃硂兜某莉眔场だ某やΤ︗某粄材2(1)(c)(i)兵莱蝴粂竡ぃ睲贰ウ猭ョτ螟絋﹚场だ某種材2(1)(d)の(f)兵㎝材2(2)兵莱蝴ぃ跑材2(1)(e)兵いΤ闽啊矗瓃玥莱酚讽Ы某妓羛瓣矗瓃
某笵瞷︽材3兵ヴ︙そ秨┪祇ガヴ︙珇┪ゅンΑ笷種瓜笷材1(a)︓(c)蹿┮璹﹚ヴ︙ヘ妮デ竜挪種瓜セぃ虫咎そ秨崩耞ㄓ赣兵ゅ琌ē阶┪ゅ竜场だ某種埃赣兵ゅ
Τ闽捍笆竜︽よ某笵畍そ穦畍穦の翠癘穦常や埃Τ闽捍笆種瓜の竜︽材9の10兵硂ㄇ兵ゅ笻はそチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そ┮璹膀セ舦畍穦の瓣悔猭舱麓常粄捍笆竜︽ぃ度妮筁τΤぃ▆崔チ竡瞇竡籔チ祇甶璉笵τ梗硂兜竜︽ē阶┪ゅ竜癸猭у蝶現┎猌竟瓣悔猭舱麓捍笆竜︽阀├ㄓパ猭秆睦硋˙Μ讽Ы某材10兵穝じョ種瓜旧璓忌籹硑耑睹そ┪そ渤奶睹穦赣兵ゅ跑眔┦
兵ㄒ〆穦秈︽坝某糂紌某某埃材9の10兵Τ闽竜︽竒筁τ讽腨糉硂ㄇ兵ゅ盢祇種ǎ︽﹚ㄆ竜︽τ闽捍笆種瓜兵ゅョ阀珹秆睦璓癸舦硑Θ粄そ兵ㄒ竒癸栋穦の笴︽ì镑砏﹚獽蝴そ嘲糠某艷祸某の独窥ㄤ军某癸某ボや
チ囊のチ某癸硂ㄆぃ篈㎝種ǎチ囊瘤礛玥や璹膀セ猭材兵эΤ闽兵ㄒи-
σ納羬ミ猭穦┪疭跋ミ猭诀闽硂よミ猭瞷龟┦┮и-
腀種ㄇ炊硄猭続ノ跋玂毁惫琁㎝阀├э到Τ闽捍笆竜︽チ囊粄碞硂兜竜︽﹚才そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔その翠舦猭兵ㄒ砏﹚┏帹琌暗猭チ囊某瞷顶琿ぃ璶埃硂兜兵ゅτ莱璹
(a) Μ材9兵い捍笆種瓜﹚竡
(b) 兜じ璹Τ闽︽ヘ琌耑睹"舱Θ舦诀篶"ㄏ讽Ы耕螟矗浪北の
(c) рΤ闽瓣產祇︑パの莉戈揩ず吹躇玥材6兵ㄖ材10兵舦矗ㄑ玂毁
The buzzer sounded a continuous beep.
噶伙竟祇尿臫羘
瞶畊︙玊く某15だ牧祇ē筁
︙玊く某セ略朝勉辨產やセ兵ㄒ確弄
谅谅瞶畊
眎ゅ某璓勉瞶畊ゼ秈癚阶兵ㄒず甧玡иゲ斗睲贰チ囊ミ初
и-
や現┎ミ猭Ы矗硂兵兵ㄒ硂ぃボи-
Ч觅Θ兵ㄒず甧疭琌Τ闽腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜︽и-
種ǎ籔現┎種ǎΤ腨だ猍иや矗ユ兵ㄒ琌辨硓筁チ匡某そ秨癚阶ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒい珹伐庇稰腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜狦沮膀セ猭材兵﹟ゼ紀埃杠碞ゲ斗ま炊硄猭弘иゲ斗ビи眏疨は癸膀セ猭材兵翠ミ猭窽ゎ腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜硂ㄇ竜琌炊硄猭┮⊿Τ璶琌癸ㄓΤē竜魁い瓣ㄓ弧硂ㄇ竜琌伐繧竜琌現┎ノ马溃钵炳籍钵竜璶絋玂蒥チ沮猭︑パ笷は癸現┎種ǎ︑パノ㎝キよ猭現┎祇チ羘и粄ゲ斗紀埃膀セ猭材兵腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜и粄翠莱祇癬舅笲笆э膀セ猭材兵砏﹚过┏玂毁蒥チē阶㎝笷︑パ
膀セ猭材兵﹟ゼ紀埃玡и-
穦渡荷把σ炊硄猭瓣產ㄒ㎝Τ闽玂毁兵ゅ腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜程睲捶程糴甧㎝程秨﹚竡磷ヴ︙ē竜薄瞷の磷現┎垒ノ舦马溃钵ㄏ盢ㄓ羬ミ猭穦┪パいよ巨北ミ猭穦璶璹┪穝腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產︽ミ猭ぃЧ簔跌さぱ猭㎝瞶沮さぱи-
ぃ穦フ禣硂兵兵ㄒ┮ヴ︙и-
ㄓミ猭﹚瞶┦砏絛
さぱ現┎矗腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產兵ゅ琌莉眔硄筁┪筁寸常ぃ琌и程闽猔拜肈讽и-
泊ǎ疭跋現┎ノ荷よ猭紀埃瞷︽そ兵ㄒの刮兵ㄒ讽и-
稰谋筀笷︑パ鉚禫Μ禫候и-
穦ぱ痷いよ琵瞷チ匡ミ猭Ы炊硄猭玥硄筁ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ筁寸㎡膀セ猭材兵庢腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產︽┮皐癸癸禜琌いァチ現┎τぃ琌疭跋現┎и穦ぱ痷いよ琵ゼㄓミ猭诀闽︑パ酚炊硄猭玥璹は癸ē竜猭㎡
瞶畊и痷タ紐納琌ら疭跋現┎膀セ猭材兵璹猭ㄒ伐穦函い瓣現┎癸腁滦捍笆┪だ吊瓣產﹚竡τ讽肣ㄊネうの渤チ笲琌ē阶τぃ琌疉の猌┪癸瓣產篶Θ龟借繧薄猵獽砆牟デ腁滦捍笆单竜砆管舦㎝︑パ砆╟いи紐納琌Τ笵瞶┮и闽猔碞琌и玡┮ゲ斗そ渤眏秸獺璹膀セ猭材兵ゴ瘆硂筀舦㎝︑パ鉚硂琌и-
さ环㎝璶舅ヘ夹
膀硂獺├и粄糵某セ兵ㄒ盢癸玂毁ら蒥チē阶栋穦㎝挡单︑パ祇揣ノ瞶畊иぃ種Τㄇ某弧╯セ兵ㄒ琌フ禣み诀и-
ōミ猭Ы某ヴず糵某猭ㄒ荡癸琌и-
砫ヴτㄆ竜︽兵ㄒいΤ籔ㄤゅ穦祇甶叉竊兵ゅ獽斗璶秈︽璹Τㄇミ猭Ы某ǎいよ祇獽もì礚惫а癘︑莱砫ヴр翠┎矗ユ兵ㄒΡ秆Θ笻は膀セ猭-
礚跌るらぇ玡翠┎ごΤ璹猭ㄒ猭舦-
ぃ皌チ匡某Τ璽匡チ┮Λ沮畍そ穦秆睦膀セ猭材兵砏﹚疭跋現┎︑︽ミ猭⊿Τゎ瞷︽現┎碞硂ㄇ竜︽ミ猭┪璹┮硂ㄇ某ㄤ弧琌狹腐糵某龟悔琌璶炳兵ㄒ琵兵ㄒ璍浮い
瞶畊癸Τㄇ克い竤癬は癸セ兵ㄒиぃ稰祡硂ㄇ羘临Τぃぶ穦刮砰㎝猭舱麓纯竒碞兵ㄒ兵ゅ筁冈灿╯㎝瞶┦だ猂眖猭à祇-
癸ま腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜︽礚阶玡┪常璓ボは癸琌まノ炊硄猭瓣產⊿Τ腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜阀├硂ㄇ竜︽甧砆垒ノы筀ē阶︑パ笷︑パ猌竟и-
ョ獶盽フミ猭ス瞷簗瑌獽穦Θ碿猭
и-
獶盽糵稸磅︽硂兜糵某兵ㄒи-
ぃ虫ゎ把σ炊硄猭瓣產ㄒ摸猭兵ゅ舦厨㎝瓣悔そτΩ吭高Τ闽盡穨刮砰㎝猭臮拜辨だ癚阶ぇㄖ甅腨略τ︽猭ㄒ珹沽刚種瓜忌︓琌現┎单泊璹睲捶﹚竡"揩ェ吹躇玥"ゲ斗疉の猌㎝篶Θ繧竜ョ穦瓣ㄒ代刚单パ璶荷秖臮の猭兵ゅэ笆ぃ眔Й锚炊硄猭ㄒ拜肈跑眔獶盽雌も㎝狡馒竒筁きる糵某瘤礛某璓ぃ種現┎璹兵ㄒ材5の5(a)兵ず甧癸︙タиゲ斗┯粄〆穦⊿Τ笷璓醚
埃材5の5(a)兵ぇ翠┎癸ㄤ緇兵ゅ⊿Τず甧璹场だ琌嘿砃粂э硂陪礛琌磷眔竜いよ現獀σ納ㄏㄇぃㄆ﹜笻は舦猭㎝瓣悔そ兵ゅ翠┎ゼΤ矗璹瘤礛兵ㄒ〆穦丁╯腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽紀拜肈糵某硂兵ㄒヘ琌璶ㄏ玵癴捍笆種瓜单竜︽镑才ゅ穦基㎝瓣悔そ砏﹚ぃ綞碞膀セ猭τ玂痙ヴ︙ē阶︑パ兵ゅ
セ硂糵某兵ㄒ玥現┎癸兵ㄒ材3兵Τ闽"玵癴┦借竜︽"材9兵Τ闽"捍笆種瓜"㎝材10兵闽兵ゅ┮璹琌ぃì镑沮畍そ穦種ǎ硂3兜璹穦ㄏゅのē阶ㄆてτ︑パ穦い硂琌ぃ莱翠舦菏诡舱麓玵癴┦借竜︽硂兵ゅセō竒笻はそチ舦の現獀舦瓣悔そ材兵砏﹚ㄏ㎝キ祇稱︽の闽現獀笆瞋ㄆてи-
Τゲ璶秈˙璹才瓣悔そ璶―
瞶畊и辨︗某埃泊腁滦のだ吊瓣產兵ゅσ納ㄤ竒筁┪Τ笻舦そ兵ゅ穦秈˙τ秈︽璹瘤礛ㄏ璹莉眔硄筁ゼゲ筁寸︓ぶそ渤穦笵さぱи-
⊿Τ禿璽и-
チ匡ミ猭Ы某ㄏ㏑и-
崩笆チ︑パミ秈˙穦猭獀程
瞶畊セ略朝勉
糂紌某璓勉瞶畊и祇ēや確弄1996ㄆ竜︽璹材2腹兵ㄒ
瞶畊翠┎┏セЫ矗ユセ兵ㄒ某瞷Τ猭ㄒ腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽ヘ夹琌盢ㄓ疭跋現┎現┎粄︽硄筁猭ㄒら続讽э絪獽舦ユ钡猽ノи蛤兵ㄒ〆穦ㄤΘ妓觅Θ現┎浪癚硂兜筁の璙ㄨ猭ㄒ
瞶畊チ囊綠產碔某せるら矗某玃叫現┎ミ璹瞷︽Τ闽玵瓣捍笆玵睹の叛瓣產诀盞猭ㄒ﹚窽ゎ腁滦︽猭ㄒㄏΤ闽猭ㄒΘ疭︽現跋現┎︑︽﹚玵瓣捍笆玵睹窽ゎ腁滦︽の叛瓣產诀盞猭ㄒㄌ沮虑玂毁翠カチそチ舦瞶畊癘眔讽щ布挡狦琌31布や23布は癸┮綠產碔某某莉眔硄筁現┎琌沮硂兜щ布挡狦粄场だ某や現┎﹚窽ゎ腁滦︽猭ㄒ
瞶畊瘤礛и讽琌や綠產碔某ㄤい某и讽祇ēい炊硄猭⊿Τ腁滦硂竜︽и讽玃叫現┎弧狝ㄊ奔膀セ猭材兵膜硂兜竜︽и矗ら疭跋沧糵畑淋叫ㄤ炊硄猭跋猭﹛玡ㄓ糵τン琌疉の腁滦竜︽硂瓣猭﹛獽穦ぃ︙矪瞶и獺иミ初だ睲捶荡癸⊿Τ粇旧現┎
︓だ吊瓣產竜︽綠產碔某某ЧゼΤ牟の某∕ョ⊿Τ碞硂拜肈現┎祇筁或獺琌瞷現┎稰〆﹠弧讽砆粇旧┮盢兵ㄒ矗ユミ猭Ы綠產碔某祔穦矗琌Τ粇旧現┎
瞶畊︓ささら現┎ごゼ秆睦︙﹚璶ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產硂ㄢ兜兵蹿陪猭瞶┪龟悔常⊿Τ硂惠璶斑瞶沮琌膀セ猭材兵Τ硂兜砏﹚狦⊿Τ硂兜砏﹚и獺и-
さぱセぃ斗璶秈︽硂ㄇ癚阶┪琌癚阶妓э到瞷Τㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ
瞶畊い瓣現┎ぃ甧砛ミ猭Ы碞膀セ猭材兵Τ闽腁滦单竜︽ミ猭ㄏセЫ硂妓暗瓣チ穦穦紀猭ㄤ龟璶い瓣現┎尺舧或ぃ尺舧獽或ぃ產常笵セЫ盢材兵Τ闽叛瓣產诀盞跑﹛よ玂盞兵ㄒ硂妓暗и谋眔硂妓龟礚┮続眖ろ玥尺舧獽倒ぃ尺舧或⊿Τ碞钩眎ゅ某矗Τㄇ某"蛤"い瓣す砛獽暗ぃす砛獽ぃ暗︓は癸ㄤ某秈︽癚阶瞶畊и種眎ゅ某弧猭и-
┮ひ琌⊿Τフ禣痷瞶禫臛禫и辨竒筁и-
计るㄓ糵某㎝さぱ臛阶カチ睲捶笵┪秆翠琌惠璶硂ㄇ猭ㄒ
瞶畊沮い瓣穦竡猭腁滦竜ノ玂臔礚玻顶盡現礚阶琌ゅ彻┪ē阶璶砆い跌珼驹礚玻顶盡現獽ì篶Θ腁滦竜硂阀├蛤翠ㄉΤē阶︑パ㎝舦玂毁陪琌璉笵τ梗琂礛い瓣現┎竒翠"ㄢ"┯空い瓣⊿瞶パ翠疭︽現跋ま秈ㄇ骸い瓣穦竡︹眒竜︽
и-
粄醚肣ㄊネ籔う碞琌砆北腁滦竜τ璶Г╟τア︑パ-
祇ㄇいぃゅ彻澈礛碞跑Θ竜靡硂ㄇㄒ琵и-
い瓣現┎穦ノ荷よκ璸筀チ笷︑パ
︓だ吊瓣產阀├琌蛤瓣悔舦そ结ぉチ︑∕舦玥璉笵τ梗沮瓣悔猭チΤ舦∕﹚︑現獀︗崔チ﹡チぃ┮まだ吊瓣產竜琌笻は瓣悔猭暗猭临Τ琍戳璣瓣現┎獽璶盢翠だ吊倒い瓣現┎硂璶ミ猭窽ゎだ吊羛瓣現┎琌ぃ琌控㎝抡㎡
い瓣瓣叭皘翠緿快そヴ緗キ纯竒荡ぃす砛Τ躬"ㄢい瓣"穝籇厨笵のē阶種荡癸ぃ矗翠芖縒ミ弧杠翠カチ㎝穝籇踞み穝籇︑パ㎝ē阶︑パ盢穦伐磜▂и-
觅Θ瞷︽猭ㄒ腁滦┪だ吊瓣產竜︽硂妓暗碞钩ま疶翠カチ︑
︙玊く某纯竒ㄢ畍穦常セЫボ炊硄猭⊿Τ腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜︽現┎兵ㄒいまノ瓣猭兵ゅ盢硂ㄢ兜竜︽ぉ﹚盢腁滦竜﹚"瓜猌崩陆現┎"ㄓ猌崩陆現┎︽琌莱ぉ窽ゎ琌璶﹚琘琌デ腁滦竜斗靡Τ硂妓"瓜捍碽┪籔﹃垦"獽竜
瘤礛Τㄇ某粄琂礛Τㄇ龟︽炊硄猭瓣產Τ硂ㄇ兵ゅи-
まノΤ或胊矪㎡琌и-
ぃ璶а癘ㄏ龟︽チ砰瓣產穦癸硂ㄇ兵ゅΤぃ瞶秆и-
盢-
篋ノ兵ゅ穐筁и-
猭ㄒ獶醇ぇ庢︓琌伐繧暗猭璶睲捶﹚妓琌"瓜猌崩陆現┎"翴ぃ甧狦и-
﹚硂竜︽獽穦讽舦籹硑ㄣ恒钵
┮Τ兵ㄒ〆穦矗ユ種ǎ刮砰珹ㄢ畍穦翠癘穦瓣悔猭舱麓の翠舦菏诡常は癸硂ㄢ兜竜︽把σ筁刮砰種ǎ㎝膀瓃瞶パи㎝玡帹某常は癸腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜
現┎ョ某э玵癴㎝捍笆竜兵ゅ瞶畊捍笆竜琌兜だ筁竜︽讽璣瓣現┎﹚硂兜碿猭崔チ参獀よ腳糃ノ筀チ壁竡㎝は崔チ薄狐まノ竜︽瓣產常琌马溃は現┎現獀┪穦笆
砰〆穦糵某顶琿и穦玡帹矗タ盢捍笆竜︽兵ゅ埃︓玵癴竜и-
穦や︙玊く某矗タ玡帹ョ穦は癸チ囊タ赣タ"玵癴┦竜︽"竡Ωま腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜и-
ぃ觅Θ硂妓暗猭
︙玊く某矗羬ミ穦墩ゲ穦膀セ猭材兵ミ猭и獺ゼゲ荷礛硂琌и-
瞷Μよ獺陪ボ粄莱赣盢硂兜猭ㄒユ倒材ミ猭诀闽矪瞶︙玊く某瞷钩〆﹠薄猵硂妓暗戳埃ぃЫ瞶畊產常笵セミ猭Ы硄筁猭ㄒミ猭诀闽穦矗эㄆ龟–ミ猭ЫАΤ舦эミ猭Ы┮硄筁猭ㄒ┮иぃ︙璶埃┮孔ぃЫ拜肈琌и-
临暗ㄇ或
瞶畊и-
莱赣и-
玥㎝ミ初и種眎ゅ某弧猭ㄤ龟┮弧種ǎи種琌程挡阶иぃ觅τи-
璶辨э膀セ猭材兵и-
谋眔硂妓暗癸τぃ琌よ弧稱э膀セ猭材兵ゼ硂妓暗獽〆Ρ―菠荷壶戳磜▂らミ猭诀闽琌и-
︙镑快眔㎡瞷и-
磜▂ぃ穦ゑ┕狦布计ì镑杠и-
э玡硄筁猭ㄒ┮и辨チ囊
羆珹τē瞶畊玡帹は癸猭ㄒい腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產单竜︽иョ穦笆某埃捍笆竜の縩伐э膀セ猭材兵Τ闽腁滦だ吊瓣產の捍笆竜︽
и略朝勉や弄
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy, the Liberal Party's position on this Bill is very clear. We consider it ill-advised for the Hong Kong Government to introduce this Bill which deals with offences provided under Article 23 of the Basic Law.
One would expect that a bill which deals with these offences which are difficult, sensitive and obviously of concern to the community, would be given every consideration not just as to its definition or scope but more importantly as to whether it will survive the transition. We do not believe that the Bill, as it has not been agreed to by the British and the Chinese Governments, will survive the transition.
I hope in this respect my colleagues here today will respect our position as we respect their position to give detailed consideration and deliberation to the Bill, which they obviously have from the contents of their speech so far, but we are unable to lend our support to this process or the Bill.
