1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 16 July 1992 1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 16 July 1992 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 16 July 1992 1 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL -- 16 July 1992 1
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 16 July 1992
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock
PRESENT
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE JOHN JOSEPH SWAINE, C.B.E., Q.C., J.P.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR DAVID ROBERT FORD, K.B.E., L.V.O., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE NATHANIEL WILLIAM HAMISH MACLEOD, C.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN CHEONG KAM-CHUEN, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN HSU LAI-TAI, C.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, M.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
PROF THE HONOURABLE EDWARD CHEN KWAN-YIU THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
REV THE HONOURABLE FUNG CHI-WOOD
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY HA WING-HO, M.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM KUI-CHUN
DR THE HONOURABLE CONRAD LAM KUI-SHING THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
THE HONOURABLE MISS EMILY LAU WAI-HING
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
THE HONOURABLE GILBERT LEUNG KAM-HO
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
PROF THE HONOURABLE FELICE LIEH MAK, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURALBE MAN SAI-CHEONG
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TIK CHI-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE SIMON IP SIK-ON, J.P.
IN ATTENDANCE
MR JOHN CHAN CHO-CHAK, L.V.O., O.B.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
MR ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, O.B.E., A.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MR MICHAEL SZE CHO-CHEUNG, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
Member's motions
Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections
Resumption of debate on Member's motion which was moved on 15 July 1992
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Council will now resume and continue with the debate on Mr Ronald ARCULLI's motion as amended by Mr Jimmy McGREGOR. Mr K K FUNG, as Mr Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment has been agreed, your amendment, as a matter of language, cannot be linked to the amended motion. Would you like to seek leave to alter the terms of your
amendment to overcome this technical difficulty?
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, with your leave, I wish to revise the wording of my amendment motion, that is, by adding the same amendment wording after "Legislative Council elections in 1995" in Mr Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment motion and not after "Select Committee Report". With this revision, the wording of this amendment motion will be the same as that of my original amendment motion.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have my leave, Mr FUNG.
Mr Frederick FUNG moved an amendment to Mr Ronald ARCULLI's motion as amended by Mr Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment:
To add the following after "Legislative Council elections in 1995":
"and requests that the following proposals be included in Chapter 4 of the Report for the consideration of the Government in its examination of the arrangements for the 1995 Legislative Council elections: in view of the existing practices in functional constituency elections which give rise to unfairness and possible violation of the Bill of Rights, as members of the electorate in such elections are
allowed the extra opportunity of voting once or more than once in addition to voting in direct elections at their geographical constituencies, this Council therefore urges the Government to establish an independent committee comprising members of the legal sector and the public to study and enhance the fairness of functional
constituency elections and to examine whether there is any inconsistency with the Bill of Rights"
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I intend to amend this motion today. But before I go on to the proper of my speech, I must clarify two points.....
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Point of order, Mr Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr ARCULLI. Would you please sit down, Mr FUNG?
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy President, I wonder whether Mr FUNG would be kind enough to clarify the wording of his motion. From what I understand, I think the English could be slightly misleading to Members because it refers to a select committee when I believe the Chinese version actually refers to a special working group or some such language.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is this in reference to the substantial wording or is it in reference to the technical change, Mr ARCULLI?
MR RONALD ARCULLI: It is with reference to the substantial wording, not the technical change, Mr Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I see. And is it the wording in Chinese or in English that concerns you?
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy President, I believe that it is the wording in English that does not reflect correctly what I suspect Mr FUNG means in Chinese because I cannot image that he is talking about an independent select committee of this Council
comprising lawyers and members of the public. In Chinese, I think the wording is and that has been interpreted as select committee in English which, I believe, is not what Mr FUNG might mean. Perhaps, Mr FUNG might like to clarify it.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I think in the version in English, which appears in the Order Paper, the portion in question reads -- if I have got the right one -- "This Council urges the Government to establish an independent committee comprising members etc....."
MR RONALD ARCULLI: I do apologize, Mr Deputy President, because the version I have has the word "select".
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I am looking at the Order Paper which contains the text of the amendment, Mr ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: I was actually looking at Appendix A which was, I think, given to us from the OMELCO Secretariat on 14 July.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: And that is not the official version; it has been amended since. The version which appears on the Order Paper, which is the official version, refers to "independent committee".
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy President, in which case I think that should be all right. Thank you.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, before I make my speech, I would like to clarify two points. Firstly, my purpose in moving the amendment will very probably be misunderstood by people outside this Council, even by some colleagues in this Council. They will think that I am trying to do away with the functional constituency elections (FCEs). I wish to emphasize that I have no such intention. As the wording of my amendment motion already makes it clear, what I would like to have is an independent committee that will ameliorate the existing practices with regard to the FCEs. Secondly, before taking part in today's motion debate, I had
discussed the matter with some functional constituency colleagues. I received three kinds of responses from them. The first kind was: "If you attack me, I will not support you." The second kind of response received from colleagues was: "Frederick FUNG, the matter that you are moving would have serious implications. A group of my constituents have come to see me. They say that you are violating the Basic Law and that I should vote against the amendment motion." The third kind of response, received from a close personal friend of mine, was: "Freddie, I am sorry. Despite our friendship, I cannot support you because I am accountable to my constituents." All three kinds of responses appear to be negative, but I do not take them too seriously.
It is because, basically, they are expected, in the sense that when we start to lay down an election system, we already know what purpose it will serve and how it will work. And of course, the FCEs are established to look after the rights, interests and needs of the respective functional constituents. In this regard, I fully
understand the responses of my three friends. Their responses are not based on personal choice but on the choice of the system as it was designed. Such being the nature of the responses, I feel that we probably should stand on higher grounds and see farther ahead. Firstly, is the existing modus operandi of the FCEs really so perfect that it requires no further improvement? Secondly, if we do have problems with the FCEs, can we leave the solution solely to the initiatives of the Legislative Council or the Government? Thirdly, if the FCEs are improved, will they then return better representatives who have more popular support? Though my three friends have already told me why they do not agree with my grounds for moving the amendment motion, still, I hope that, after listening to my speech today, they will look at my points again. In the speech that I am about to make, I will not highlight the squabbles and mutual recriminations but some of the hard facts that we actually note in the 1991 elections. From such a review, we will see whether there actually are problems with the FCEs and, if so, whether there is any genuine need to set up an independent body to recommend how things may be ameliorated. The text of my speech follows:
Mr Deputy President, the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections in Mr Deputy President, the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections in its report presented to this Council gives its analyses and recommendations on the subject of the FCEs but Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL) and I find them disappointing and feel enraged. The report is disappointing because it leaves out matters. These are: (1) the FCEs being in conflict with the Bill of Rights Ordinance; (2) manipulation and "planting" of corporate votes, a matter that raises questions about the credentials of functional constituents; and (3) public concern over the problem of the double voting right, which is contrary to the principle of equality. What enrages us is that the report, while purportedly
based on mainstream public opinion, does not consider as mainstream public opinion those comments that were offered to the Select Committee concerning the FCEs and does not even refer to them in the recommendations. As a result, a system that we found to be somewhat unfair and undemocratic in the 1991 elections may continue to exist intact.
In the following, I will discuss from four aspects about the establishment of an independent committee comprising members of the legal sector and the public to study and enhance the fairness of the FCEs and to examine whether the system contravenes the Bill of Rights Ordinance. (I emphasize here again that the independent committee is to examine whether it contravenes the ordinance, not presuming that there must be any contravention.)
First of all, I will point out the problems with our latest FCEs, that is the First of all, I will point out the problems with our latest FCEs, that is the ones held in 1991. Article 21 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance of 1991 provides that "The election right shall be universal and equal." Article 22 further provides that "All persons are equal before the law.....without any
discrimination.....; the law shall prohibit any discrimination, .....protection against discrimination on any ground such as.....social origin, property.....or other status." However, under the present FCE system, individual functional constituents have a double voting right. They can cast one vote each in their respective functional constituencies and have one additional vote each in their respective geographical constituencies. That is to say, some people can vote twice while the majority of the electorate can vote only once for the election of the same Legislative Council. It is an axiom that one is not equal to two. Therefore, the mechanism of the FCEs is clearly inconsistent with the principle of equality stipulated in the Bill of Rights.
Apart from creating a double voting right, the FCEs, as a system, have other loopholes that permit voting rights to be abused or controlled. The corporate voter system is a case in point. Just imagine what would happen when an election system is designed but no standardized rules regarding the credentials of constituents are laid down correspondingly. For some functional constituencies, such as, Industrial, Commercial, Social Services and Architectural, Surveying and Planning, corporate members of trade associations are eligible to register as functional constituents. For other functional constituencies, such as, Medical and Legal, individual members of these two professions are eligible to register as functional constituents. The former functional constituencies lend themselves the more readily to election abuse.
This is because the law does not specify the credentials of the functional constituents besides their being "corporate members" of approved trade associations. Neither does the law specify the credentials of the individuals who can represent the corporate entities -- functional constituents -- in the voting, nor is it clearly stipulated the relationship between these individuals and the corporate entities. It was thus possible for corrupt practices like "vote planting" and vote manipulation to find their way to the 1991 FCEs, as was repeatedly exposed by the press. (See LAU Chun-to's article, Hong Kong Economic Journal, 15 June 1991)
Meanwhile, people become constituents for the FCEs via three different channels. Meanwhile, people become constituents for the FCEs via three different channels. Lawyers and doctors are eligible to register as constituents in individual capacity. In other functional constituencies, for example, Labour, a trade union is eligible to register as a constituent if it is registered as a trade union under law. For the third channel, there is no need to register before becoming eligible for voting as a constituent under law, like, a member of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries (FHKI) or the General Chamber of Commerce (GCC), so that a company may become a
functional constituent as soon as it is accepted as a member of the FHKI or the GCC. Among the three kinds of functional constituents mentioned above, the greatest problem is with the company that becomes a constituent by registrating as a member with the FHKI or the GCC or a member of the Hong Kong Council of Social Services (HKCSS). The board of directors of the HKCSS, the FHKI or the GCC, if they wish to control, influence or restrict a specific type of constituents at any time, can do so by changing the membership recruiting rules.