The Liberal Party, Mr Deputy, will vote against the Bill.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Deputy, on 17 January 1996, in a motion debate in this Council on the protection of civil rights in Hong Kong, many Members expressed concern about the uncertainty created by Article 23 of the Basic Law. They urged the Administration to present the amendment bill on the Crimes Ordinance, so that this Council can tackle the difficult question of legislating to introduce such strange and new crimes as "subversion" and "secession" as soon as possible. This the Administration did in December 1996, in spite of the failure to reach agreement with the Chinese side. I thank the Administration for its commendable response to this Council. The introduction of the Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill provided the opportunity for this Council to consider seriously the feasibility of such legislation in consultation with the public in a democratic process.
The deliberations of the Bills Committee deserve to be consulted, whether or not the Bill and its amendments are passed today. We have been told that even if the amendments liberalizing the present law are passed, their life will be no more than a few weeks or even days, before they are invalidated or repealed by the Chinese authorities. We are, it is said, wasting valuable legislative time. But, Mr Deputy, as Members elected to the legislature, our greatest fear is not that we take too seriously something which might be short-lived. The greatest fear is that we throw away important safeguards of liberty because we do not take things sufficiently seriously.
In the rest of this speech, I will summarize the views I have reached, as a matter of general principle, and then under each of the offences of treason, treasonable offences, subversion, secession and sedition.
General principles
One of the most important views many of us adopted in the Bills Committee was that given the development of human rights in recent times, crimes against the state must be compatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and that the law should be liberalized rather than made harsher, less clear social wrongs justify harsher laws. I have been given authoritative opinion that the laws to be enacted under Article 23 are subject to the protection of the ICCPR under Article 39.
One thing crucial to my own deliberations on the Bill is the unanimous view of the Bar and legal advice to the Administration, that Article 23 cannot be directly applied as part of our criminal law. Its effect is to enable the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) to enact certain laws on its own, and to place a duty on it to do so within a reasonable period. But until and unless the SAR does so, there are no offences of subversion and secession in Hong Kong. No one can be arrested, charged or convicted of subversion or secession until and unless such offences are established by Hong Kong law. In other words, Article 23 does not by itself necessitate our legislating on these new offences.
We asked then, is there any other reason making the new offences necessary? While members of the Bills Committee, myself included, agree that offences against the state are necessary, we also agree that these type of offences can easily become too vague and too broad, and open to abuse as political weapons to curtail individual rights and freedoms. Legislation for offences against the state must be each justified against the criterion of necessity, and contain built-in safeguards against abuse. These considerations are applicable not only to the proposed new offences of subversion and secession, but all the offences in Parts I and II of the Crimes Ordinance touched upon in the Bill. The two questions I have consistently asked of each and every offence therein are: Is it necessary? Is it safe? If the answers are negative, then it must be rejected or changed.
Subversion and secession
The Administration's proposed sections 5 and 5A provide for the new offences of subversion and secession. Commendably, each includes, as a necessary element, the use of force as a means to achieve a purpose. But even so, the risk of someone being convicted merely for exercising his freedom of speech remains. Take the example of subversion. By the proposed 5(b), a person who "incites or conspires with any other person to overthrow the Government of the United Kingdom by force" thereby commits an offence. After 1 July, of course, this would refer to the Chinese Government. Now, in 1979, WEI Jingsheng was convicted under a similar offence in China, for writing an article in which he allegedly incited people to "seize power" from those in government. In 1995, he was convicted of "conspiring to subvert the government" for writing a letter appealing for funds for the "democracy movement", where a democracy movement was understood to be a "seizing of government by force".
Mr President, in scrutinizing the language of clauses 5 and 5A, I am of course aware that our courts, under the common law, are not entitled to make such broad, sweeping interpretations against the defendant. But the public must think that there is a risk, particularly after the change of sovereignty, and I cannot assure them this is pure fancy. Moreover, the law serves also to regulate conduct. If the executive authorities interpret broadly, as Chinese officials have intimated from time to time, the public will be living under serious threat if such laws were passed.
There is no need for such laws to be passed to protect the SAR or China. As suggested by some Members, "subversion" may be characterized as the overthrowing of the government by its own citizens, while "secession" may be characterized, as the Chinese implies, as breaking off parts of the state into more than one independent entity. Now, is there any reason why these aims, as aims, should be subject to criminal sanction? In modern democratic thinking, the answer must be "no". Individuals are the masters of their governments. They have a right to debate and decide what kind of government organization they should have, whether they are better off under one government or more, provided the means they choose to debate or decide is lawful and peaceful, without resorting to violence.
This being the case, all we are entitled to punish would be violence the use of force. But the unlawful use of force, and the incitement to use force unlawfully, are already punishable under other legislation. There may be a case, to mark by special criminal sanction as particularly serious, when unlawful force is coupled with the aim of overthrowing or "supplanting" the government, but I think not an easy case, and not to be accepted without the most far-reaching study and consultation.
For the above reasons, my own position is to oppose clauses 5 and 5A and any reincarnation in any guise, including under the Committee stage amendment under "treasonable offences" to be moved by the Honourable James TO for the Democratic Party.
Treason and treasonable offences
Mr Deputy, having dealt with the proposed new offences, members of the Bills Committee also looked at the extant offences in Parts I and II. We noted these are archaic offences based on concepts no longer applicable to modern Hong Kong as we move towards the future. The Administration has merely introduced technical changes, in order to facilitate future adaptation. These amendments are acceptable to the Bills Committee. But other than that, members took a broader view towards these parts. My own approach is that provisions incompatible with human rights protection should be amended unless it is safe to rely on the courts taking modern authorities into account and restricting their interpretation.
Under this principle, the offence of treason, as amended by the Bill, is acceptable to the Bills Committee. The offence realistically has to do with "levying war" against the state or a part of the state, which of course ought to be a crime.
On the other hand, "treasonable offences" as provided in section 3 are felt to be too broad and therefore unacceptable. Here, the offence is not limited to levying war, but the mere intention to do any one of a number of things including levying war and instigating the invasion of a foreign force, coupled with an unspecified overt act or publication showing such an intention. There is no provision to stipulate that the nature of the act or publication is such as to have any likelihood of promoting these events. The Bills Committee will be moving a Committee stage amendment to delete section 3.
The Democratic Party, as I said earlier, is moving a Committee stage amendment to amend rather than remove treasonable offences. The amendment includes provisions for new offences reflecting "subversion" and "secession" though not so named. For reasons I have already fully explained, I am unable to support their amendment.
Sedition
I come finally to the extant offence of sedition provided under section 9 to 10 of the Ordinance, which was considered at great length in the Bills Committee.
Sedition is defined in terms of doing or attempting or conspiring to do any act, utter words or publish with a "seditious intention". "Seditious intention" is defined by a hotch-potch list of things such as an intention "to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection" against the government.
The opinion of legal experts making representation to the Bills Committee was unanimous that this is a typical offence found in colonial administrations and used by them or their immediate successors to censor dissenting political opinion. The Bar doubts if Hong Kong needs such an offence. At any rate, modern developments in the common law have substantially reduced the ambit of sedition even where the offence is retained. The most significant development is to require proof by evidence of the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or disturbance, before sedition can be established. It is one of the clauses of the bill to amend section 10 of the Ordinance by adding this requirement.
While I support this addition, I am of the view that even then it is not safe to leave the rest of the present sections 9 and 10 as they are, because they invite abuse. Along with the members of the Bills Committee, I tried to find ways to amend these sections. However, unlike my colleagues, I am concerned that too extensive tinkering with the Ordinance when the Bills Committee is severely limited in time and expertize may be undesirable. We may thereby renounce the benefit of modern case law while failing to write into the new provisions all the necessary safeguards.
I cannot, indeed, support the Committee stage amendment on sections 9 and 10 to be moved by the Honourable Albert HO on behalf of the Bills Committee, because, however well-meant, it is unsafe as drafted. One reading of the Committee stage amendment may allow slogans such as "Down with LI Peng" to be considered "seditious". In the end, I consider the only safe alternative is to remove the offence of sedition altogether, and I will support the amendment of the Honourable Miss Emily LAU to that effect.
Conclusion
Mr Deputy, I do not pretend we have found a satisfactory solution, even with the Committee stage amendments. The exercise of the search has demonstrated the urgent need for far-reaching reforms in this sensitive area of the law. My recommendation to the Council is to pass the Bill with the safest Committee stage amendments as a stop-gap measure, and then start a law reform committee to search for the long-term solution most compatible with the modern international human rights law.
With these words, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr Deputy, this Bill reminds me very much of the Official Secrets Ordinance that we just passed a couple of weeks ago. The same Members chose to be members of this particular Bills Committee. The same two official members were chaperoning the Bill through the Bills Committee, and indeed the vigorous debate that we had over the Official Secrets Ordinance was replicated with this particular Bill, Mr Deputy.