Also, in constituencies where members are allowed to vote as corporate constituents, it brings into question the accountability of such representatives under such a system. To whom are they responsible? Take the social services as an example. At present, members of the HKCSS are incorporated associations and they are the corporate constituents. However, the law does not specify if the voter should be a director of the incorporated association or a front-line social worker who knows the best what the interests of the functional constituency are. As a result, the representative of Social Services has to be answerable both to the board of directors of the incorporated association and the field social workers. As they have different social roles to play, directors and executives in an incorporated association may have different or even contradictory views on policy matters. Consequently, a Legislative Council Member elected by a functional constituency often has to tackle the problem of representing different, or even contradictory, interests. It explains why the constituents of some functional constituencies are now criticizing
their representatives in the Legislative Council for failing to represent their true interests and asking them to resign.
Mr Deputy President, Honourable Members, I believe that we all agree on, and will do our best to support, the development of a democratic and open society in Hong Kong. But the various problems that we are having with the FCEs are a big obstacle to the democratization of Hong Kong's political system. The FCEs also buck social trends, which are in the direction of democracy, openness and respect for human rights. Many leading members of Hong Kong's legal sector have pointed out time and again that the FCEs may be in conflict with the Bill of Rights. For instance, Dr Nihal JAYAWICKRAMA, the well-known legal scholar of the University of Hong Kong, Mr Benny TAI Yiu-ting, lecturer of the Department of Law of the same university, as well as the Justice, which is composed of law students, practicing lawyers and law scholars and which pays special attention to the rule of law and to the protection of human rights, have all sent written submissions to the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections, pointing out that the FCEs are "discriminatory" and may be in clear violation of the principles of equality stipulated in Articles 1 and 22 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance.
Another point is that some people, by being able to vote both in a geographical Another point is that some people, by being able to vote both in a geographical constituency and in a functional constituency, enjoy a double voting right that is not available to the remaining majority of the people of Hong Kong. Article 21 (b) of the Bill of Rights Ordinance provides that the election right shall be "universal and equal". But given that the right to vote in the FCEs is not enjoyed by all eligible voters, it is self-evident whether the system can pass the litmus test of universality and equality. Officials of the Constitutional Affairs Branch have cited section 13 under the Savings of the Bill of Rights Ordinance (which refers to Article 22 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance providing that it does not require the establishment of an elected Executive Council or Legislative Council in Hong Kong) to justify the waiver of Article 21 (b) for the FCEs. So the Government thinks that the FCEs are not in conflict with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. In this connection, I have consulted some judicial experts, asking them if the Government's answer is correct. These experts think otherwise. Undoubtedly, section 13 under the Savings allows a colonial governor to set up the Executive Council and Legislative Council on an appointment basis. Still, since elected elements have already been introduced into the
Legislative Council, Article 21 (b) should be applicable to all of the Legislative Council's elected Members, be they returned by direct elections or by FCEs or by the Electoral College as some will be in the future.
But this time the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections has failed But this time the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections has failed to study and explore in depth this important issue that will have a bearing on Hong Kong's constitutional development. Merely relying on government officials' verbal assurance, it has chosen to treat the issue as having been resolved and to shelve it without giving proper notice of the legal and judicial advice. Such a decision is a great disappointment to me. All those who have offered comments to the Select Committee feel slighted. What is even more infuriating is that the Select Committee has made impractical recommendations to the Government concerning the FCEs. An
example is its impractical recommendation about how to plug the loopholes with regard to corporate constituents. Also, the Select Committee has made no recommendation at all to the Government concerning how, having regarded the confining realities, the FCEs may yet be improved and made more fair and more consistent with the principles of equality stipulated by the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Select Committee's
report focuses on defending the credentials of corporate constituents and the representativeness of their votes but shies away from one more important problem, that is, big holding companies can influence their subsidiary small companies in exercising their voting rights and thus manipulate the outcome of FCEs.
Another thing is that, in dealing with the issue of the double voting right, which is available only to some voters, the Select Committee's report applies double standards. The report says on one hand that any prohibition of the double voting right -- the right to vote both in the FCEs and in direct elections in the geographical constituencies -- is against the principle of universal suffrage (Chapter 4, Section 6, Paragraph 4.18). But then, on the other hand, it recommends a multi-seat, single-vote system for the direct elections in the geographical constituencies, thus unreasonably depriving voters of some of their voting right. Will this not be in violation of the principle of universal suffrage? Also, the HKADPL and some other civic groups have proposed to the Select Committee that the voters be allowed to choose freely to vote either in a functional constituency or in a geographical constituency. We did not propose forcing a choice on the voters. The thrust of my proposal is to ensure a totally universal and equal voting right. It does not have to be in the form that we favour. What we oppose is the fact that a small handful of people in society have the privilege of "casting two votes" while the majority of the people of Hong Kong do not have it. I suggest that, for achieving a fairer and more equal election system, the Government should immediately introduce legislation to require that a functional constituent chooses either to vote in his respective functional constituency or to vote in a geographical constituency but not both. This is unfair for a functional constituent to have voting right in both kinds of elections.
Regarding the credentials of a corporate representative voting in an FCE, I support the Justice's suggestion, which is that the Government should introduce legislation to define the credentials of the "voting representative" and not vaguely leave it to the functional constituents themselves.
In view of the above, I move that the Government should establish an independent committee comprising members of the legal sector and the public, particularly the independents, to study the fairness of FCEs and to examine whether there is any inconsistency with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The committee will explore the matter at length and in depth and submit a report to the Attorney General containing recommendations of the changes to be made in election practices. The report and recommendations will then be submitted to the Legislative Council for discussion or passage in plenary sitting. I do not agree that the existence of FCEs will serve a long-term useful purpose. But I believe that, after 1997 and before the functional constituencies are abolished, the establishment of a committee comprising members of the legal sector and the public will give Hong Kong a system of FCEs that will be more consistent with the principles of fairness and in line with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. This will be an extremely important step in the future development and reform of Hong Kong's democratic political system. Therefore, I sincerely ask Members of the Legislative Council to support my amendment motion.
Finally, I would like to note that the FCEs apparently will not be abolished in Finally, I would like to note that the FCEs apparently will not be abolished in the near future. Still, I think that, as a system, they need many changes. As I said at the outset, I have put the questions to some Councillors returned by FCEs. Basically, their initial response was that they were opposed to any suggestion to change the present law concerning the FCEs. As for the Government, it does not think that the FCEs are in violation of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. For this reason, if we leave the review to them, they will not identify any violation. This is why I feel that the review should be best conducted by a third party. Finally, I wish to stress one point. I hope that you will all appreciate that, in moving the amendment motion, my purpose is to improve the law governing FCEs, to make it more consistent with the principles of equality and democracy. I hope that you will not misunderstand my amendment motion. Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
Question on Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment proposed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before I call on Members, I would just like to remind Members of
the need to complete this part of the debate with reasonable expedition in view of the remaining items of business on the Order Paper and the engagement which Members have for this evening. I believe that the target is to finish this part of the debate by about 4 pm and to that end Members should try to limit their speeches to five minutes each.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the long-standing position of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (HKPTU), which I represent, is that all Legislative Council Members should be returned by direct elections. We fully agree that the functional constituency elections (FCEs) are essentially an unfair system designed to safeguard Legislative Council representation for certain social strata and occupational groups. But to converge with the Basic Law, the number of Legislative Council seats to be returned by functional constituencies will be raised from 21 to 30, or half of all the seats available. As a result, the vast majority of the people will be able to vote only once, fortunately thanks to the fact that the Legislative Council has rejected the multi-seat, single-vote system, thereby greatly lowering the chances of a further devaluation of their single vote. In
contrast, some functional constituents will have more than one vote or even more than two votes. Will this be in conflict with Articles 1 and 21 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance? I think that, for this reason, we must conduct a review of the FCEs.
Before we conduct such a review, we must democratize the arrangements of the FCEs. In fact, in some functional constituencies, it has never been necessary to hold any proper election. Nominees for Legislative Council seats are discussed, agreed upon and then returned. In some other functional constituencies, elections have been held on a "one-group, one-vote" basis within small circles. The representatives thus returned do not have to be accountable to the vast majority of the functional
constituents. As a result of such unhealthy phenomena, the public have lost their faith in the FCEs.
The most thorough-going way to change all of this is to revise the Basic Law. Until this is done, we should substitute "one-man, one-vote" for "one-group, one-vote" as the voting system for FCEs. We should substitute voting for consultation. For now, the Government must make sure that the nine additional functional constituency seats for 1995 must not be returned in the same way as before, that is, not in a way that will further promote election by consultation and election in small circles, not in a way that will set democracy back.
Therefore, the HKPTU propose that the nine additional functional constituency seats should be returned on a "one-man, one-vote" basis and that, in choosing these functional constituencies, consideration should be given to the wishes of the general public. We suggest that at least five out of the nine new seats should be given to functional constituencies representating employees' interests. And the
representative concerned should be returned through district-based direct elections. Of course, to qualify as a candidate for one of those seats, one must be a full time employee and must not have any employer capacity. This will make available the privilege of voting in an FCE to every eligible voter. Such a practice will also be in convergence with the Basic Law. Its only flaw is that the number of constituents will not be the same in all functional constituencies. Some constituencies will be bigger; some will be smaller. This is a different kind of unfairness. Still, the proposal will at least allow more people to enjoy such a privilege and participate in the FCEs. The universalization of a privilege is also a form of progress.
Mr Deputy President, the teaching profession forms the largest functional constituency and this constituency holds its elections the most democratically. Still, we will not miss the FCEs, if they are abolished. We absolutely welcome true democracy, that is, the advent of across-the-board direct elections. As teachers, we hold that democracy and justice are very important educational principles. We will not give up these principles in favour of small share of a privilege. We will not give up our sacred duty as educational workers.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment motion.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, half of the seats of the 1995 Legislative Council will be returned by functional constituency elections (FCEs). This percentage will then be maintained until the year 2003. As everybody knows, the FCEs are not quite fair elections, the reason being that only some citizens can vote in them. In Hong Kong, the functional constituencies mainly represent the
interests of the business community and the professional groups but they disregard the interests of the general public. In the smallest functional constituency, there are only several dozen constituents. The largest has several tens of thousands. This is a 1 000-time difference. It is strange. Therefore, no democratic country has the FCE. In Hong Kong, however, democracy is to advance at a slow pace and we have no choice but to accept FCEs.
During the transition period, before FCEs are abolished, I hope that some During the transition period, before FCEs are abolished, I hope that some principles will be laid down for the functional constituencies and the FCEs.
Firstly, as far as possible, all functional constituencies should have more or less equal numbers of constituents. In other words, each constituency should have similar numbers of constituents and be able to represent the interests of similar numbers of citizens. We cannot say that a particular functional constituency makes a greater contribution, or is more important, to society. Politically, everybody has an equal right and an equal influence.
Secondly, I hope that, as far as possible, FCEs will return representatives on a "one-man, one-vote" basis or at least on a basis of indirect election. In other words, the representative of a corporate constituent should be elected by the members of the corporation on a "one-man, one-vote" basis. The representatives of all
corporate constituents will then elect the Legislative Council representative of the functional constituency. This is not necessarily the case now with the FCEs, where the system of corporate constituents is used.
Thirdly, I hope that, as far as possible, all citizens will have the right to participate in voting in FCEs. I know that this will be difficult. Still, under the principle of fairness, there is no reason why many citizens are denied participation in voting in FCEs. Some citizens may not appear useful to society, but in fact they are very useful. Examples are housewives. There are hundreds of thousands of housewives in Hong Kong, but no functional constituency represents their interests. The same is true of retirees.
As I said a moment ago, different functional constituencies have different problems. We will have nine new seats for functional constituencies in 1995. Mr Deputy President, the controversy over the FCEs has become a major one. Which functional constituencies are to get the additional seats? Once a functional constituency is given an additional seat, it will be difficult to take it away. I hope that the nine new seats for 1995 will not be given to functional constituencies but to the geographical constituencies that hold direct elections. Of course, this will require a revision of the Basic Law. I hope that the Chinese National People's Congress will move such a revision.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the Honourable Frederick FUNG's motion for amendment.
MISS EMILY LAU: Mr Deputy President, it is of the utmost importance that the Select Committee's recommendations on functional constituencies do not get overlooked. Article 21(1) of our Bill of Rights essentially provides that every Hong Kong permanent resident shall have the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors. That right is to be enjoyed without any distinction of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The functional constituency system we have enshrined in our laws is therefore in breach of that provision and is thoroughly undemocratic. It allows a small segment of the general electorate to have not only representation in their geographical constituencies but additional representation in functional constituencies. It is organized in such a way that one man can have in addition to his vote in a geographical constituency one or more votes in one or more functional constituencies through the system of having corporate voters or voters who are not natural persons. This is a total perversion of "one man, one vote". So unlike Mr FUNG Kin-kee, I support the abolition of the functional constituency system as soon as possible.
However, Mr Deputy President, if we are compelled by external circumstances to retain this fundamentally unfair and undemocratic system, we shall for the foreseeable future have a legislature with 30 members returned by functional constituencies. It is understandable that the vast majority of the electorate who only have votes in the geographical constituencies should express no interest in how the voting system in functional constituencies is organized. However, I urge the whole community to examine the system and to express a view for if the system is rotten, Mr Deputy President, it affects everyone of us.
As presently organized, the system is fundamentally unfair, open to abuse and manipulation. The ground rules are or are supposed to be that:
(1) no person, natural or artificial, can register as an elector in more than one (1) no person, natural or artificial, can register as an elector in more than one functional constituency.
(2) an elector in a functional constituency who is a natural person must be at least (2) an elector in a functional constituency who is a natural person must be at least 21 years of age and either a permanent resident of Hong Kong or have been ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for the seven years immediately preceding his application to register as an elector. Mr Deputy President, all of these restrictions can be
by-passed by setting up a company.
In some functional constituencies, the entitlement to vote has been left by the Administration in the hands of the designated body.
You may judge for yourselves whether the following examples are consistent with the principle and spirit of "one man, one vote".
Mr Deputy President, take the Real Estate and Construction functional constituency whose representative was returned unopposed. He is of course, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, the chairman of the Select Committee. In that constituency, certain individuals are registered as electors by virtue of membership of the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong. Those individuals also have control of companies which are separately registered as electors by virtue of membership of that association or of other associations making up the constituency. In one case, one individual, Mr LEE Shau-kee, is himself registered as an elector and is the chairman and managing director of a company, Henderson Land Development Limited, which is also registered as an elector. The company has some 19 subsidiaries all of which are also registered as electors. Different companies associated with Mr LEE, Henderson Development Limited and Henderson International Finance Limited are registered as electors in respectively the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce functional constituency and the Finance functional constituency. So Mr Deputy President, how many votes does he have or control?
Lawyers and accountants each have their own functional constituency but the firms Lawyers and accountants each have their own functional constituency but the firms or companies which they direct are often registered as electors in the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce functional constituency. Members of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries can elect a representative in their own functional constituency. However, the Federation itself is also a member and a registered elector in the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce functional constituency.
On the last occasion, Mr Deputy President, 12 functional representatives were returned unopposed. In some functional constituencies like in the banks, in the
trade unions, no election has ever taken place. What does that tell you about the system, Mr Deputy President?
The community should decide as a whole whether such a system is fair and equitable, whether it commands credibility, whether it secures a legislature which is representative and which expresses the voice of the community. In my view, Mr Deputy President, it is not and does not.
Not a single one of the recommendations made by the Select Committee addresses Not a single one of the recommendations made by the Select Committee addresses these problems. Proposals for reforms should be directed towards ensuring that no individual or group of individuals can indirectly have or control more than one vote in a single functional constituency or in different functional constituencies.
Entitlement to vote should be prescribed by law, not by the internal rules of any association or body, still less by the executive governing body of such association. If the only way of eradicating the potential for abuse and manipulation is by abolishing voting by artificial persons, then let that be done and let the principle of "one man, one vote" truly prevail.
Mr Deputy President, the system in each functional constituency needs to be examined. I support the amendment to the motion proposed by Mr FUNG Kin-kee.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Government in 1984 published a Green Paper on Hong Kong's political development, mentioning functional constituency elections (FCEs). At that time, we already expressed our basic views. These views have not changed to this day.
The FCEs are basically an elitist system replacing the appointment system. The system divides the people of different social strata into classes and functional constituencies. Then some indirect elections are held to return functional constituency representatives to the Legislative Council. These representatives gradually replace the Council's appointed Members. The system is a slight improvement on the appointment system. But the basic problems remain. The biggest problem with the FCEs now is that more than 40 organizations will have to vie for the nine new seats that are to be added. The competing organizations know that, if they do not get a Legislative Council seat now, their chance will be gone, because the Basic Law sets the upper limit at 30 seats. As many colleagues, including colleagues of the Co-operative Resources Centre, have noted, if we are to have
geographical constituencies only, then we can see 60 directly elected seats. I am very glad to hear such words. Everybody knows, and it is the consensus, that all 60 Legislative Council seats should be returned by direct elections. The FCEs should be abolished in course of time.
Therefore, the FCEs are in transition. The question is: Will the transition Therefore, the FCEs are in transition. The question is: Will the transition period last for 50 years? 70 years? Or will it end very soon. We do not know the answer. But the biggest question with the FCEs is: Who decides how many seats a functional constituency should have? Who decides that a particular functional
constituency should have a Legislative Council seat at all? This decision power is totally in the hands of the Government, in the hands of our officials. They will decide which profession, which trade or which functional constituency should have a seat here in this Council. Do they have objective rules to follow? Do they have rules that we all approve? No. I believe that the representatives returned in 1985 are very different from those returned in 1991. Judging from the result of
yesterday's vote, judging from the performance of this Council as a whole this year, I think that the functional constituency representatives who were returned in 1985 faced different challenges inside and outside this Council from the challenges faced by those whose term began in 1991. Therefore, the functional constituency
Councillors must not concern themselves only with the interests of their particular constituencies, the interests of the constituents of their particular constituencies. This is because this Council now has directly elected Members, who oversee government policies and finance in many ways. The representatives returned by FCEs inevitably will be more politicized and must have a broader horizon.
Even so, the flaws of the functional constituencies will not change. For exa Even so, the flaws of the functional constituencies will not change. For example, the smallest functional constituency is that of the Regional Council. It has fewer than 40 constituents but it still can return one representative to the Legislative Council. The functional constituency for teachers, to which my Association belongs,
has several tens of thousands of teacher-constituents. But it, too, can return only one representative to the Legislative Council. If this means taking "one-man, one-vote" as its fair face value, I will have nothing to say. Fewer than 40 people can return one representative to the Legislative Council. Tens of thousands of people similarly can return only one representative to the Council. It is totally impossible for these two representatives to be equally representative of, or to reflect the equal voting right of, their constituents. For the direct elections, we propose that the geographical constituencies should differ by no more than 25% in population size. We lay down a lot of rules for the direct elections. We want
these rules to be as fair as possible. But how can we say that we are being fair about the FCEs?
The Government says that the FCEs are not in violation of the Bill of Rights. I have seen a newspaper report in which Mr LEUNG Chin-man cited this example: There already are direct elections for the geographical constituencies; these elections already meet the principle of universality and equality under Article 21 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. He told only half of the story. This half of the story had nothing to do with the matter that he was trying to justify. Whether the FCEs are in violation of the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the direct elections. We are now talking about FCEs, which have nothing to do with the direct elections. We are not saying that the direct elections are in violation of the Bill of Rights. But he said that, because the direct elections already met the requirement of the Bill of Rights, the FCEs would not be in violation of the Bill of Rights. I find such a counter-argument to be laughable. I hope that the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs will come up with a better argument to show that the FCEs are not in violation of the citizens' basic rights. As the Honourable Emily LAU stated very clearly a moment ago, a small number of people have many votes each but many citizens have only one vote each. Now, a proposal has been made about a "multi-seat, single-vote" system that will further curtail the power of this single vote. Therefore, the principle of fairness and equality for voters will not be met. The FCEs enable some people to enjoy a greater voting right. Such a situation cannot be explained away. FCEs are rare in the world. When I went to attend meetings in foreign countries,
law-makers there expressed surprise at our FCEs. Why are there such elections as FCEs? They are probably due to Hong Kong's special characteristics. I hope that the transition period (supposing that the Basic Law is not revised) will be very short and that the FCEs will quickly be replaced by direct elections.