I take some pride, actually, as a legislator that the Bills Committee spent so much time discussing every aspect, and I will not go into the details because I think a summary of our work has just been summarized by the Honourable Miss Margaret NG. I just wish to say that the members who participated in this Bills Committee show the same care and concern with this Bill as with other bills that are introduced in this Council, and that the spirit in which we looked at this Bill is one that I think Legislators should pay attention to.
It is with much regret that, of course, the people who opposed this Bill, or amendments to this Bill did not bother to show up to the Bills Committee discussions at all. So in the short time that was available, we had many, many meetings and at each of the meetings each of the points that are being raised today was vigorously discussed and debated.
So, I would also like to support the second reading of this Bill and my votes on the various Committee stage amendments will be the same as Miss Margaret NG's.
8.05 pm
805だ
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
畊確穦某
綠產碔某璓勉畊さぱиセㄓぃゴ衡祇ēぃ筁糂紌某矗のи矗某臛阶辨и坚睲Τ⊿Τ粇旧現┎┮и稱硂弧碭杠酵酵и癸現┎矗ユセ兵ㄒの癸俱兵ㄒ糵某筁祘ㄇ猭
畊闽糂紌某矗のだ吊瓣產拜肈弧翠临Τ计ぱ獽璶だ吊倒い瓣糂某瞷ぃ初и稰┣︙糂某┪玡帹ㄆ蹦ノだ吊瓣產硂阀├瘤礛иる矗某臛阶いи-
⊿Τ矗のだ吊瓣產硂阀├и-
辨現┎镑碞膀セ猭材兵荷еセЫ矗ユ兵ㄒ礚阶︙翠莱赣耴瓣獶だ吊ㄓユ临倒い瓣
闽31癸23硂ゑ计и谋眔硂琌現┎初腞粇穦祔狦確弄秈︽щ布31︗щ布觅Θи某ㄆ︓珹チ囊Θず-
種╯澈穦琌妓琌31布や現┎矗兵ㄒи稱硂荡ぃボ讽ぱщ布やи某某﹚穦や現┎矗ユ┮Τ兵ㄒ硂翴и琌だ睲贰
讽某臛阶璉春琌肣ㄊネ禗ア毖Ω砆闽秈╟い赣某臛阶某肈獽琌睦肣ㄊネ瘤礛31癸23挡狦陪ボセЫㄆΤ種ぃボи-
ゲ﹚璶絃や現┎硂璹よ
畊и竒盽陆膀セ猭材兵㎝材兵材兵弧そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そ続ノ翠砏﹚穦膥尿Τ琌и-
谋眔材兵籔材兵㎝そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そ笻璉и獺计ぱ某臛阶いセЫ某穦祇-
癸膀セ猭猭︙穦Τ膀セ猭材兵砏﹚и-
谋眔竒筁せ監ㄆン膀セ猭癬〆穦粄Τ惠璶膀セ猭い璹﹚ㄇ闽だ吊瓣產捍笆玵睹腁滦いァチ現┎︽и-
粄⊿Τ肣ㄊネ㎝う獽⊿Τи-
Ω某臛阶⊿Τせ監ㄆン獽⊿Τ膀セ猭材兵拜肈琌и-
︙癸膀セ猭材兵硂竒龟砰и辨硓筁さΩ癚阶の兵ㄒ〆穦俱癚阶镑笷硂ヘиだ觅Θ嘲糠某┮弧は癸セ兵ㄒㄆぷㄤ琌羬ミ猭穦埃郭Θ某㎝毒浪膀某ぇΘ⊿Τ把籔ㄤいи谋眔瘤礛產は癸玱⊿Τタ癸產局Τミ猭舦
畊иぃ稱矗瘤礛糂紌某弧и-
暗ぃ妓镑癸ら羬ミ穦┪材ミ猭穦硑Θ磜▂и羆谋眔きミ猭Ы琌チ匡ミ猭Ы琌パκ窾匡チ匡ㄓミ猭Ыи-
硓筁癚阶程現┎︙盿ノ猌ㄓ﹚腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產单竜︽и谋眔程璶琌虑ま癬穦秈︽癚阶ㄏ羬ミ穦┪材ミ猭穦粄и-
ゼΤ琁溃︓ぶ竒筁и-
硂チ匡某穦秈︽癚阶カチ穦笵炊硄猭⊿Τ腁滦硂竜︽き匡ミ猭Ы纯癚阶筁硂拜肈狦ら羬ミ穦┪材ミ猭穦璹﹚ㄇだ璙ㄨ腨甿腁滦竜︽カチ獽ゑ耕
畊и谋眔硂初腞粇穦羇ㄏ琌粇穦ご矗ユセЫ秈︽癚阶
и辨︗ㄆや確弄谅谅畊
郭Θ某璓勉畊иチ祇ēや兵ㄒ〆穦兜璹某
琵и酵酵癸俱兵兵ㄒ猭セ兵ㄒ览某癸4兜竜︽秈︽ミ猭ㄤいㄢ兜琌翠玡┮ゼΤê碞琌腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜︽ㄤ緇ㄢ兜琌瞷猭┮Τê碞琌玵癴㎝捍笆竜︽
チは癸セЫ腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產硂ㄢ兜竜︽ミ猭и-
┮瞶パ籔チ囊瞶パΤぶ砛ぃ膀セ猭材兵璹硂ㄢ兜竜︽の籃莱パ疭跋︑︽ミ猭沮и-
瞶秆硂ㄇ竜︽莱痙疭跋秈︽ミ猭讽礛и-
癚阶筁祘い吭高種ǎτぃミ猭ョ琌弧翠セぃ斗璶璹硂ㄢ兜竜︽琌膀セ猭硂妓览獽盿Τミ猭竡叭и-
粄瞷Τそ兵ㄒㄤ龟ì矪瞶腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產单︽璝璶秈︽ミ猭程ユ材ミ猭穦矪瞶材ミ猭穦穦パ匡庢玻ネ獶羬┦借セЫぃ秈︽ミ猭癸キ铆筁寸穦Τ
材セЫ瞷临Τㄤ猭ㄒ斗璶矪瞶┮ぃ癸硂ㄢ兜竜︽秈︽ミ猭琌程続讽暗猭и-
莱ユパ材ミ猭穦秈︽冈灿癚阶︓秈︽翠┦秸琩カチ琌粄莱盢硂ㄢ兜竜︽セ翠猭い沮и︳璸狦パカチ∕﹚-
穦粄ぃ莱癸硂ㄢ兜竜︽秈︽ミ猭タㄢ畍そ穦粄翠セぃ斗璶癸硂ㄢ兜竜︽ミ猭瘤礛膀セ猭いミ猭诀闽盢ㄓ璶碞硂よ秈︽ミ猭硂珹竒σ納ぃミ猭暗猭
材癸琂Τㄆ竜︽и-
Τ舦続讽璹盢ㄤ瞷てㄏㄤ才翠矪挂盢ㄓミ猭诀闽狦谋眔硂ㄇ璹ち翠穦薄猵ㄤ龟"酚虫Μ"硂跌и-
妓硓筁癚阶﹚続讽猭ㄒ硂琌и戳辨讽礛Τ弧ㄏさぱ秈︽ミ猭祘莉眔硄筁盽〆穦ら穦рウ紀埃琌и谋眔盽〆穦莱睲贰и-
さぱ硄筁兵ㄒㄤ龟癸硂ㄢ兜瞷Τ竜︽瞷てタ
チ兵ㄒ〆穦碞玵癴竜㎝捍笆竜矗ㄇ種ǎチ粄ぃ莱癸瞷Τ玵癴竜эτи玥粄莱赣続讽эチ囊猭玱ぃ妓-
盢腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產阀├玵癴竜︽い硂盢穦旧璓Τㄇㄒぃ続ノ硂琌基琌チ囊タ璓㏑端и-
斗璶玂痙炊硄猭跋㎝瓣產ㄇㄒ獽琵セ翠猭畑ら把σи-
獽ぃ莱癸êㄇ闽龄┦泊эи-
よ璶玂痙ㄒ把σよ璶盢┮Τ竜︽τ硂琌ぃ︽ゼр纔翴玂痙临Τ現┎辨ら礚斗︽ミ猭盢碭兜竜︽τ硂玱瞣疉阀├拜肈碞琌猭い珹玵癴腁滦だ吊瓣產捍笆单碭兜竜︽籃硂穝竜︽嘿"竜︽A"ㄤいじ玱瞇瓃4兜竜︽じ硂穦瑈睼瞔ぃ睲硂妓ミ猭ョぃ続讽狦и-
粄璶癸硂或摸竜︽璹τ翠ら斗璶窽ゎカチ牟デ硂ㄇ竜︽и-
獽璶癸–兜竜︽睲捶﹚硂穦耕続
癸捍笆竜︽玡帹粄莱ぉ埃и秆-
粄⊿Τ硂兜竜︽獽琌程睲捶ぃ筁硂磷"ē竜"薄猵瞷ぃ筁硂璶跌跋┪瓣產狦Τㄇ琘ㄇ︽穦捍笆硑Θ忌ㄆン┪ま癬繧硂贺︽ぃ阶琌或嘿ご琌斗璶ぉ窽ゎ┮и-
斗﹚続讽猭ぃ莱琌р硂ㄇ竜︽埃玥и-
癸硂摸︽獽"礚猭ㄌ"ê或и-
妓暗眔チ某厨材琿いи-
粄ぃ莱埃Τ闽捍笆兵ゅτ莱虑揩ず吹躇玥材6兵砏﹚癸硂兵ゅ続讽璹ㄤ才そチ舦㎝現獀舦瓣悔そ揩ず吹躇玥睲贰磷"ē竜"┦兵ㄒ〆穦碭竒ǒ璚盢硂玥タい硂よи辨︗某や硂兜タ︓ヴ︙秈˙タ莱痙ら疭跋ミ猭诀闽矪瞶
и稱睲贰ユи-
癸セ兵ㄒщ布ミ初и-
辨盽〆穦ぃ穦и-
さぱ硄筁硂兜タτ紀埃セ兵ㄒ狦斗璶秈︽эи辨痙材ミ猭穦矪瞶
畊セ略朝勉
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊さΩ翠┎璹ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒ虫よそガΤ闽腁滦のだ吊瓣產竜︽ミ猭某盢兵ㄒ矗ユセЫ糵某陪琌ンぃ莱赣暗ㄆ
Τ闽腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產单竜︽拜肈膀セ猭材兵絋砏﹚莱パ疭跋︑︽ミ猭矪瞶硂碞琌弧癸腁滦だ吊单﹚竡﹚琌疭跋現┎舦琌現舦簿ユㄆ瞷翠┎暗猭Ч瞶秆珼驹膀セ猭︽
翠ヘ玡⊿Τち惠璶﹚Τ闽腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產猭ㄒ翠┎虫よ秈︽璹琌贺癸疭跋現┎ぃ獺ヴ璶ゼㄓ疭跋垦购郸瞷チ羛眖ぃ尺舧潮垦阶瞦︽ㄆヘさΩ翠┎匡拒舦耴玡璹兵ㄒ絋龟忌臩璣瓣ノみ
膀セ猭い璣羛羘帽竝箂るら箋ガ膀セ猭材兵竒Θ兵ゅ璝翠┎粄翠斗璶﹚闽猭㎝兵ゅ翠┎︙ぃê碞絋ボΤ闽兵ゅ斗璶璹㎡翠┎篗現舦玡璹兵ㄒ笆诀︙琌粄璝筁Ν璹兵ㄒ翠窾瞷螟箇ǎ穦睼睹翠┎獽礚猭まノ硂ㄇ兵ㄒ盢瘆胊翠獀ぃ猭だ梅ぇ猭眖翠┎矗ユゅンいノ"疭︽現跋"︽﹚猭ㄒ盢ㄓ"斗菠э"獽"筁寸猽ノ"硂ㄇ泊ì靡Τ硂妓ノみ
チ羛粄程才翠痲暗猭琌既玂痙瞷︽Τ闽猭ㄒ疭跋材ミ猭穦竒タΑ匡庢玻ネ秈︽約獂吭高讽龟悔薄猵㎝膀セ猭Τ闽砏﹚癸腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜︽秈︽ミ猭珿翠┎瞷龟⊿Τ惠璶矗ユセ兵ㄒ
翠┎戳硑Θ琂﹚ㄆ龟μΘЫ盢ぇ眏ゼㄓ疭跋現┎暗猭穦ぃ翠铆﹚穦ォは╁穕甡翠痲チ羛∕﹚ぃ把籔セ兵ㄒ糵某硂Ч琌и-
臮の翠环痲∕﹚
セ略朝勉チ羛は癸セ兵ㄒ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и稱チ囊莱ㄇㄆē阶腑瓣辆某ボセ兵ㄒ⊿Τち惠璶и瞷稱酵酵︙и粄Τち惠璶ㄆ竜︽兵ㄒいΤ闽玵瓣单竜︽龟琌だ璙ㄨ┮セ兵ㄒ琌Τち惠璶и獺筁计ㄓ"オ"克砆現獀场贝ゴ絃拜︓甡常琌赣兵ㄒ膀娄
ㄓ瘤礛ㄇ崔チ碿猭龟悔磅︽⊿Τ┕ê或璙ㄨ眖猭àぉだ猂硂ㄇ碿猭ご礛だ璙ㄨ
瞷и-
е盢耴︑瓣產翠セㄓパ璣瓣参獀璣瓣現┎粄翠"ㄤみゲ钵"琌蹦蔼溃現郸㎝璙ㄨ猭и-
莱癸ぉ宁砫иョ獺產硂计纯沽筁硂ㄇ璚贰и-
癸翠カチぃ莱钩璣瓣現┎癸翠硂崔チ妓︽璙ㄨ猭眖猭à秈︽だ猂и-
ㄆ龟Τち惠璶
タ腑瓣辆某翠璣現┎㎝璣瓣現┎⊿Τ秈︽璹硂琌ぃ莱赣и-
粄現┎莱矗璹и癘眔ê眖⊿Τ矗の膀セ猭材兵иセЫ妒玃現┎荷е璹Τ闽猭ㄒ璹ヘぃ琌璶るらネτ琌璶ネ竒筁иㄓ妒玃現┎瞷矗癚阶
ㄆ龟チ囊㎝チ︑パ㎝舦璶―璣瓣現┎癸崔チ猭秈︽璹и-
龟ぃ琌矪矪皐癸い瓣ぷㄤ琌叫チ囊種琘ㄇ兵ゅㄒи-
粄瓣產琌俱砰и-
粄猌だ吊瓣產琌ぃ钡и-
種"だ吊瓣產"﹚竡莱Τ龟借ず甧讽礛Τ粄繷弧獽衡硂琌и-
ぃ钡琘祘и-
瞷種ǎだ猍讽礛Τ粄硂琌玥だ猍程璶琌и-
粄﹚"瓣產"阀├┮孔玵睹玵瓣㎝捍笆莱Τ龟借ず甧ㄒ忌崩陆現┎莱ぉㄆて狦弘ぃ胺┪薄狐筁だ縀笆璊ē睹粂ㄤ︽セぃì崩陆現┎┪だ吊瓣產ê或ㄏ㊣縒ミだ吊┪︑∕单腹常琌︑ē︑粂癸硂セ︑パ穦ㄓ弧и-
琌Τ惠璶р菏窽更㎡硂琌и-
荡ぃ種
и-
タいㄇ璹﹚ㄢ┪秈︽讽砏家璸购㎝舱麓兵ゅ硂琌把σΤ舱麓の腨竜︽兵ㄒи-
辨镑ㄢぇ丁眔キ颗τ瓣產阀├┏絋龟Τㄇ︽琌斗璶窽ゎ
ㄇ某ボ璝痷瞷捍笆玵睹だ吊┪腁滦单︽ㄏ兵ゅΤ┮璹妓и粄膀セ猭材兵ㄤ龟琌и-
璶冈灿╯或妮窽ゎ︽或斗璶砆ㄆてτ莱窽は現┎┪は瓣產︽и-
矗某璶Τず甧–癸龟借ず甧┮﹚竡ぃ硂チ匡某穦いи-
秈︽癚阶㎝矗э瘤礛и粄瞷э龟Τ翴筐иō砰︽璶―現┎矗兵ㄒ狦и⊿Τ癘岿ê莱拜肈琌讽竝瞶玂 Mr MORRIS
ㄓチ囊㎝や翠幅蹲翴狟ねぃ耞璶―現┎э崔チ璙猭и-
獶るら硂妓暗
и稱莱郭Θ某矗琘ㄇ芠翴チ囊タゼ坎琌盢璶タ狥﹁狥﹁ㄆ龟獶и-
タい窽ゎ︽睲贰だ计兜︓穦旧璓らぃまノ炊硄猭┪ぇ把σи叫某陆綷材3兵セΤ闽玵癴┦借竜︽綝и-
埃硂竜︽龟び璙ㄨи盢俱兜兵ゅ埃琌и粄硂兜竜︽礚斗まノ炊硄猭ㄒир腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產硂ㄇ︽玵癴┦借竜︽瘤礛и-
ぃ蹦ノ硂嘿и-
粄莱硂兜竜︽璹﹚龟借種竡
︓材场だ材2兵Τ闽玵瓣兵ゅи-
┮埃ㄤ龟琌筁兵ゅㄒ驹硂ρ阀├タ郭Θ某┮弧и-
莱玂痙ㄇ瞷て阀├ㄒ"硄寄"迭┪驹寄妮玵瓣阀├и-
琌玵瓣ぃ琌璉玵琘囊磅現囊┪琘τ琌Τ玻い瓣瓣產и-
セ⊿Τ┪阀├庢ㄒㄓ弧и-
ぃ莱跌瓣產畊莱玂臔端甡獽单端甡参禜紉┪瓣舦てō碞瞷穦┪い瓣瓣薄ㄓи-
Ч⊿Τ硂阀├
и稱莱糂紌某场だ祇ē闽︙璶璹﹚だ吊瓣產竜︽矗沮羛瓣猭┪瓣悔猭チ莱Τ舦︑∕и莱ㄤ龟虏虫チΤ舦︑∕琌ボチΤ舦硓筁猌崩陆現┎иセ癸Τ┮玂痙и粄硂兜竜︽ㄤ龟Τ届狦チ猌Θ崩陆現┎獽⊿Τ穦ぉ發╯琌狦崩陆︽笆ア毖Τ闽讽Ы獽穦琘ㄇ竜發╯狦镑猌Θ崩陆現┎┪だ吊瓣產獽⊿Τ穦ぉ發╯瓣悔丁临璶穝σ納跌êㄇチΤ闽跋龟砰ぃ筁狦р硂ㄇ︽竜︽и-
粄钡
闽セ兵ㄒ狦莉眔硄筁琌眔┑尿硂拜肈и粄さぱ臛阶いぃ阶и-
或芠翴╯琌蹦ノ揩ず吹躇玥┪琌蹦ノ璶Τ陪睲贰瓜陪狦单阀├┪琌蹦ノ猌㎝忌崩陆单泊硂ㄇ癸盢ㄓミ猭穦沮膀セ猭材兵﹚兵ゅゲ礛Τ蔼把σ基
и獺チ匡Τ砫ヴ膀硂ㄇ玂毁舦璶玥σ納俱砰瓣產Ч俱┦﹚続翠τ才瓣悔そ兵ゅよ眔キ颗и獺盢ㄓゲ礛穦碞硂ㄇ拜肈秈︽縀疨臛阶и辨さΩ臛阶い纯竒祇ēㄆ┪兵ㄒ〆穦い纯竒秈︽瞏╯〆ちづ斌奔╯戈硂ㄇ戈盢ㄓゲ﹚Τ蔼把σ基
谅谅畊
琖皇某璓勉畊и琌稱ри祇ē癘魁и膀セ猭癬〆穦膀セ猭材絑琌更Τ腁滦いァチ現┎讽翠ま癬癹臫粄ぃ莱甧砛硂ㄇΤろ睲捶泊疭琌猭いΤ矗は癸膀セ猭材絑獽埃腁滦いァチ現┎硂ㄇ泊硂靡いァ現┎ㄤ龟Ч钡盢ㄓぃ斗璶碞硂よミ猭堡膀セ猭材絑程絑ぃ瞷硂ㄇ泊临窽ゎ瓣現獀┦舱麓㎝刮砰翠疭︽現跋秈︽現獀笆窽ゎ翠疭︽現跋現獀舱麓㎝刮砰㎝瓣現獀┦舱麓┪刮砰ミ羛么单闽硂翴и粄いァ現┎セ礚斗碞腁滦いァ硂摸︽ミ猭
法此某璓勉畊и稱碞腑瓣辆某祇ē虏祏莱
腑瓣辆某矗セЫ癚阶セ兵ㄒ礚好琌珼驹膀セ猭畊и粄ㄏ琌珼驹膀セ猭Τ或ぃ癸ヴ︙猭常斗璶钡跑綞珼驹
и癘眔戳3翴瞷獽穦Τ砆北獶猭栋穦ぇ阜讽Τ竤盿弗め叫腀-
Гぺ笷繥笵砆篒氨-
玥砆北獶猭栋穦竜戳иō厩ネ纯蝴堕栋穦τ砆牡よ臱床硂ㄇ猭ㄒ瞷ぉ璹癸盾
猭ㄒ常斗璶﹜繦吏挂㎝э跑猭ㄒ莱э跑瞷翠⊿Τ3翴瞷獽砆北獶猭栋穦竜薄そ兵ㄒ竒э
畊猭ㄒ穦笿笵瞶珼驹ぃ癸舦セō舦痲阀├┪璶―穦э跑材Ω驹羛瓣硄筁瓣悔舦そ渤┮㏄驹瑍搂ㄏ跌舦舦そ瞷璹現獀舦㎝穦ゅてそ翠硄筁翠舦猭兵ㄒ繦穦锣跑癸セō舦痲猭Τ┮э跑癸ネ借發―の舦阀├э跑猭ㄒ莱莱璹
珿膀セ猭钡硂ㄇ珼驹龟琌瞶┮讽礛⊿Τぃ癸ぇ矪產づミ猭Ы癚阶セ兵ㄒ琌璶疭跋ミ猭и獺硂翴筁┕臛阶い弧筁筂и-
硂穦某芔硄筁猭ㄒ常琌и-
盢ㄓ穦ミ猭┮窾ぃ璶瞷癚阶猭ㄒ琌疭跋ミ猭璝瞷猭ㄒぃ莉硄筁疭跋ら獽璶癸拜肈
畊チ囊ㄤ龟獶珼驹膀セ猭и睲贰и-
穦璶―荷Νэ膀セ猭膀セ猭材兵
谅谅畊
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, in the interest of time, I shall be brief.
The Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill was introduced into the Legislative Council on 4 December 1996 in response to the community's wish to see early and clear legislation dealing with the concepts of treason, sedition, secession and subversion, which are concepts set out in Article 23 of the Basic Law.
The background for introducing this Bill has been explained clearly in my speech on 4 December last year, and I do not wish to repeat it again. I would like to stress only two points. Firstly, what we have proposed is largely in response to what the community wanted, as reflected by views expressed in this Council. Members will recall that on 17 January 1996, this Council carried a motion in its debate on "Protection of Civil Rights", and subsequently reiterated its desire that the Administration should take early action on the concepts set out in Article 23 of the Basic Law.
Secondly, the Bill we put forward to the Council meets not only the requirements of Article 23 of the Basic Law, but also provides a framework which is consistent with the Basic Law, the Joint Declaration, the Bill of Rights and the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Bill has been drafted in such a way as to allow the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, as required by Article 23 of the Basic Law, to make laws on its own with the minimum of adaptation.
The Bills Committee has been painstaking in its scrutiny of the Bill. The public and concerned organizations were given full opportunity to express their views. Quite apart from its educational value, this process has clearly generated new approaches to Members' thinking on what the Bill itself should contain. The Administration sees no need to propose any amendment to the Bill, nor do we see any need for any of the proposed amendments.
Mr President, I recommend the Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1996 to this Council.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put.
兵ㄒ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
畊セЫ瞷秈︽翴∕
畊略矗眶︗某瞷窖翴∕ぇ某肈1996ㄆ竜︽璹材2腹兵ㄒぉ弄
叫︗某∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
畊セ畊ゼガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, 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 against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the motion and 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
畊ガ觅Θ某27は癸24琌ガ某莉硄筁
Bill read the Second time.
兵ㄒ竒筁弄
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材43兵材(1)蹿砏﹚盢兵ㄒ〆ぉ砰〆穦糵某
Committee stage of Bill
兵ㄒ砰〆穦糵某顶琿
Council went into Committee.
セЫ秈砰〆穦糵某顶琿
CRIMES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1996
1996ㄆ竜︽璹材2腹兵ㄒ
Clauses 1, 6, 10, 11 and 13
兵ㄒ材161011の13兵
Question on the clauses stand part of the Bill proposed and put.
瓃兵ゅ兵ㄒぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Howard YOUNG claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某の法У地某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈材161011の13兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ゼガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the motion and 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某27は癸24琌ガ某莉硄筁
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I move that in the development of further divisions being claimed in respect of the remaining issues at the Committee stage of the Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill at this sitting, the Committee do proceed to each of such division immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
某ぇ某肈竒矗某窖∕莉硄筁
Clause 2
兵ㄒ材2兵
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材2兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊и弄弧玥┪砛и虏虫弧弧材2兵ず甧材2兵琌Τ闽"玵癴"┪Τ弧"玵瓣"ㄤいи-
盢ㄇρぃ硂埃珹(a)(b)(c)㎝(f)琿
(a)琿琌垦甡┪端甡ㄤō砰и弧筁ぇ瓣舦てōΤ硂兵ゅиぃ稱钩盢ㄓㄏい瓣るら確︽ㄏ舦⊿Τ蠢┪禜紉砆端甡┪蠢и粄莱赣盢ぇ
(b)琿琌兵ゅ筁だ糴肞┮孔玵癴┦竜︽種瓜︽硂龟琌び糴惗
(c)琿セō琌驹┪璣瓣驹и-
谋眔硂琌兵讽ρ兵ゅ
逞ㄓτи-
粄Τ龟借ず甧兵ゅ瓣產確︽ㄏ舦ぇ莱赣Τ璶種竡ê獽琌ま护寄瓣┪猌ю阑瓣產τ硂ま护┪ま旧セō讽┷璓ю阑┪獻菠狦и-
谋眔и-
璶糤琿琌狦Τ浩簙юゴ舦瓣ㄆ龟セ⊿Τ穦瞶穦τ芠荡礚ま璓硂狦跌钵摸︽и-
谋眔ぃ莱篶Θㄆ竜︽
︓(f)场だи-
盢"寄ゴ腊寄"奔"by any means"琌弧斗璶ゴΤゑ耕龟借寄и-
谋眔硂琌癸瓣產碙㎝癸︑瓣瓣チ程膀セ碙и-
谋眔莱赣ノよㄓタ才い瓣盢ㄓ確︽ㄏ舦ぇи-
钡ョ臮の瓣㎝瞷瓣悔舦そ翠龟琁场だ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 2 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材2兵ǎンVII
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材2兵┮笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, 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 LAU Chin-shek, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 18 votes in favour of the amendment and 33 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ18は癸33琌ガタ綝∕
Question on the original clause 2 put.
览材2兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it and declared the "Noes" have it.
〆穦畊ボガ某綝∕
〆穦畊癸ぃ癬琌砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某畊繷σ納郭Θ某癬ㄓ
郭Θ某и纯璶―翴∕
〆穦畊癸ぃ癬竒筁莱赣癬ㄓ弧"Mr President, I claim a division."弧羘ぃ﹚璶羭も璶―矗砏祘拜肈癬ㄓ驰"point of order"琌妓薄ぃ﹚璶羭もボ種硂琌舦
郭Θ某иΤ癬ㄓぃ筁⊿Τ羘┮⊿Τǎи
〆穦畊セ畊⊿丁场某琍戳㏄辩睶┥某纯笿筁薄猵
Clause 3
兵ㄒ材3兵
〆穦畊襖略ビ某の︙玊く某だ箇ボ览碞材3兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶襖略ビ某の︙玊く某だ碞材3兵矗ぇタ
璝礚钵某セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶セ畊穦叫襖略ビ某笆某タ瘤礛耕淮戈耕瞏
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и笆某タ材3兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅン
畊︙玊く某兵ㄒ〆穦矗タㄤ龟琌虏虫瞷猭ㄒ┮孔"玵癴┦借竜︽"礚阶眖àㄓ龟琌獶盽ぇ糴惗珿璶硂砏﹚и笵チ某種硂兜タ琌иタぃ琌確ê"玵癴┦借竜︽"セず甧иタㄤ龟琌タ嘲糠某┮弧盢ㄤ材5兵現┎セ矗闽腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產兵ゅ材5兵㎝材5(A)兵盢ウ传嘿讽礛ぃ虫ゎ琌传嘿"腁滦"㎝"だ吊瓣產"瞇竡琌讽糴惗и琌盢ウΜ
┪砛и虏虫弧弧иタ狦琌盢ㄤΜ︓"腁滦"獽琌弧ノ猌ㄓ種瓜崩陆現┎и-
種瓣產ぇず盢硂摸竜︽ㄆて琌莱赣︓ノ猌ㄓだ吊瓣產и-
谋眔ョ莱赣琌ㄆて糂紌某弧瘤礛ㄇ璣羛ü瓣產セō常Τ硂ㄇ兵ゅи-
琌й兵ゅ⊿й俱チ砰и稱硂琌翴琵и虏虫弧ㄢи-
谋眔翠セō琌"瓣ㄢ"瘤礛и-
ぃ盢俱チ砰й筁ㄓㄆ龟膀セ猭ず程沧琌チ匡玻ネミ猭Ы㎝匡庢玻ネ現┎讽礛и-
ョ璶膥尿璹膀セ猭㎝ㄤ砏絛チて秈祘硂薄猵ぇи-
谋眔翠ョΤㄤㄒ︑パ碈ざ瓣悔讽闽猔礘翴竒蕾笆单и-
谋眔狦硂或疷タ盢硂絛瞅眔硂或疷ㄒ琌ㄢ┪Τ舱麓Τ璸购ㄓ秈︽衡琌и-
ョΤ舦猭膀セ猭材兵兵ゅ┮硂ㄢ兵兵ゅ簍枚常ぃ禬禫舦猭膀セ猭材簍枚┮и-
谋眔硂Αぇи-
琌玧眏钡
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンVII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫︙玊く某碞襖略ビ某矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶襖略ビ某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫︙某笆某タ
︙玊く某璓勉畊и┮矗タ琌眔兵ㄒ〆穦璓や
и-
┮矗タ籔襖略ビ某セㄓタ⊿Τがベよ讽礛ㄆやиタ┪∕襖略ビ某タセō⊿Τベよ襖略ビ某タ璶琌ノミ猭ㄓ﹚玵癴┦竜︽τ硂玵癴┦竜︽沮и-
糶猭琌瞇籠"腁滦"㎝"だ吊瓣產"阀├览襖略ビ某弧筁и-
琌荷秖ㄇ蝴臔舦诀荷秖ㄏ竜︽﹚竡Μτ糤北よ庢靡砫ヴㄤい阀├珹だ吊瓣產杠獽璶拱管瓣產よ現┎舦┪参獀よ┪俱瓣场だ北舦硂獽琌"だ吊瓣產"阀├
"腁滦"璶琌ノ猌讽礛ㄢ琌ノ猌璶琌ノ猌ㄓ崩陆現┎硂ゼゲ瞣疉Τ寄┪ゼゲ瞣疉ま癬初驹程ぶ琌ノ猌ㄓ崩陆現┎猭参獀硂獽琌"腁滦"阀├
琌襖略ビ某┮矗タいΤ计琿琌疭璶材Τ芠┦斗璶靡ぃ弧ΤㄇΤㄇ︽┪種瓜狦靡獽盢-
竜ㄆ龟獶τ琌タい材3兵材(2)蹿い糶硂贺︽琌"讽"旧璓Θτ眔北舦礛衡琌デ竜┮﹚璶Τ芠┦㎝讽硂琌材翴
材琿いョ弧ゲ斗疉のㄢ┪羛么の瞣疉舱麓㎝璸购┮璶竜璶﹚牟デ腁滦┪だ吊瓣產竜埃璶靡Τ猌埃靡琌皐癸現┎璶рウ崩陆┪穖管ㄤ场だよ北舦ぇ硂ㄇ┮孔猌︽临璶笷讽祘璓穦硑Θ狦Τ芠┦琌穦硑Θ狦獶琌ㄢ暗璶Τ舱麓璶Τ璸购襖略ビ某チ囊矗硂﹚竡и-
辨镑盢ぇΜㄏㄤ絋㎝镑才そ璶―獶璊睹ノē阶┪ヴ︙獽ì竜
讽礛埃襖略ビ某チ囊矗タぇи兵ㄒ〆穦矗タ碞琌瞷︽兵ㄒ材3兵礚阶︙琌ぃ镑钡虏虫ㄤ龟確弄臛阶ㄆ弧筁瞷︽糶猭だ繧稱竜種瓜竜パ兵ㄒ糶猭琌ヴ︙狦Τ稱稱崩陆┪稱旧璓癸︑瓣產祇笆驹ヘ玡糶猭琌癸羛瓣盢ㄓ琌癸い瓣材琌ま寄獻︑瓣產ヘ玡兵ㄒ琌糶羛瓣簿ユぇ続莱てぇ獽琌獻菠い瓣ウ弧Τ種瓜暗硂ㄇㄆ稱祇笆驹ま寄獻单τ種瓜琌贺そ秨︽ㄓ笷硂そ秨︽珹祇ㄇゅ彻┪そ秨ē阶玥獽竜硂琌讽繧Τㄇ絋Τ硂妓稱猭ゴ琘現┎洪琌氨痙稱筁祘氨痙贺洪芠腀辨筁祘琌洪ゅ糶ㄓぃ筁洪弧ㄓ獽デ兵竜 玵癴┦竜︽程腨琌夯10и-
谋眔硂妓琌笻は瓣悔舦そ玥и-
荡癸ぃ莱稱ㄓ﹚竜羇ㄏㄤ稱ゅ┪ē阶ㄓ肚冀硂贺︽蛤笷璓狦セ琌畉窾ń皑ぃのЧぃ笷狦琌繦獽弧ㄇ杠τ⊿Τ猌︽⊿Τヴ︙猌種瓜︓⊿Τ硑Θヴ︙猌诀琌セ⊿Τ笷璓玵癴︑瓣產狦薄猵и-
谋眔ぃ镑钡硂兜糶猭τパи-
粄礚猭э┮兵ㄒ〆穦璓種ǎ琌莱赣рウ埃
и辨祔︗ㄆщ布だ秨σ納讽礛襖略ビ某タ硄筁ノチ囊某玵癴┦竜︽瞷Τ材3兵ㄏ襖略ビ某タ砆∕и辨產ご礛や〆穦硂兜タ瞷Τ材3兵硂材3兵睝礚好拜琌牟舦そ㎝舦猭
谅谅畊
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I urge Members to vote against the Honourable James TO's amendment. I know that Mr TO has tried his best, but his amendments were hastily put together. This is a reincarnation of the offences of subversion and secession and each exposes someone to 10 years' imprisonment. I urge Members to vote against it.