There is no remedy for the inherent weaknesses and flaws of the FCEs. Therefore, I think that the Honourable Frederick FUNG's amendment motion is worth supporting. However, I believe that his amendment will not be carried and that, even if it is carried, the Government will not set up a committee as proposed. The FCEs are
basically a mainstream kind of election at the moment. It therefore must not be changed in any way. It must not be diminished, abolished or substantively altered. I only hope that the Government will give some really careful thought to the distribution of the nine new seats and that it will properly handle the problems of unfairness, "vote planting," arbitrariness and corruption in the functional constituencies.
Mr Deputy President, the three Councillors of the Meeting Point will support the amendment motion.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I object. I object to the corruption mentioned by Mr LI Ming-wah.....
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that a point of order or elucidation, Mr CHIM.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): He should give evidence to substantiate his allegations about corruption, lest he should apologize face to face to all Members of this Council returned by functional constituency elections.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order, Mr CHIM.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, my name should be "LI Wah-ming". Mr CHIM had got it wrong.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr LI, you have finished anyway, I suppose?
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, speaking in terms of principles and technicality, there are many problems with the functional constituency elections (FCEs). The United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK) think that, over the long term, the functional constituencies should be abolished.
Firstly, speaking in terms of human rights, the FCEs are in violation of the principles of human rights. Seen from the angle of the Bill of Rights Ordinance of Hong Kong and the International Covenant on Human Rights, elections should be universal, direct and equal. Very obviously, the FCEs are open only to a minority of people. They are neither universal nor equal. Therefore, they are in violation of human rights in certain respects.
Technically speaking, there are problems as well. Firstly, it is very difficult Technically speaking, there are problems as well. Firstly, it is very difficult to define clearly the types of organizations that are eligible to vote. The number of representative seats is limited. A situation in which many groups vie for a few seats would easily predominate. Secondly, the functional constituencies tend to represent sectoral interests. Their representatives in the Legislative Council are apt to stand for sectoral interests. Relatively speaking, these representatives would often disregard the overall interests of Hong Kong. The reason for this is that they are under the background influence of the functional constituencies that they represent. Thirdly, concerning who are qualified to vote, there is some
confusion. Some vote as individuals and others vote as organizations. For instance, the functional constituency for social services uses the group voting method while the functional constituencies for lawyers, doctors and nurses use the individual voting method. Fourthly, the voting methods used in the FCEs can easily be abused with results of "under-the-table deals" and "buying and selling of votes."
Mr Deputy President, the UDHK think that, over the long term, all Legislative Council seats should be returned by direct elections. Realistically, however, the functional constituencies will continue to exist for a long time. Therefore, the UDHK request that democratic methods be used for returning the Legislative Council representatives from functional constituencies.
Mr Deputy President, the Councillors of the UDHK will support the Honourable Mr Deputy President, the Councillors of the UDHK will support the Honourable Frederick FUNG's amendment motion.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I would like to reiterate that the Councillors from the functional constituencies have made undeniable contributions to the Legislative Council and to society as a whole. Mr Frederick FUNG's attitude directed against, and hostile to, the functional constituency elections (FCEs) shows a disregard for the historical background of the Government's decision to introduce FCEs. The FCEs, whose value is proven, were meant to be an interim measure in the democratization of the Legislative Council over a course that would lead from the full appointment system of the past to the universal suffrage system of the future. As Hong Kong's political system developed and ripened, the FCEs, their mission completed, would then be retired. Therefore, now that the report of the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections has already put forth measures for improving the FCEs, it is improper and irresponsible to move amendment motions that attack and find fault with such elections. It must be realized that FCEs, too,
have fair and reasonable procedural rules; FCEs are different from the direct elections only in the definition of constituents. To attack the FCEs as unfair is indirectly to deny the credentials of the Councillors who were returned to this Council via such a channel. This is the invisible hand of divisiveness. It drives a wedge between the Councillors who were returned by direct elections and those who were returned by FCEs. It damages this Council's credibility and integrity. It creates a factor of instability in the overall political environment of Hong Kong. I believe that people inside and outside this Council do not want to see such a divisive effect.
I recall that, before the Government introduced the FCEs, it had gone through many consultation processes and examined many alternatives. I was then the president of an industrial organization. My comments were solicited many times. As a system, therefore, the FCEs were introduced because they had to be introduced. As a system, they were to replace the old appointment system and make the Legislative Council more broadly based. The Government indeed took a big leap forward in meeting the
principles of fairness. So-called "fairness" is a relative term, not an absolute term. As a system, the FCEs are fairer than the appointment system and, as they continue to be held in the years to come, they will be further developed and improved. I wonder about the motive of those who take the FCEs out of their historical context and attack them as unfair. They hardly have a case.
Mr Deputy President, look at the evidence in Paragraph 4.5 of the report of the Select Committee: "The Administration has assured us that the functional constituency system (now listen carefully) is not in violation of the Bill of Rights Ordinance." I think that Mr Frederick FUNG's proposal is really "superfluous"; it is "doing
somebody else's work instead of minding one's own business." The proposal is "superfluous" because I do not think Mr Frederick FUNG and his partners will accept the final verdict of the "independent select committee" proposed by him unless this final verdict is that the FCEs are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. They will then go on to question the independence of this independent select committee, question the credentials of its members and so on and so forth.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is that a point of order or elucidation, Mr FUNG? MR NGAI SHIU-KIT: Mr Deputy President, please let me continue.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No, Mr NGAI. If Mr FUNG has got a point of order, he has got to be heard.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT: Yes, Mr Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr FUNG, is that a point of order or elucidation? MR FREDERICK FUNG: Point of clarification, Mr Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do you wish to give way, Mr NGAI?
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT: No, Mr Deputy President, I am going to continue. Mr FUNG and I can talk about it outside this Chamber for as long as he likes. (Laughter)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would urge you to refrain from these observations, Mr NGAI. Please continue with your speech.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): They will try to escalate their actions, ad infinitum. Mr Deputy President, the proposal is "doing somebody else's work instead of minding one's own business" because this Council is Hong Kong's supreme legislature and it has been given assurances by the Administration (in the words that I have just read out) as to whether or not the FCEs are in violation of the Bill of Rights. This being so, any further question about the issue should be left to the court to decide. It cannot be decided by a mere independent select committee. Nor do I think that, by simply establishing an "independent committee," we will be able to hear a fuller range of views. On the contrary, such a committee will very probably become a white
elephant, "looking impressive but having no substance." Therefore, it is not necessary to establish such a committee.
Another point is that the report of the Select Committee already contains detailed recommendations on how to improve the FCEs, such as tightening the voting eligibility of corporate constituents and laying down more strict rules concerning how corporate constituents should appoint their voting representatives. These recommendations can indeed improve election practices. As to long-term objectives, the report states that the voting system for the FCEs should be made as democratic as possible. The spirit of these recommendations is to improve the FCEs gradually along principles of democracy and fairness, is it not? The report already is taking care of the various needs; it also states that an independent committee on elections will be set up to take charge of election matters. Why then must a separate select committee be set up superfluously to duplicate the work of review?
Mr Deputy President, the report of the Select Committee, in Section 6, Chapter 4, already discusses the question of "double voting." I believe that what I am going to say may answer some of the questions colleagues raised a moment ago. In fact, a functional constituent who votes inside and outside the functional constituency is giving a meaning to two kinds of elections and is making his choice from two
different angles. His vote, which he uses to represent his highest ideal, is cast on two separate occasions. On both occasions, the vote gives effect and meaning to his highest ideal. This has a positive effect for promoting democratization at the present time. Society as a whole is the ultimate beneficiary. I think that the issue of fairness and the issue of human rights are not involved.
With these remarks, I oppose the amendment motion.
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, after the heated debate last night and early this morning, the attempt of the Co-operative Resources Centre (CRC) to change the rules of game, which is opposed by the majority of the members of this Council, has been foiled. Now, a similarly important issue is awaiting our decision, that is, whether the functional constituency elections (FCEs) should be kept
indefinitely. FCEs as a system are undemocratic and elitist, easily lend themselves to abuse and go against the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Therefore, this Council has a responsibility to urge the Chinese and the British Governments to respect the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and to abolish the FCEs as soon as possible, replacing them with direct elections.
That FCEs are undemocratic is quite clear. The 21 Legislative Council seats That FCEs are undemocratic is quite clear. The 21 Legislative Council seats
elected by functional constituencies together represent only as many as (or as few as) 69 000 constituents. And 49 000 of them, that is, 70% are in two functional constituencies, namely, Teaching and Nursing. In other words, two of the functional constituency seats on this Council represent 49 000 constituents and the remaining 19, only 20 000 constituents.
The above facts suffice to show that the functional constituency system indeed does not provide broadly based representation. More than half of the functional constituencies have fewer than 1 000 constituents each. I wonder how representative can a Councillor be if he represents just a few dozen or a few hundred constituents? Another indication of unfairness is that the majority of the functional constituency seats in this Council are occupied by representatives of the business and industrial sector, while the grass roots are seriously under-represented. I bid welcome to the business and industrial representatives in this Council. I hope that they will
always be represented here. But the fact remains that, under the present system, they have too loud a voice in this Council.
Another problem with FCEs is that they easily lend themselves to abuse. It is Another problem with FCEs is that they easily lend themselves to abuse. It is very easy for the Government to manipulate the outcome of FCEs by tampering with the design of the system. In the functional constituencies where constituents are small in number, those with power or influence can easily control and exploit the system. We can see this from what actually happened: the majority of the functional
constituency seats were returned by default. (Some of the Members have in fact been working in this Council for more than six years, but nobody ever voted them into office as they always were returned uncontested.) In last year's FCEs, for instance, 12 of the 21 seats were returned by default. Since the majority of the functional
constituency Councillors won by default, the FCE system simply does not make these Councillors feel that they are responsible to their constituents.
In view of the above flaws, the Society of Justice has expressed some strongly-worded criticism on the system and described it as a clumsy parody of democracy. The Society of Justice has gone on to note that the FCEs are in violation of Article 25 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. This is because the system fails to give the voters equal voting right. Some can cast only one vote each while others can cast two or even three votes each. This system reminds me the famous writer George ORWELL's words in his well-known work Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." The FCE system is just like that.
Some Legislative Council Members may probably say that, though the FCEs are not Some Legislative Council Members may probably say that, though the FCEs are not flawless, their existence will enable Hong Kong to make smooth transition to a truly democratic system. These words might have made some sense eight years ago but they are now out of date.