It is only when Mr James TO's amendment is defeated that we can go to the amendment of the Bills Committee and then Members can consider whether they want to do away with treasonable offences altogether, or if they think that that is too extreme they can fall back on the original clause in the Bill which is a slight amendment.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. Please vote against this amendment.
糂紌某璓勉畊и祇ēや︙玊く某兵ㄒ〆穦矗タ埃材3兵"玵癴┦竜︽"琌иョ種艷祸某┮弧は癸襖略ビ某タ
畊タ襖略ビ某ョ弧筁ノ硂玵癴┦竜︽ぇ確腁滦㎝だ吊瓣產竜︽瘤礛弧盢ウΜи獺и-
玡帹玥琌ぃや硂ㄢ兵竜︽翴弄иョ弧筁иぃ稱狡и-
璶谋眔腁滦璓琌ノㄓ恒钵и-
Чぃ谋眔ヴ︙ゅ穦莱赣Τ硂兜竜︽︓だ吊瓣產琌笻は舦そ笻は结ぉチΤ︑∕舦┮ぃ阶妓Μ﹚竡礚阶Τ或ㄤ玂毁и-
常琌ぃやи-
琌や︙玊く某タは癸襖略ビ某タ
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и粄硂琌瞶┦臛阶初иぷㄤ辨さΩ產矗┘芠翴
瞷嘿ぃ琌腁滦㎝だ吊ㄆ龟Τㄇ嘿"窽ゎ︽"琌Τ睲贰ボи稱拜êは癸某╯澈琌粄猌崩陆τê︽讽旧璓崩陆現┎ぃ莱ㄆて临琌ぃ莱菏窽10┪Μ眔ぃ镑㎡临琌猌崩陆現┎琌チ舦
и辨Τ闽某狦杠倒產翴币ボ
Question on Mr James TO's amendment put.
襖略ビ某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr Albert HO and Mr James TO claimed a division.
︙玊く某の襖略ビ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈襖略ビ某碞材3兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, 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 LAU Chin-shek, Mr Ambrose LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 17 votes in favour of Mr James TO's amendment and 33 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ襖略ビ某ぇタ17は癸33琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊パ襖略ビ某碞材3兵矗ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫︙玊く某碞材3兵笆某ㄤタ
︙玊く某璓勉畊и笆某タ材3兵タず甧更祇癳︗某ゅンず
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 3 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材3兵ǎンVII
Question on Mr Albert HO's amendment put.
︙玊く某タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr Albert HO and Miss Emily LAU claimed a division.
︙玊く某の糂紌某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈︙玊く某碞材3兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, 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 LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of Mr Albert HO's amendment and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ︙玊く某ぇタ27は癸23琌ガタ莉硄筁
Question on clause 3, as amended, put.
竒タぇ材3兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr Albert HO claimed a division.
︙玊く某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈竒タぇ材3兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡 叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the motion and 24 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某27は癸24琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause 4
兵ㄒ材4兵
︙玊く某璓勉畊и笆某タ材4兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊иタ璶琌材紀埃"脓阑"硂兵ㄒず贺竜︽材紀埃兵ㄒ材5兵材5兵璹Τ闽だ吊瓣產竜︽
畊и兵ㄒ〆穦祇ē〆穦膀セ璓ぃは癸糤ヴ︙だ吊瓣產┪腁滦現┎竜︽硂琌〆穦璓種ǎ碞チ囊τēи-
矗兜タ琌ぃ莉硄筁瘤礛襖略ビ某矗タいだ吊瓣產ㄇ篶㎝阀├癸ヘ玡硂糶猭и-
粄琌ぃ镑㏄冈琌現┎種瓜ㄏノ猌硂琌ぃì镑и-
粄硂︽ゲ斗Τ蔼舱麓㎝郸购の┮孔"猌︽"琌伐Τ穦旧璓だ吊瓣產芠狦篶Θ硂竜︽
パ現┎硂糶猭ぃ镑㏄冈チ囊膀ぃ瞶パτ矗は癸и辨︗ㄆや兵ㄒ〆穦硂兜タ癸иタщ觅Θ布
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 4 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材4兵ǎンVII
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, clause 4 of the Bill does two things. One, it repeals section 5, Assault on the Queen. Two, it adds the offence of subversion. So, if Members want to remove the offence of assault on the Queen but do not agree to put in the new offence of subversion, then they should vote in favour of the amendment by the Honourable Albert HO.
If they vote against this amendment they then go to the Government's amendment, that is the clause in the Bill, and this would mean that although they get to remove the assault on the Queen as an offence they would now acquire a new offence of subversion.
So, I urge Members to vote in favour of this amendment.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и獺硂Ω∕莱赣琌觅Θ布计琌溃ちㄏ琌克い克羬ミ穦某常莱赣穦や玥タ艷祸某┮弧硂獽跑Θ觅Θ盢現┎セ"腁滦"﹚竡临┮硂琌М狦產叫叫贰щ布狦щ岿布и谋眔產琌穦廓Ъ
腑瓣辆某璓勉畊и稱莱и癸硂兵兵ㄒミ初琌は癸┮ぃ穦Τヴ︙廓Ъㄏ硄筁硂兜タ钡ㄓи-
琌妓穦は癸
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr Albert HO and Mr Michael HO claimed a division.
︙玊く某の︙庇古某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈︙玊く某碞材4兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, 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 against the amendment.
Mr Eric LI abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the amendment and 22 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ28は癸22琌ガタ莉硄筁
Question on clause 4, as amended, put.
竒タぇ材4兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr Albert HO claimed a division.
︙玊く某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈竒︙玊く某タぇ材4兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the motion and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某28は癸23琌ガ某某莉硄筁
Clause 5
兵ㄒ材5兵
︙玊く某璓勉畊и笆某タ材5兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンぇず
畊硂兜タョ琌セ兵ㄒ〆穦矗兵ㄒ〆穦璓粄ぃ莱赣Ωま秈"だ吊瓣產"竜︽兵琌"腁滦"τ硂兵"だ吊瓣產"竜︽琌現┎ぃ莱赣ミㄒま秈タи┮弧и-
Θだㄢ摸摸琌谋眔玥ぃ莱Τ硂竜︽チ囊種ǎ琌ㄏи-
钡硂糶猭硂糶猭ご琌ぃ镑㏄冈и-
谋眔ョ穦ま癬ㄇ禗砠獻デ舦
и-
谋眔耕㏄糶猭琌莱赣"︽┮旧璓だ吊瓣產芠┦の硂ㄇ︽琌ゲ斗Τ蔼舱麓㎝璸购"┮現┎洪硂"猌"砏﹚癸舦ㄓ弧琌⊿Τだ玂毁膀硂翴и-
叫某や兵ㄒ〆穦某や硂兜タ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 5 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材5兵ǎンVII
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman,I urge Members to vote in favour of the amendment. If Members do not wish to have the new offence of secession, they should vote in favour of the Honourable Albert HO's amendment. If unfortunately this amendment is defeated, then I would urge them to vote against the motion that clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈︙玊く某碞材5兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁タ琌璶р赣兵
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊ガ挡狦ぇ玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the amendment and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ28は癸23琌ガタ莉硄筁
〆穦畊パ碞材5兵┮矗ぇタ莉∕材5兵ぃ穦セ兵ㄒ莱砆
Clause 7
兵ㄒ材7兵
〆穦畊糂紌某の︙玊く某だ箇ボ览碞材7兵笆某タ
セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶糂紌某の︙玊く某だ碞材7兵矗ぇタ
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶ㄖ臛阶赣ㄢ兜タ酚穦某盽砏材25兵(4)蹿セ畊穦叫糂紌某祇ē笆某ㄤタ
糂紌某璓勉畊и笆某タ材7兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンずタヘ琌盢"捍笆種瓜"竜︽猭祘㎝簿ǐ捍笆舦兵ゅ埃
畊и弄祇ēい竒"捍笆"竜琌兜筁の腨糉竜︽琌眏て崔チ恨獀τ﹚ミ崔チ参獀碞е璶挡埃硂兜竜︽琌程続讽诀и叫êㄇは癸硂兜タ某睲贰秆睦-
ミ初琌や翠璶膥尿崔チΑ恨獀ぃ筁传や瓣篨パ璣瓣崔チ跑Θい瓣崔チτ
畊ē阶︑パ某阶現獀︑パ︓琌у蝶現┎︑パу蝶疭跋︽現﹛︑パ常琌瞷穦そ粄膀セ舦и-
妓玂毁硂ㄇぱ结舦︑パぃ砆管㎡埃癸硂ㄇ舦Τ猭ㄒ碞琌程膀セ暗猭
ぃ筁さぱ︙玊く某穦某盢"捍笆"竜璹チ囊㎝チ某兵ㄒ〆穦计┮琌〆穦矗タ-
矗タ瞶パ琌稱磷舦簿ユ瞷腨慌猭ㄒ琂礛さぱミ猭ЫΤ舦ミ猭﹚穝竜︽らミ猭诀闽妓Τ舦эи-
咎或癸盢ㄓミ猭诀篶砏㎡矗Тよ程拜肈琌穦粇旧そ渤カチи-
粄êㄇ竜︽琌Τ惠璶
瘤礛チ囊のチА某璶"種瓜旧璓忌"竜τョ璶"揩ず吹躇玥"砏﹚礚阶兵ゅ妓э"捍笆"竜琌虫咎ē阶┪ゅ崩耞碞篶Θ竜︽┮玂痙硂兜竜︽癸ē阶︑パご礛Τ畊瞷︽そ兵ㄒ癸そΤì镑τ琌筁だ玂毁и-
咎或临璶玂痙"捍笆"竜︽硂兵ㄒ㎡
╯澈或临璶玂痙硂ㄇ腨甿猭ㄒ㎡и钮Τㄇ瞶パ琌膀セ猭材兵Τ┮砏﹚畊и-
ぃ璶а癘膀セ猭琌技﹚ㄓ荡场だ翠礚舦把籔ョ礚舦癸ウ∕猭ㄒ兵ゅ琌琌︙и-
ぃэ膀セ猭材兵はτ璶︑パ讽舦砞﹚㎡螟笵购伴-
︑パ-
碞ヌ腀ê伴ゴ锣狦琌硂妓и-
临Τ或玡硚㎡
иΩ㊣苸êㄇ羘嘿蝴臔舦︑パ某и叫-
や埃"捍笆"竜τ縩伐э膀セ猭材兵谅谅畊
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 7 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材7兵ǎンVII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫︙玊く某碞糂紌某矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē埃獶糂紌某ぇタ綝∕玥セ畊ぃ穦叫︙某笆某ㄤタ
︙玊く某璓勉畊タ糂紌某┮弧兵ㄒ〆穦いи-
Τㄢ贺ぃ種ǎ贺琌Чрウ埃璝甧砛硂竜︽穦癸舦硑Θ璝рウ埃獽р硂ㄇㄖ埃贺種ǎ琌〆穦い耕计〆種ǎ碞琌谋眔рウ埃讽礛琌程虏虫秆∕よ猭產ョパ膀セ猭い砏﹚硂贺竜︽┮盢ㄓи-
箇璸琌ゲ礛穦Τミ猭埃獶の︓膀セ猭眔эτ埃硂竜︽ゎ硂и-
辨瞏㎝約獂癚阶硂ㄇ竜︽ず甧㎝阀├刚瓜╯ㄇ璹羇ㄏ硂贺竜︽ご礛ご倒ぉ紇臫だ㎝瞶舦玂毁盢竜︽﹚竡荷秖Μ礛盢ㄇ氮臛瞶パ荷秖冈瓃㎝瞶и-
谋眔硂妓暗琌┦暴Τ竒筁癚阶ㄏи-
Τ瞏猭㎝硂よ盡產種ǎ矗ㄑぉら某穦┪某σ納
ㄆ龟讽и-
钡ǎㄇ刮砰珹癘穦產Τ贺稰糂紌某妓セョ妓狦ぃ惠璶硂兵ㄒ讽礛琌程產稱稱硂兵ㄒぱи-
猭妓糶钡㎡琌獽眖硂àㄓσ納辨﹚タ匡拒
畊瞷材7兵璶琌弧"捍笆種瓜"祔и-
Τ材8兵琌弧"捍笆竜︽""捍笆種瓜"いи硂兜タ璶〆穦糤碭氮臛瞶パē阶┪琌ぃㄣ捍笆┦珹陪ボ現┎現郸琿岿粇┪ㄌ猭Θミ現┎Τ舅岿粇┪翴┪猭岿粇┪翴τヘタ岿粇㎝翴
氮臛瞶パ琌璝и-
窗玃┪迹眝翠﹡チ刚瓜碻猭硚畖旧璓э跑翠ㄌ猭璹ㄆ兜の翠ぃ顶糷﹡チぇ丁玻ネ┪Τ渡玻ネ碿稰┪寄種ㄆ兜τヘ琌рㄤ埃
畊璶讽ㄆΤ笆诀Τ種瓜暗и︽ㄏㄤ種ǎゼゲび弘︓琌Τ熬畉︓琌熬ǎ璶ㄤ祇翴瓃┮弧硂獽ぃì篶Θ"捍笆"竜ㄤē阶ぃ阶琌ぃ钡谋眔⊿Τ沮タи┮弧琌ぃ弘︓琌岿粇璶ㄤ祇翴碻и┮弧碭翴ê獽ぃì篶Θ"捍笆種瓜"
иョ翴セ兵ゅ材9兵材(1)(b)㎝(e)矗ㄇē阶穦篶Θ"捍笆種瓜"珹縀﹡チ刚瓜硓筁獶才猭よΑ旧璓現┎ㄇэ┪辨縀蒥チ癸и-
猭Τ贺绩┪桨跌
琌и粄и┮弧ㄢ贺種瓜暴Τ薄猵砆﹚捍笆種瓜硂琌и疭種秈タいョ把σ瓣舅猭いㄇ糶猭иま(d)(3)и┮弧種瓜埃獶縀癬翠﹡チ┪ま癬翠﹡チぃ骸┪瞒玵ヘτ琌耑睹翠琘舱Θ舦诀闽猭笲the lawful functioning of a consituted authority硂consituted authority琘ㄇ瓣產珹緿瑆ョΤ糶猭碞琌縀ㄇ﹡チㄓ璉玵現┎舱Θ猭诀篶ê獽穦竜
и-
糶硂兜兵ゅョま癬ㄇ癚阶ㄇ舦刮砰┪畍穦谋眔糶眔ぃ睲贰琌竒筁猭臮拜腊埃糶┮弧タョ糶硂┮孔"舱Θ舦诀闽"ぃ阶┪诀闽﹚琌璶現┎琌杠ゲ斗現┎踞ヴそ戮┪磅︽そ戮τ現┎┮孔耑睹現┎舱Θ舦诀篶猭笲┮孔耑睹ヘ竜︽祇ネ硂ㄇ┪诀篶タ現┎︽ㄆ讽礛и秆硂﹚竡穦綝у蝶ゼゲ糶眔Ч獶盽睲捶疷ㄏぃ甧羛稱琘ㄇ薄猵︽皐癸現┎烩旧单玥êㄇ︽獽篶Θ捍笆︽瘤礛и-
ぃκだぇκ睲捶笷狦и谋眔荷程ㄓΜ硂兵ゅ糶猭иゲ斗硂兵ゅぃ虫縒ゲ斗璶籔材8兵ㄖ╯,祔┮瓃"揩ず吹躇玥"ㄏΤ捍笆種瓜︽ご礛斗篶Θ㎝ゲ礛繧硂ㄇ︽㎝笷璓捍笆狦Τ芠闽玒の硂ㄇデ竜Τ捍笆種瓜材7兵㎝材8兵ゲ斗ㄖ綷弄
и癘眔艷祸某纯弧иョだ谅矗種ǎ弧踞み硂﹚竡糶猭"舱Θ舦诀篶"糶猭┤弧"ゴ腜"穦琌贺耑睹現┎烩旧┮現┎嘿"猭笲"穦篶Θ捍笆竜︽и谋眔ぃ莱材7兵и-
璶材8兵碞琌"揩ず吹躇玥"璶Τ猌捍笆ㄏノ猌Τ诀の硂捍笆㎝猌狦Τ芠闽玒临斗Τ捍笆種瓜讽硂ㄇ癬ㄓ篶Θ赣竜︽硂薄猵и灿σ納艷祸某種ǎ程и谋眔ご礛み
羆珹ㄓ弧タㄆ纯弧沮炊硄猭瓣產いㄆ薄⊿Τ或ㄒ把σи硂糶猭穦踞み㎡ㄤ龟и-
〆穦糵某戳丁穦ǎ舦刮砰ョ叫毙畍舱麓辨荷秖矗ㄑㄒぉи-
把σ祇谋ㄒ痷ぃタㄇ┮弧瞷瓣產いぶノ硂ㄇ竜︽ㄓ矗浪北и-
谋眔ㄏ⊿Τㄒи-
荷秖ノゅ睲贰灿㏄盞笷ㄓи-
谋眔╰计蔼и-
獺礚阶妓稱Τぶ贺秆睦ゅご礛Τ芠種ぃ熬瞒び环
灿σ納и谋眔產眔莱赣や硂パ猭臮拜〆穦┮级糶ㄓタ
癸糂紌某矗タチ囊穦щ斌舦布狦糂紌某タぃ硄筁杠и-
辨產镑钡兵ㄒ〆穦硂兜タ盢捍笆玵睹種瓜﹚竡睲絋﹚の盢ㄇ氮臛瞶パ冈荷ㄓ
谅谅畊
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I support the amendment of the Honourable Emily LAU which removes the offence of sedition. I do not know why anyone wants to keep such an offence, but even if the amendment of Miss Emily LAU is defeated, I would still urge Members to vote against the amendment of the Honourable Albert HO. The drafting is untested and questionable. We are borrowing here and there from other jurisdictions with different government systems. It may inadvertently create problems.
Mr Chairman, I strongly believe that it would be safer to keep the original clause 7 and rely on the common law in case Miss Emily LAU's amendment is defeated. We have tested this view, that is, to keep the original clause 7, that is, keeping the original offence and rely on the common law, we have tested this against lawyers' groups who made representations to the Bills Committee, and this accords with the views of some of these organizations. So, Mr Chairman, I urge Members to vote in favour of the amendment of Miss Emily LAU and against the amendment of Mr Albert HO.
糂紌某璓勉畊и獺и璶籔チ囊弧弧и-
谋眔⊿Τ惠璶Τ竜︽硂琌程璶チ囊︑弧程琌⊿Τ硂兜竜︽ㄓ穦ǎи-
刮砰场弧ぃ璶ぃ筁狦猭﹚硂ㄇ兵ゅ杠и-
獽璶暗ㄇひ砏
и稱蛤チ囊某弧и-
瞷タ琌ミ猭或猭琌パи-
∕﹚и-
ぃ璶陪眔ê或礚ー瘤礛逞计ぱ丁狦и-
眖玥ㄓ弧ぃ莱赣Τ獽璶盢ぇ埃狦粄莱赣Τぃ筁Τぇ緇临璶ぉだ玂毁и獺硂琌Τ笵瞶ㄢ贺弧猭ㄖㄓ酵琌伐ぇ螟獺狝眎糒弧程⊿Τ眎糒玱弧ぃ筁璶Τ碞︙︙и-
赣咎玥ㄓщ布临琌礚快猭綝笹薄猵獽酚妓璶暗ㄤ龟и-
ぃ稱Τ硂竜︽
и钮︙玊く某弧猭畊钩琌и谋眔だ┣и谅谅產弧ぃは癸ии叫產縩伐やиタ
Question on Miss Emily LAU's amendment put.
糂紌某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Miss Emily LAU claimed a division.
糂紌某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈糂紌某碞材7兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Miss Emily LAU, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were eight votes in favour of Miss Emily LAU's amendment and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦〆穦畊ガ觅Θ糂紌某ぇタ8は癸26琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊パ糂紌某碞材7兵矗ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫︙玊く某碞材7兵笆某タ
︙玊く某璓勉畊и笆某タ材7兵タず甧更祇癳︗某ゅンず
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 7 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材7兵ǎンVII
Question on Mr Albert HO's amendment put.
︙玊く某タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr Albert HO and Mr TSANG Kin-shing claimed a division.
︙玊く某の纯胺Θ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈︙玊く某碞材7兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ3瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Miss Christine LOH abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 22 votes in favour of Mr Albert HO's amendment and 27 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ︙玊く某ぇタ22は癸27琌ガタ綝∕
Question on the original clause 7, put and negatived.