Mr Deputy President, at close to midnight on 26 September 1985, shortly after Mr Deputy President, at close to midnight on 26 September 1985, shortly after I won the election of the Legal Functional Constituency, a reporter asked me what would be the first thing I wished to do. The first thing I would like to do was to have direct elections introduced in 1988. This was because I intended to run in a direct election in the next round of elections. As I look around me, I see many functional constituency Councillors who have the political asset and the necessary experience to run in direct elections. The people of Hong Kong are well prepared for a fully democratic political system. There is no need to keep the FCE system indefinitely.
I am afraid that FCEs, if they continue to be retained over the next 15 years, will actually not be conducive to the transition to a democratic political system. On the contrary, they will be a stumbling block in Hong Kong's progress towards a democratic political system and an accountable Government.
Also, some colleagues in this Council may think that the FCE system will help maintain Hong Kong's stability during the transition period. I feel that such an argument is untenable. The FCE system takes care of the wishes of only a minority in society but disregards the interests of the majority. Such unfairness, if left uncorrected, will give rise to popular discontent and social disquiet. Such
discontent is evident from the recent public outcries to the CRC's attempt to change the arrangements of direct elections by adopting a multi-seat, single-vote system.
I wish to point out that the most stable countries in the world are those I wish to point out that the most stable countries in the world are those practising democracy. The least stable countries are the undemocratic ones and those that adopt a partly democratic system.
We should learn from history. History gives us examples of governments adopting something similar to functional constituency system. The Italian Government under Mussolini bore witness to the fact that functional constituency system only led to social instability. Also, Taiwan and Thailand did not have a fully democratic system and because of this, their people lost confidence in their governments and social unrest ensued.
Therefore, to promote democracy, human rights and social stability, I urge the Chinese and the British Governments to respect the wish of the people of Hong Kong for the early introduction of full direct elections. And this is the only way to ensure the promise of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" to come true.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support Mr Frederick FUNG's motion for amendment.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, since 1985, the functional constituencies have returned to the Legislative Council many fair-minded, compassionate, smart and competent Members. Many such colleagues are now seated around us. Though I disapprove of functional constituencies, I do not respect these Members any the less. What we are discussing today is what election system will be equitable and truly based on the "one man, one vote, one successful candidate" principle. We are not discussing the election of a top scholar or the election of a model father or a model husband. Now let us look first at Mr LAU Chin-shek sitting by my side and then at Dr Samuel WONG sitting behind him from a scientific and fair perspective. What is the difference between them? I believe that, if we carry out a chemical analysis on their cut-up bodies, we will not find much difference between them. But they are greatly different in their voting right in the Legislative Council elections. Mr LAU Chin-shek can cast only one vote, while Dr Samuel WONG presumably can cast three votes, or is it two? This shows that a person, though not born different from others, can have one additional unsought vote.
It has puzzled me since the inception of the functional constituencies in 1985, It has puzzled me since the inception of the functional constituencies in 1985, if the great number of people ineligible to be constituents of functional constituencies are unable to function or totally useless. Then, my puzzlement turned to anger and disappointment after I read Paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19, Section 6, Chapter 4 of the report of the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections, on double voting. Surprisingly, the report argues that, if a restriction is put on the constituents of the functional constituencies to vote either in a functional constituency or in a geographical constituency, this will deprive them of their voting right and is in violation of the principle of universal suffrage. Such an argument is so absurd that it will shock heaven and earth and move the spirits and the gods to tears, so to speak. I believe this is a major taint in the history of human civilization if taking away the special privilege of some people can be regarded as
an act of deprivation. To see whether the functional constituencies are in violation of human rights, there is simply no need for us to rely on legal knowledge or legal experts advice. Indeed we should be able to give an affirmative on the basis of common sense alone. Mr Deputy President, I have heard nobody say that he is totally useless. The report says that functional constituencies are a special feature of our political development. But I think it is not something we should be proud of. As Prof Norman MINERS of the University of Hong Kong has noted, functional constituencies are now very rare in any political systems around the world. But here in Hong Kong half of the Legislative Council seats are allocated to functional constituencies, mostly representing wealthy sections of society. No country in the world, neither the
developed nor the underdeveloped, has much interest in functional constituencies. I believe this is because functional constituency elections are fast declining among the declining political institutions. Political scientists around the world generally show no interest at all in studying such a system. But the Government here in Hong Kong sees it fit to adopt what other found obsolete at the expense of the human rights which should be given to the general public. This state of things is indeed similar in a way to the "multi-seat, single-vote" system that we voted down yesterday. Under such an election system with Hong Kong's characteristic, which is badly lacking in a popular base, the winning of election by default has very naturally become a common feature. In the functional constituency elections (FCEs) of 1985, 1988 and 1991, 41.7%, 71.4% and 57.1% of all seats respectively were won by default. The average percentage is 56.7%. What is even more shocking, in all of the three rounds of FCEs held over the past seven years, five of the seats were won again and again by default, namely, the one of the second electoral division of the Commercial Functional Constituency, the one of the first electoral division of the Industrial Functional Constituency, the one of Financial Functional Constituency and the two of the Labour Functional Constituency. Evidently, the constituents of functional constituencies suffer from a case of inability to use even their voting privilege.
Some people are very concerned that abolishing the functional constituencies or Some people are very concerned that abolishing the functional constituencies or reducing their representative seats will be in violation of the Basic Law. I would like to reiterate here that the Basic Law does not stand for the absolute truth and is not a sacred cow. If and when there is a reasonable need to revise it, then it should be revised, particularly before it is put into practice or any catastrophic effect comes into play. We can see that the Chinese Government itself has revised the Chinese constitution time and again when need arises.
Mr Deputy President, though I am a doctor and thereby lucky enough to be like Mr Deputy President, though I am a doctor and thereby lucky enough to be like
Dr Samuel WONG, as a member of a privileged class, in that I can cast two votes too. But I do not feel that I would like to have this privilege. It is a disgrace to the Hong Kong's political development. I hope that a day will come when my privilege will be revoked. Then I will be like Mr LAU Chin-shek who sits beside me to elect one candidate on a one-man, one-vote basis.
With these remarks, I support Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment motion.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I am from the functional constituency that has the second largest number of constituents. There are more than 10 000 eligible constituents in my constituency. The size of our constituency may be just large enough to have our election called a small-scale direct election. Still, if we compare the number of constituents in my functional constituency to that in a geographical constituency, it is still a privilege for us to be given voting right to return a representative. I think that functional constituencies can never be made fair. We cannot break down a functional constituency into an infinite number of tiny constituent groups. So, ultimately, we still will have great unfairness with regard to the eligibility of becoming a functional constituency among different occupations or different organizations.
Two months ago, when I was taking part in a function organized by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) in the United Kingdom, I explained to the participants Hong Kong's political structure. I mentioned Hong Kong's functional constituency elections (FCEs) as an election system and it turned out to be an eye-opener to fellow-members of the CPA. They apparently could not imagine how such a structure could appear in Hong Kong after one and a half century of British rule.
I agree that ultimately all the Legislative Council seats should be returned through direct elections and that this should come about the sooner the better. Still, the fact remains that we probably will still have FCEs in the near future, or to be exact, in 1995 or 1999. This being so, I will support the idea that the FCEs should be fully reviewed and greatly expanded with a view to allowing more people eligible to vote in functional constituencies. In other words, we should, under the current system, introduce a special functional constituency which has as its constituents all those who are not considered eligible to be constituents in the existing functional constituencies.
Finally, when we are heading in the direction of full direct elections, I will Finally, when we are heading in the direction of full direct elections, I will propose that the functional constituencies be all abolished at the same time and not at different times if the system is to be scrapped.
Mr Deputy President, these are my remarks.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, what is the most disappointing in the report is its Chapter 4 on functional constituencies. Yesterday, I called on Members to support Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment motion. The amendment motion is long and tediously worded and it calls for the establishment of yet another
committee. I do not fully agree with everything it contains. Still, it shows moral courage. So I am still calling on Members to support it.
Many Councillors in their speeches a moment ago pointed out that the functional Many Councillors in their speeches a moment ago pointed out that the functional constituency elections (FCEs) are full of flaws. But it can be said that they failed to propose relatively thorough solutions. Of course, some Councillors think that the functional constituencies not only are flawless but should continue to exist. But I think (repeating what I said yesterday) that, firstly, they are still in
violation of Article 21 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, which is the same as Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, providing that elections must meet the principles of universality and equality.
As to thorough solutions, I have mentioned one. But it seems that I have not succeeded in persuading other Members. I mentioned it at the Select Committee on Legislative Council Elections. But it appeared that nobody wanted to discuss it. The liberal Councillors, too, did not wish to discuss it. But they seemed to support me in the end. I am talking about adding a paragraph 4.24A pointing out that the FCE was the mode used for electing the upper house of the Irish Parliament. Then I wanted to add one sentence at the end of that paragraph, a sentence saying, "We think that the above recommendation should not be adopted." But, surprisingly, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR continued to be opposed to it. He thought that not even this sentence should be added. I do not expect the so-called liberal Councillors to support me. But I do hope that they will spend some more time on considering my proposal.
Of course, the liberal Councillors perhaps think that the complete solution is Of course, the liberal Councillors perhaps think that the complete solution is to abolish all functional constituency seats, that this will solve all the problems. But, until we do abolish them, should we not try to make the FCEs more consistent
with the principles of universality and equality, that is to say, make them more democratic? Those who pay lip service to the abolition of all functional constituencies are not making any attempt to reform them by democratic methods. In fact, there are those who, because functional constituencies still exist, use them as a protective charm, as something that enables them to raise their own importance and to say that only they can represent the wishes of the public. The debate yesterday and the debate today have provided illustrations of precisely this point.
I hope that Members will give me more time and listen to this proposal of mine. There are 43 functional constituency seats in the upper house of the Irish Parliament. The seats are not scattered among a large number of functional groups. There are just five major functional groups. Education has five seats; labour, 11 seats;
agriculture and fisheries, 11 seats; industry, commerce and related professions, nine seats; and administrative and social services (probably including health care services), seven seats. The number of seats for each functional constituency is roughly based on the number of people engaged in the relevant occupations. In Hong Kong, there are 30 functional constituency seats. The distribution of our population among the various occupations is probably different from that in Ireland. Still, we can use the same principle in defining our functional constituencies. Distributing the seats in this way will more or less meet the principles of equality.