览材7兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕綝∕
〆穦畊砛セ畊莱祔秆睦碞材2兵∕琌妓礚阶琌竒筁タ璝兵ゅセ兵ㄒ某肈ぃ莉硄筁杠ㄤ狦琌硂兵ゅ獽璶眖兵ㄒい材7兵琌妓薄琌璶︓龟悔琌︗みい┮稱璶叫︑セ畊みい稱璶或ぃ禗︗ョぃ毙︗璶或祔セ畊穦既氨5だ牧┪10だ牧禗︗兵ㄒ竒筁〆穦糵某顶琿程穦跑Θ妓
Clause 8
兵ㄒ材8兵
〆穦畊糂紌某の︙玊く某だ箇ボ览碞材8兵笆某タ
籔臛阶材7兵薄猵妓セ畊某秈︽ㄖ臛阶
セ〆穦瞷秈︽ㄖ臛阶セ畊穦叫糂紌某笆某タ戈耕瞏
糂紌某璓勉畊弧眔癸иぃ笵и耕︙玊く1る临琌耕и1る琌畉ㄢるτ
畊и笆某タ材8兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンず硂タ琌Τ闽紀埃"捍笆種瓜"竜︽弧筁瞷丁边иぃ锚︗ㄆ叫やиタ
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンVII
〆穦畊セ畊穦叫︙玊く某碞糂紌某矗ぇタのㄤセōぇ览某タ祇ē產常笵ㄤ
︙玊く某璓勉畊ㄤ龟だ虏虫и弧ㄢ碞琌硂兜タ琌盢捍笆竜︽糤兜兵ゅゲ斗璶靡揩ず吹躇玥碭兜璶碞琌埃猌ぇ临璶Τ繧㎝Τ猌種瓜τ猌㎝诀Τゲ礛芠闽玒ㄏ庢靡捍笆竜︽ゑ耕螟硂揩ず吹躇玥琌眔瓣產穝籇厩㎝猭璓や
瘤礛ê兵闽捍笆┦竜︽種瓜ぇタ綝∕и辨ご礛硂诀穦膥尿э到硂兜兵ゅ辨︗ㄆや〆穦タチ囊ョ妓癸糂紌某タщ斌舦布
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I suppose the amendments of Miss Emily LAU and Mr Albert HO will be defeated, may I urge Members to support clause 8 of the original Bill because it contains a very important additional element to the offence, which is that you cannot be convicted of sedition unless you have the intention of causing violence or creating public disorder or public disturbance.
So, please support clause 8.
糂紌某璓勉畊莱︙玊く某硂"揩ず吹躇玥"讽礛琌膀セ琌璝и-
粄莱赣⊿Τ硂竜︽ㄏ盢赣玥兵ゅず⊿Τノи-
ぃ獺Τì镑玂毁и-
穦は癸︙玊く某タ
Question on Miss Emily LAU's amendment put.
糂紌某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Miss Emily LAU claimsed a division.
糂紌某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈糂紌某碞材8兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕﹟ろ1琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Miss Emily LAU, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Miss Margaret NG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, 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 against the amendment.
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr TSANG Kin-shing and Dr John TSE abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were seven votes in favour of Miss Emily LAU's amendment and 27 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ糂紌某ぇタ7は癸27琌ガタ綝∕
〆穦畊パ糂紌某碞材8兵矗ぇタ綝∕セ畊瞷叫︙玊く某碞材8兵笆某ㄤタ
︙玊く某璓勉畊и笆某タ材8兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンず
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 8 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材8兵ǎンVII
〆穦畊襖略ビ某琌砏祘拜肈
襖略ビ某癸ぃ癬叫弧
〆穦畊ㄖ臛阶竒Ч拨襖某ぃ祇ē瞷セ畊矗某某肈獽璶ミ矗∕某肈
Question on Mr Albert HO's amendment put.
︙玊く某ぇタぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr Albert HO and Mr TSANG Kin-shing claimed a division.
︙玊く某の纯胺Θ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈︙玊く某碞材8兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-Yin, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr LEE Cheuk-Yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Miss Christine LOH abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 22 votes in favour of Mr Albert HO's amendment and 27 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ︙玊く某ぇタ22は癸27琌ガタ綝∕
Question on the original clause 8 put.
览材8兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr James TO and Miss Margaret NG claimed a division.
襖略ビ某の艷祸某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈セ材8兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the motion and 23 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
畊ガ觅Θ某27は癸23琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause 9
兵ㄒ材9兵
糂紌某璓勉畊и笆某タ材9兵タず甧更祇癳︗〆ゅンず
硂兜タ琌埃捍笆種瓜竜︽猭祘и矗筁иぃ︗丁谅谅畊
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 9 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材9兵ǎンVII
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I am just afraid it will be a nonsense if we pass this particular amendment because the amendment moved by the Honourable Miss Emily LAU is consequential upon her earlier amendments being carried and that is because the amendment to clause 9 is an amendment to section 11 of the Ordinance. So, if the earlier amendments are defeated, then the amendment to clause 9 should not stand. I hope Miss Emily LAU would clarify that point.
糂紌某и獺艷祸某弧杠琌Τ笵瞶и-
璶╯硂翴畊琵и
〆穦畊璝⊿Τ〆祇ēи-
獽璶膥尿ㄤ场だ埃獶セ畊既氨穦某5だ牧
糂紌某и獺艷祸某弧猭璝и兜タア毖и獺и璶Μ硂兜タ
〆穦畊琌σ納Μ硂兜タノよ猭钩ΩΤ闽┬璹兵ㄒ赣︗某まノ砏祘拜肈璶―σ納
糂紌某ぃノ畊и獺и莱篗硂兜タ礚斗產丁
MISS MARGARET NG: Yes, I think that is all. I just want to stand up so that I can state clear the process. But the original clause 9 in the Bill should be supported because the original clause 9 makes certain technical amendments to the Ordinance which is necessary, Mr Chairman. So, I urge Members to vote in favour of clause 9 standing part of the Bill. I do not know why the Government is not doing this.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, is it in order for me to object to the withdrawal of the amendment proposed by Miss LAU?
〆穦畊セ畊⊿Τ拜產種籔ス矗某ぇ某某肈ㄏ琌某︑ョぃ篗┮セ畊⊿Τ掉∕篗セ畊斗单艷祸某弧Ч瞷セ畊ǎΤ碭︗某竒庢も甃ㄎ瞶某材羭も临Τ︙玊く某︗琌辨セ畊既氨穦某5だ牧獽セ畊拜肈礛ㄓ禗︗瞷︓ぶΤ︗某は癸艷祸某粄セ材9兵璶篗
〆穦畊︙玊く某琌砏祘拜肈
︙玊く某и祇ē琌稱弧糂紌某竒弧璶篗硂タ叫產ぃ璶やタи稱弧弧現┎材9兵ㄤ龟琌璶......
〆穦畊璝糂紌某瞷篗セ畊璶ミ拜琌Τは癸狦⊿Τは癸杠獽ぃ祇ē竒⊿Τ硂兜タ瞷セ畊拜Τ⊿Τは癸If there is no dissentient voice, the amendment is withdrawn.
Question on the original clause 9 put.
览材9兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Miss Margaret NG and Mr IP Kwok-him claim a division.
艷祸某の腑瓣辆某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈材9兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the motion and 22 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某28は癸22琌ガ某綝∕
Clause 12
兵ㄒ材12兵
糂紌某璓勉畊и笆某タ材12兵タず甧更癳祇︗〆ゅンず
畊硂兜タ琌Τ闽簿ǐ捍笆舦兵ㄒ材14兵и獺狦и-
ぃ觅ΘΤ硂兜捍笆竜︽ョ⊿Τ倒ぉ牡よ硂或舦卖チ﹡┪贺よó差单临疾反单τ秈ǐ-
粄琌捍笆и獺硂癸ē阶︑パ穝籇︑パよ篶Θи矗硂兜タ辨〆や
Proposed amendment
览某タず甧
Clause 12 (See annex VII)
兵ㄒ材12兵ǎンVII
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr Chairman, I support the amendment of the Honourable Miss Emily LAU, but in case her amendment is defeated, I would strongly urge Members to support the original clause 12 of the Bill because that clause removes the public officers from the kind of people who can exercise power under section 14 of the Ordinance. As it is, the Ordinance reads that "any police officer or public officer may enter any premises", and so on and so forth. So, what the Bill does is to remove public officer so that only a police officer can do that.
Mr Chairman, as I said, I support the amendment of the Honourable Miss Emily LAU and I urge Members to do the same, but in case it is defeated please support the original clause 12.
襖略ビ某璓勉畊и祇ēや糂紌某硂兜タㄆ龟и莱赣稰縀硂翴琌и⊿Τ痙種
兵ㄒ材14兵拜肈琌ㄏ現┎矗某盢"そ"迭奔璝牡よ秈ヴ︙矪┮簿ǐヴ︙┮孔捍笆┦-
舦龟びㄏ稧現そ竝舦竒のき璹薄猵斗竒猭畑ビ叫も︓讽牡よ秈チ﹡и-
Τ璶牡よボも硂兵兵ㄒ澈礛结ぉ牡よ螟竚獺舦τ硂舦︓甧砛牡秈チ﹡︽ㄏи螟稱钩硂硂临甧砛ヴ︙牡秈ヴ︙よ︓ゴ瘆┮Τ怠τ秈猌簿ǐヴ︙Й锚硂︽笆单
ρ龟弧и-
粄ㄏΤㄇ"濺戒"┪"濺フ"︽笆单疭﹚薄猵癸穦硑Θ鹤甡琌腨常斗パ牡帽┮痷螟稱钩炊硄牡︽ㄏ硂舦硂龟籔и-
俱猭ㄒ渤彻竊Чぃ
и辨〆や硂兜タぷㄤ琌チㄆ
糂紌某璓勉畊и辨┮Τチ囊穦ぉや㎝┮Τ稲︑パ常穦ぉやиョ辨現┎ぃ璶э硂兵ㄒτ盢ㄤΜ
谅谅畊
Question on the amendment put.
タぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr IP Kwok-him claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈糂紌某碞材12兵笆某ぇタぉ硄筁
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ3﹟ろ2璝ぃ琌ぃ稱∕ョ斌∕abstention瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, 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 against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 24 votes in favour of the amendment and 26 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θタ24は癸26琌ガタ綝∕
Question on the original clause 12 put.
览材12兵ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Miss Margaret NG and Mr James TO claimed a division.
艷祸某の襖略ビ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈セ材12兵セ兵ㄒ
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜﹟ろ1瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 votes in favour of the motion and 22 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
畊ガ觅Θ某27は癸22琌ガ某莉硄筁
New clause 4A
穝璹兵ㄒ材4A兵Limitations as to trial for treason, etc.
癸玵癴单糵癟
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄ㄌ沮穦某盽砏材46兵材(6)蹿砏﹚㏑逼弄
︙玊く某璓勉畊и笆某弄穝璹材4A兵ず甧更祇癳︗〆ぇゅンず
畊材4A兵璶琌莱タパ材3兵沮щ布挡狦砆埃┮材4兵材琿莱赣莱タ盢赣兵い┮矗の"材3兵"
и谋眔硂兜タ琌莱赣や
谅谅畊
Question on the Second Reading of the new clause put.
穝璹兵ゅ弄ぇ某肈竒窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Noes" had it.
〆穦畊ボ
Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr James TO and Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong claimed a division.
腑瓣辆某襖略ビ某の眎ゅ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈︙玊く某┮笆某穝璹材4A兵ぉ弄
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the motion and 22 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
〆穦畊ガ觅Θ某28は癸22琌ガ某莉硄筁
Clause read the Second time.
兵ㄒ兵ゅ竒筁弄
︙玊く某璓勉畊и笆某セ兵ㄒ莱糤干穝璹材4A兵
Proposed addition
览某糤干
New clause 4A (See annex VII)
穝璹材4A兵ǎンVII
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed and put.
糤干穝璹兵ゅぇ某肈竒矗某繦窖∕
Voice vote taken.
钮羘∕
Mr TSANG Kin-shing claimsed a division.
纯胺Θ某璶―翴∕
〆穦畊セ〆穦瞷秈︽翴∕
〆穦畊略矗眶︗〆瞷窖∕ぇ某肈セ兵ㄒ莱糤干穝璹材4A兵
叫︗〆∕竟狠ぇ秙ボ畊礛3秙い匡拒ㄤ秈︽∕
〆穦畊セ畊ガ挡狦玡叫︗癸┮∕琌Τヴ︙好拜瞷陪ボ挡狦
Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, 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 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 TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, 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 against the motion.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the motion and 22 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
畊ガ觅Θ某28は癸22琌ガ某莉硄筁
Council then resumed.
砰〆穦繦τ確ミ猭Ы
畊玂のΤㄤ某А璶―既氨穦某5だ牧琵產秆瞷兵ㄒ╯澈タΘ或妓
10.25 pm
边1025だ
Sitting suspended.
穦某既氨
10.47 pm
边1047だ
Council then resumed.
穦某繦τ確
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
穦某既氨
畊玂竒筁礷╯兵ㄒ〆穦タぇ龟悔╯澈跑Θ或妓瞷临ぃび睲贰セ畊某程ぱ膥尿弄祘セ畊瞷ガ既氨穦某︓ぱΝ9
Suspended accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock .
穦某笶边1048だ既氨
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 23 June 1997
338
ミ猭Ы せるら
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL - 23 June 1997
337
ミ猭Ы せるら
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.