Members of the upper house of the Irish Parliament are not elected by the people Members of the upper house of the Irish Parliament are not elected by the people in the functional constituencies or groupings but by the members of various tiers of councils of the Irish Republic who are themselves elected. It is the latter who vote to elect these members of the upper house. The election is not a direct election, but the voters in the election are, in turn, all directly elected. Therefore, it can be called an indirect election. It meets the principles of universality.
However, it is not a case of the people's direct exercise of universal suffrage.
The third point is important. As we can see, the system does not let the people in each functional constituency hold the election among themselves; so the elected representative is not beholden to the interests of the functional constituency. He can speak from conscience. Therefore, we should do some careful thinking. What is really our purpose in introducing FCEs? Why? Is it because we want some Legislative Council Members to represent the interests of their functional constituencies, or is it because we wish the Council to have Members from all sectors of society, so that it may be able to conduct its deliberations more fruitfully?
Of course, if we are not happy with this kind of indirect election, we can go Of course, if we are not happy with this kind of indirect election, we can go
on to consider direct voting. But we still must sort the functional constituencies into different kinds on the basis of the number of people in each functional grouping.
Mr Deputy President, I think that now is the time for a thorough reform of the Mr Deputy President, I think that now is the time for a thorough reform of the FCEs. Abolishing them will also be gratifying to me. I support the OMELCO consensus, which envisages the final abolition of all functional constituency seats in the year 2003. However, until they are abolished, should we not think the whole matter through and find out how we can make such seats meet the principles of universality and
equality? . I hope that colleagues from different functional constituencies and different parties or sects will give more time and more thought to this question.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment motion.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I originally did not plan to speak today. Yesterday, I gave my support in principle to the "one man, one vote" kind of voting right. In other words, I agreed that the method of holding functional constituency elections (FCEs) should be changed. However, after listening today to the so-called liberal Councillors' rude criticisms and insults, I have to speak.
The representativeness of the functional groups is beyond question. How can the The representativeness of the functional groups is beyond question. How can the 21 functional constituency Members allow the other 18 Members to insult them here? I challenge Mr Fred LI. He said something about corruption and representativeness. Is he more representative than I am? In what way? Please show evidence!
The FCEs meet a real need in Hong Kong. Everybody knows that there will still be 30 functional constituency seats in the year 2003. This is the fact, not a mere wish. We must respect history; we must respect facts.
I am telling the directly elected representatives once more that, in my functional constituency, the seat was contested among six candidates and I won by defeating my five rivals. I am the most representative among the functional constituency representatives. As for the liberal Councillors directly elected from the geographical constituencies, as we all know, 18 of them were elected out of 54 candidates. In other words, each of them defeated only two rivals. So how representative are they? How can they insult others? Hong Kong is a very pragmatic society. Mr Martin LEE criticized the business community a moment ago. I would like
to ask him where his legal fees come from. Successful as he is today, who brought him up and educated him? Hong Kong is a very special society. It needs co-operation between the working class and the employer class. It needs progress; it needs to be competitive. We all know that, as Legislative Councillors, we represent different people, play different roles and perform different functions. Why is everybody
saying all the time that only the directly elected democrats are representative? To tell the truth, if there is no employer, will there be a factory that hires 1 000 workers? If people do not invest, will there be such a result? The result comes from co-operation among all; it makes Hong Kong a competitive metropolis.
I am very suspicious of the so-called liberal Councillors. Do they have an ulterior motive? Why did they spend the whole of yesterday criticizing the government-appointed Councillors? As we all know, there will be no more appointed Councillors in 1995. Then they turned their guns on the functional constituency Councillors. Let me ask you: What is your point? Do you wish to destroy Hong Kong? These people do not deserve the support of the people of Hong Kong! We must remember that the 18 seats -- or 17, not counting Mr Andrew WONG -- that were won in 1991 do not represent the power to rule all of Hong Kong. As we know, there are 3.9 million voters. Those of you who won represent only 400 000 people or so, only about 5% of the people of Hong Kong. How representative is that? You go home and think it over.
Mr Fred LI, I dare not say that you are playing a fake sparring game. You have Mr Fred LI, I dare not say that you are playing a fake sparring game. You have equal strength. You won with Mr SZETO Wah. I congratulate you. But I, too, won a real contested election. Why do you insult me?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr CHIM, please address your remarks to the Chair.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): As we all know, could they have won their victory yesterday if they had not had the support of six functional constituency Councillors, namely, LEONG Che-hung, Jimmy McGREGOR, HUI Yin-fat, PANG Chun-hoi, Samuel WONG and Elsie TU? These gave support yesterday; today they are being given the boot. We must all beware of such treachery. As a Legislative Councillor, I have an obligation to balance the interests that this Council represents, to enable a compromise to be reached among all. The future prosperity of Hong Kong as a whole makes it worthwhile for us to keep things in balance. We are not for you to inveigh against just as you please.
I originally did not intend to speak. Still, if there are things wrong with the functional constituencies, I will be supportive of changes or alterations that are handled dispassionately. This also applies to the other kinds of elections. The Administration is simply snickering to itself as it watches us hurl verbal abuse at one another. But I hope that the people of Hong Kong will not be misled or feel provoked. We should very rationally make an honest effort for Hong Kong's future prosperity and stability. I will repeat. What Hong Kong needs the most now are: one, smooth transition; two, a joint effort by everybody to maintain prosperity in a stable environment; and, three, a joint effort by everybody to bring about further social progress. These should be our objectives.
There used to be 60 of us in this Council. One is gone, leaving 59. Four do not vote. That leaves 55. Will it serve the interests of the public for us to spend the whole day attacking one another? Think this over. Even suppose that one day you will win all 60 seats. But will the people of Hong Kong have confidence in you? All workers and no employers -- what will that be like? Therefore, I hope that, where society is to blame, we should study the problems but must not attack one another in order to accomplish an unmentionable end. The citizens have sharp eyes. We hope that Hong Kong will grow and grow. Hong Kong now ranks 12th in the world in terms of foreign exchange reserve. I hope that it will some day rise to the second place.
Mr Deputy President, I so make my submission. I wish to caution Councillors against attacking one another.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, since the functional constituencies were first introduced in Hong Kong, many social groups have criticized this system for its irrationality, which includes the arbitrary definition of the functional constituencies and the fact that it unfairly allows some people to cast votes twice. But I feel that the problems at the heart of the functional constituencies are not limited to these. If they were, the fairness issue could be resolved by means of technical adjustment. I think that the biggest problem with the functional constituency elections (FCEs) is that the system promotes disunity instead of unity of social forces. It weakens the bond between the public and the Legislative Councillors as a combined force for overseeing the Government's operations. The wishes of the majority of the citizens become, in this Council, the fragmented wishes of different groups each serving its separate interests, with the
result that the Government can continue to disregard the popular will!
The number of functional constituency seats has been increasing steadily in recent years. They account for an increasingly large proportion of the legislature. As a result, I feel even more that the problem is a serious one. Social groups and inter-group organizations vie for recognition as "functional groups". This causes divisiveness. The Government's power to "grant functional group status" becomes its means for controlling social forces as it supports some of these forces while opposing the others. This then weakens the solidarity among the social groups that should work together to win rights from the Government. A Legislative Council led by functional constituency Councillors easily creates a situation where there are numerous fragmented interest groups that are based on special interests instead of the interests of the general public. The Legislative Council should be a mechanism for reflecting the views of the citizenry and for overseeing the Government's operations. But the FCEs turn the Legislative Council into a gathering of mutually independent representatives of special interests. This enables the Government, which is already executive-led, to do more things against the wishes of the majority of the citizenry!
I personally am very appreciative of the expertise, ability and parliamentary experience of my functional constituency colleagues in this Council. However, the FCEs are an improper way of returning members to the Legislative Council. In fact, if the Government wishes to recruit public-spirited members of professions whose knowledge of their particular fields is useful, it can do so by establishing advisory committees. If a professional person wishes to work in the legislature, he can run for office in a direct election and then become a representative given the appropriate mandate by the people. This is the only proper way of development in a democratic society.
In sum, the FCEs not only obstruct the further development of direct elections and diminish the democratic make-up of the Legislative Council. Also, the way the functional constituencies are approved and developed causes divisiveness in the legislature and even in society itself. The true political nature of the functional constituencies lies in dividing the people instead of uniting them to work together for the interests of all. This is not merely a fairness issue. In fact, in the majority of the democratic countries in the world today, there is no legislature which has FCE as its mainstream mode of election. On the contrary, where the representatives of some sectors of society are refused recognition while the
representatives of other sectors are recognized or even recruited into the establishment, it is invariably a country under military or totalitarian rule. Such a thing happened in Nazi Germany.
Mr Deputy President, I so make my submission.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: I do share the views of the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung that as there has been no proof that functional constituency is conducive to corruption as implied by the Honourable Fred LI, I do see the need for Mr LI to make this particular point of clarification and that perhaps at the end of the day the Administration can also help to elucidate.
Mr Deputy President, I should first declare my interest as the representative Mr Deputy President, I should first declare my interest as the representative of the medical and dental functional constituency, and therefore to a certain extent "benefited" from the system. Like a number of my functional constituency colleagues here, I have the benefit of working in this Council through its different compositions. That was the Session between 1988 and 1991 when no Member was returned by direct elections, and of course the current Session with directly elected Members. Unlike some fortunate legislators from some functional constituencies, I had the agony of losing one hard-fought election, won a second one and stood uncontested on the third. My experience has therefore given me a better insight into the input and importance of functional constituencies, as well as the loopholes and the defect surrounding functional constituencies.
The 1984 White Paper on political development proposed that the medical functional constituency should be designated for the Hong Kong Medical Association (HKMA), on a corporate basis. However, not all qualified medical practitioners are members of HKMA. Foresight, wisdom and sense of fairness propelled the Council of HKMA to counter-propose that this constituency, which is after all called "medical", be extended to all medical practitioners in Hong Kong, irrespective of membership with the HKMA, and voting right allocated on an individual basis.
There are two very obvious points regarding functional constituencies:
(1) At this point in time, functional constituencies do have (1) At this point in time, functional constituencies do have At this point in time, functional constituencies do have an important role. As an important role. As stated in the Report of the Select Committee, "members returned by functional constituencies have provided, and we believe will continue to provide, useful
knowledge and expertise to the Council." Yet I do feel that functional constituencies should only be considered as a transitional stage, a stage in the metamorphosis of a colonial appointed legislature to a completely elected one by universal suffrage.
(2) The stage of this metamorphosis has been detailed in the Basic Law; in oth (2) The stage of this metamorphosis has been detailed in the Basic Law; in oth The stage of this metamorphosis has been detailed in the Basic Law; in other words, for perhaps the next 15 years, functional constituencies will remain with us.
Given that functional constituency is a transitional stage in the process of democratization, it is obvious that the fallacies now exist should be streamlined to make way for an easier path towards democratization. Yet the role of a functional constituency should in no way be undermined.
Two views therefore have to be considered:
(1) Many functional constituencies have bodies corporate as voters, where (1) Many functional constituencies have bodies corporate as voters, where manipulation and abuses could easily arise. Would it not be possible to convert corporate electors to individual electors, so that there is uniformity in voters' qualification and uniformity in voting procedures across all functional constituencies?
(2) To address th (2) To address th To address the criticism that functional constituencies is an elitist privilege, e criticism that functional constituencies is an elitist privilege, having more voting right than the man in the street, is it not possible for functional constituencies to act just as agents in nominating candidates from that profession or occupational group, while leaving these candidates to be elected on a territory wide basis?
Defects in the current functional constituencies elections do occur, with some functional constituencies more than others. It is important that these be studied in detail and corrected so as not to curtail the process of democratic development. A special group set up to study functional constituencies in depth should perhaps be a move in the right direction. Extensive and detailed consultations must, however, be made to existing functional constituencies who will be able to contribute their experience and expertise.
Mr Deputy President, unlike the independent select committee as suggested in the amendment motion of the Honourable FUNG Kin-kee which is only to study whether functional constituency election practice violates the Bill of Rights, I do believe that any group set up to study functional constituencies should take in and look at
all aspects of functional constituencies with a view to streamlining the path of democratization.
Furthermore, I do not agree that there should be as yet another independent select committee comprising the legal profession and the public sector. Instead, I believe that any study of this nature could come under the remit of an independent Election Commission.
I would have to make it clear that this body should be different from the combined Boundary and Election Commission as suggested by the Select Committee Report. The latter will deal with election business on geographical basis only. Obviously, such remit is not wide enough to cover the rest of the seats being returned by functional constituencies and the Electoral Committee.
The Hong Kong Democratic Foundation is strongly in favour of an office of Election Commission being established, reporting to, but not responsible to, an Electoral Board. Members of the Electoral Board should be appointed as individuals by the Legislative Council. The Election Commission is to remove the administration of elections from the Administration itself. It is the practice in most democratic countries to have some form of independent Election Commission.
Mr Deputy President, may I take this opportunity to urge for an early setting up of the Election Commission and the Electoral Board, so that they can provide advice to the Administration during the current electoral reform review exercise, and that they should also be charged with the duty to study and make proposal for functional constituencies reform where necessary, as well as the Electoral Committee which will field 10 candidates in this Council in 1995. This all important Electoral Committee seems somehow to have been forgotten in the Select Committee Report.
Finally, I would like to put on record that the medical functional constituency is supportive of the functional constituencies system at this point in time and that a dental functional constituency be set up as a separate entity.
Mr Deputy President, as the principle behind the setting up of a separate body to study functional constituencies in the amendment motion is different from that of mine and there is inadequate time to consult my own constituents, I have to abstain from voting.
MR STEPHEN CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, some colleagues may not like what I have to say. But I would like to ask them to listen, for the words are all from the bottom of my heart. Believing me or not is indeed up to them.
During the transition period, we must pay attention to and respect reality and the objective environment. All of us Councillors should show a realistic attitude. We should end mutual suspicion, improve mutual communication and find solutions to the problems faced by our community. Where representativeness is concerned, I
absolutely respect the opinion that functional constituency seats are not adequately representative. However, from the point of view of society's actual needs at this time, I think that the functional constituencies have a role to play in the Legislative Council. Members returned through functional constituency elections can fully
reflect the opinion and position of different social stratum for the consideration of Councillors representing other constituencies or social strata. The main point is to enable the Government to come up with better policies for the good of society as a whole.
Regrettably, however, listening to colleagues' speeches today, I find that we have overlooked one point, that is, whether the people of Hong Kong like it or not, whether some colleagues in this Council like it or not, we are not an independent country. I believe that, if Hong Kong were an independent country, we could be using different forms and methods for resolving our difficulties and there would not be as much controversy as there is now. The main point is that Hong Kong is now a British colony and will become a Special Administrative Region of China in 1997. Hong Kong is part of China. Any arrangement about the future of Hong Kong must be discussed between China and the United Kingdom. Any motion concerning Hong Kong's political development or the question of transition to 1997, even if carried by this Council by 60 votes to none, must still be discussed between China and the United Kingdom before any final decision can be made. This being so, what should be our first and foremost concern? It is none other than the establishment of channels of
communication between the people and the Legislative Council on one side and the Chinese and the British Governments on the other. This is very important. Members of the Co-operative Resources Centre (CRC) have been ridiculed and jeered at for visiting Beijing. We have been accused of "kow-towing," of "going on a pilgrimage" and of "going north." Actually, our visit was mainly aimed at doing something for the people of Hong Kong. If we fail to establish channels of communication with China,
it will be impossible for us to exchange views with China. Failing in establishing the communication, can we succeed in getting what we wish to have at the end of the
day? Such then is the main purpose of establishing channels of communication. I can tell Honourable Members frankly that, when we met with Chinese leaders in Beijing, we were not asking them to talk to the CRC alone, but to establish communication with every colleague in this Council. Members perhaps do not believe me. As a matter of fact, we even told them that we could make an introduction so that direct
discussions can be held. But some colleagues probably would not accept our assistance. They have the freedom to do so. However, our central purpose is "to serve Hong Kong", by trying realistically to dispel the suspicions between China and the United Kingdom and those harboured by the people of Hong Kong. I believe that it is incumbent on the CRC as well as all other colleagues to do so. I am not as "animated" or as vivid a speaker as Mr CHIM Pui-chung. Nor am I as "agitated". (This is very rare in my case, for it is quite easy for me to become "agitated".) However, I do agree with him that accusations are being made wantonly, and that misleading words are being said in an attempt to make the accusations stick. I think that this is basically uncalled for.
Finally, Mr Deputy President, I wish, for argument's sake, to respond to something said by Mr Martin LEE. He said that the most stable countries in the world are the democracies. I believe that he was referring to, inter alia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany and France. He suggested that other
countries in the world will be stable provided they practise democracy. I hope that he will look up the history books and see what happened over the past 10 years or so, or perhaps the past 20 or 30 years. Many colonies in Africa became independent and they elected their Governments through direct elections. Are these Governments democratic? If so, then please look at how developed or stable they are.
Secondly, some colleagues have accused the FCEs as being very unfair in that many candidates won by default or returned unopposed as a result of consultation. I hope that they will study the matter in depth before jumping to this conclusion. I myself was elected by default. But I can tell you that I worked as hard on my election as the directly elected Councillors did on theirs. I visited every factory concerned to listen to the views of the people there about the implications of government policy on Hong Kong's industrial development and economy. Who else was there to do this kind of work? You think that winning by default is easy, do you not? Mr David LI was also returned unopposed. In the banking sector, he is generally acknowledged to be the most intelligent, diligent and representative banker. If not, I wonder why there was no other candidates in his constituency. Frankly, those who won by default feel very lonely. If there still are FCEs in 1995 and the Federation of
Industries is still designated as a functional constituency, I hope that somebody will register as a candidate and enter the election contest with me. Thank you.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Howard YOUNG, I believe you wish to make a short speech.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr Deputy President, I did not intend to speak originally but I notice that some Members have dropped out. So if there is time, then I would like to speak.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr YOUNG, you have a right to speak, of course. But please try to limit your speech to the essentials in keeping with the agreement between Members.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: I believe the agreement is five minutes for each speech. I will keep within that, Mr Deputy President.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I originally did not plan to speak today. At first, when the Honourable Frederick FUNG presented his motion, I heard him say that he would not use the debate as an occasion for attacking or slandering the functional constituencies. So I felt very reassured. But then, as the debate went on, I felt that the shape of things changed. So I am speaking as an unscheduled speaker. I would like to say some fair words in my capacity as a person who, as a voter, has only one vote; who, as a candidate, had two other contestants in an election where the voter turnout rate was 87%; who, as a Legislative Council Member, was returned after winning a contested election; and who is not an employer.
I feel that, if we were to have the democracy of 100% direct elections, that would be very nice. However, I feel that we should not be influenced by such an ideal, such a romantic ideal, to the extent that we disregard the realities of Hong Kong, the economy or the Basic Law. A moment ago, I heard a Councillor speak. Though he was a participant in the drafting of the Basic Law, I wonder if he noticed that the Basic Law in fact does say that 100% general elections will be the long-term goal. Therefore, I feel that using this occasion today to talk effusively about issues that are not really pertinent is unfair to the functional constituency Councillors who
have done a lot for this Council and for the citizenry.
I would like to point out that a functional constituency Councillor should of I would like to point out that a functional constituency Councillor should of course give consideration to his functional constituency, to its actual needs and interests. This is not the same as helping the employers per se. He thinks in terms of the overall interests of his particular trade. I am the representative of the tourism trade. Others in the tourism trade have told me, and I very much believe, that, if there was a greater voice in this Chamber last year (in the last Legislative Council) to represent the tourism trade or to describe the conditions in the tourism trade, then the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Bill, which is impractical for Hong Kong and which has been strongly criticized by hoteliers as a group, would not have been passed.
I feel that, practically speaking, Hong Kong's success of course owes very much I feel that, practically speaking, Hong Kong's success of course owes very much to the hard work of the people of Hong Kong and to our geographical position. However, we must not forget that we used to have a stable government. Our accomplishments today do not owe themselves to demonstrations in the streets but to the hard and honest work of many Hong Kong people in the political and economic areas. In the past, under restrictive historical conditions, all Legislative Council Members owed their
positions to the appointment system. That was the historical fact. The transition to 100% direct elections, on top of the transition to 1997, is making a big enough wave. What can we do to enable Hong Kong to make the transition more smoothly? I feel that the functional constituencies are necessary at this historical point in the transition. Therefore, I feel that I must make my personal views known concerning the many unfair criticisms that were made of the system a moment ago. Thank you.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy President, yesterday, I was served with the main course; today, it is the dessert. This has been one feast of a debate. But at least today on the dessert I am not the sole person at the table because Captain McGREGOR, the leader of the Liberal Football Team, will share my plate with me, I am sure.
My colleague, Mr NGAI, has dealt with some of the points and he referred to paragraphs 4.5 and 4.6 of the report. What he omitted to tell Members was that the Select Committee was in unanimous agreement on those two points. As regards double-voting, again, the Committee decided unanimously not to disenfranchise functional constituency voters from direct elections.
Dr Conrad LAM has asked for an explanation; he says he cannot understand it. Maybe I should plead ignorance as well, because as Chairman I did not vote. Perhaps he should ask his United Democrats colleagues Mr SZETO Wah or Dr YEUNG Sum, or Mr Fred LI -- or perhaps Mr McGREGOR might oblige.
In so far as functional constituencies comprising of corporate or individual In so far as functional constituencies comprising of corporate or individual members are concerned, we had a fairly detailed discussion, particularly those involving corporate electors. And I think Mr McGREGOR, to his credit, put the point fairly strongly, and the Committee decided to support his point of view. He suggested improvements that we all accepted. He put forward the idea that in some functional constituencies it is indeed not possible to avoid corporate electors and we accepted that. So I think I would not want there to be any misunderstanding on that point.
Mr Martin LEE, rather complimentarily, said that some of the functional constituency members like himself have the makings of candidates for direct elections. Well I am quite sure he could not have included me in that description because his colleague, Dr HUANG, said that I would lose my deposit if I stood.
Dr LEONG Che-hung referred to the Select Committee forgetting about the Election Committee returning the 10 candidates, or the legislators, in 1995. That is not entirely correct. As he knows, we did discuss it and it is in paragraph 8.5 of the report. And perhaps he was out of the room perhaps because of the lateness of the hour -- and I would forgive him for that, even if he fell asleep here -- because I did say that that was a matter really for agreement between Britain and China, but that the Select Committee pointed out that we would hope -- and this was again
unanimous -- that the formation of that Election Committee would be by way of democratic process.
A number of colleagues from the United Democrats, and indeed other political A number of colleagues from the United Democrats, and indeed other political persuasions, have said that functional constituencies are against the Bill of Rights. I think I really want to ask two questions: If so, why do they encourage a breach of the Bill of Rights by either participating or remaining as members within
functional constituencies? Mr Andrew WONG agrees with this and yet he voted in favour of paragraph 4.5. I am beginning not to understand what happened. I am not saying that my colleagues have no principles. I think the point I am really trying to make is this: that today we have a set of rules; the important thing is not whether we win or lose but that we play by the rules. This Council went through a lot of heated debate to arrive at a committee system for our internal workings to help efficiency, transparency and accountability to members of the public. I believe it was a
worthwhile exercise and I am quite sure that given goodwill, we will continue to work hard for the good of Hong Kong.
Mr Deputy President, the Select Committee also stated quite clearly that it v Mr Deputy President, the Select Committee also stated quite clearly that it viewed functional constituencies as transitional and that we should move, in the long run, to a wholly directly elected legislature as is provided for in the Basic Law. It is indeed an aspiration that is valued by members of the CRC.
Mr Deputy President, we are now asked to urge the Government to appoint a committee to review that which has been dealt with by the Select Committee. For my part, I am afraid I cannot favour such a course of action.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr Deputy President, Mr FUNG's amendment asserts that the existing voting system for functional constituency elections is unfair and possibly violates the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The Administration does not accept these assertions. Our present system of election, both for geographical constituencies and functional constituencies, have fully met the relevant requirements of the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The question of unfairness or violation of the Bill of Rights Ordinance therefore does not arise.
The Administration does, however, recognize that there are certain aspects of the functional constituency system which could be improved. Miss Emily LAU has referred specifically to possibly double or multiple votes controlled by the same individual. Rules to revamp this could indeed be further improved. Other examples include the electoral franchise of some of the functional constituencies, the eligibility of voting, and the qualification of the authorized representatives. But improvements could be made without having to radically overhaul the system. These issues have all been looked into by the Select Committee which has made a number of useful recommendations in its report. We will study with great care these recommendations, as well as views put forth by Members this afternoon, when we put together the electoral arrangements for 1995. Our aim would be to further enhance the representativeness of the system and to provide for greater participation of the public.
Mr FUNG has also suggested the establishment of an independent body to look into aspects of the functional constituency system. I find it difficult to comprehend the rationale for this suggestion at this point in time, given that the Legislative Council Select Committee has just produced a report which, amongst other things, addresses exactly these very same issues.
Mr Deputy President, as explained in my speech in the early hours of today, the Administration will need to carefully consider the Select Committee's report, as well as the views expressed by Members and the public. For this reason, the three ex-officio Members will abstain from voting on either Mr ARCULLI's motion or the amendment motion proposed by Mr FUNG. Thank you.
Question on Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment to Mr Ronald ARCULLI's motion as amended by Mr Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment put.
Voice votes taken.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Council will proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes and the division will take place immediately afterwards.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would Members now please proceed to vote?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do Members have any queries? If not, the results will be displayed.
Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Rev FUNG Chi-wood, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Dr Conrad LAM, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr MAN Sai-cheong, Mr TIK Chi-yuen, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum and Mr WONG Wai-yin voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mr Stephen CHEONG, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Rita FAN, Mr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr LAU Wah-sum, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, Mr Peter WONG, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Moses CHENG, Mr Marvin CHEUNG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Dr LAM Kui-chun, Mr Gilbert LEUNG, Mr Eric LI, Prof Felice LIEH MAK, Mr Steven POON, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG and Mr Howard YOUNG voted against the amendment.
The Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, Mr PANG Chun-hoi, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Elsie TU, Prof Edward CHEN and Mr Timothy HA abstained.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT announced that there were 21 votes for the amendment and 27 votes against it. He therefore declared that Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment was negatived.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Eric LI, you have not spoken before in this debate and I believe you wish to exercise your right to speak before the question is finally put and I understand you wish to make a short speech.
MR ERIC LI: Yes, thank you, Mr Deputy President.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I can say that the two prolonged rounds of debating and voting are over and emotions are no longer running high. I believe that we have all calmed down and are now more sober than ever. I choose to make my speech now because I believe that we can now focus our attention better than ever as we review the entire course of the carrying of the amended motion and reflect soberly on it.
To me personally, the course of the motion debate has provided three revelations. First, things happened too fast. Less than one week intervened between the appearance of the report and the Legislative Council vote. Legislative Councillors said many things about public opinion. Some said that public opinion was like this. Others said that it was like that. I cannot but wonder if we were not talking about public opinion selectively. True, we saw what looked like the strengths of hurricanes, shaking the mountains and making the oceans boil over. But then I got in touch with some members of the public. They said that some people had asked them for their supportive signatures but that they had not been quite sure whether they should sign or not. Some said that they simply did not know what it was all about. I also asked some District Board members for their comments. They called me on the phone three times within two days, expressing one view and then changing it. What makes me worry is not whether the citizens understand the issue clearly. It is that, as it seems to me, public opinion was being led along by the Legislative Council, whether or not with the public's consent. I also wonder if the mass media, which
should remain neutral about the issue, had sufficient time to digest all the comments. Did they have a chance to analyse the comments objectively? Did they have independent sources of information on what the citizens were thinking? The "single-seat, single-vote" system probably had the support of a broad section of public opinion. Still, I think that this Council's handling of the whole matter has been quite rash and has exposed itself to suggestions that public opinion was exploited, manufactured or, to use a stronger term, distorted. I think that people easily get the impression that the incident was created by politicians who were spoiling for a fight. I think that this is not good but bad for this Council's public image. It has happened. It must not happen again.
Secondly, the amended motion is a compromise. It represents neither the abso Secondly, the amended motion is a compromise. It represents neither the absolute truth nor absolute justice. Very clearly, my liberal colleagues' traditional position was that the "double-seat, two-vote" system should be maintained. It was only recently that they, after consultation with some independent Councillors, revised this position of theirs and supported the "single-seat, single-vote" system instead. Very clearly, this does not represent the absolute truth but is a political choice made under the actual circumstances. I am very glad to see that the independent Councillors played a role in the matter and made a reasonable result possible in the end.
Thirdly, I believe that many citizens do not understand that our vote this time is not a decisive vote about a resolution or about a legislative Bill. It is simply something used by politicians to make themselves look more impressive.
Over this particular issue, the Chinese side has made clear its stand. It hopes that the issue will be further discussed at the level of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. I believe that the matter does not end here. The Honourable Stephen CHEONG has made this very clear. At this point, I do not agree that we should take any action that would tie the Government's hands, such as through a Legislative Council motion debate, before discussions begin with the Chinese side. I think that to do so would be extremely unwise.
I will abstain from voting, sharing the Honourable Vincent CHENG's frame of mind and agreeing with the fair tone of the Honourable Martin BARROW's speech. I think that it does not matter to me whether the motion is carried or defeated. What makes me worry is how the citizenry will bear the consequences. I hope that they will remain optimistic and remain steadfast whatever happens and will not think that the matter
is settled. While accepting the "single-seat, single-vote" system now, they should remain open-minded and pragmatic as they consider accepting other alternatives under actual circumstances that continue to change.
From the long-range point of view, I think that serious thought should be given to whether the geographical constituencies would not become too small and whether representation would cease to be balanced should there be 30 or more directly elected seats. Such a review may have to wait until the elections of the year 2007. But I think that such a review will have to be made.
The report contains many good points. Like the other Councillors, I would like to thank Chairman Ronald ARCULLI and the many members of the Select Committee. I fully support the lowering of the minimum voting age to 18. I would also like to thank my close colleague in rehabilitative services, Mr Vincent CHENG who is
celebrating his birthday today, for making a speech that was helpful to me and for supporting the recommendation that special consideration be given to the creation of a Disabled Persons functional constituency.
Mr Deputy President, I so make my submission.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mrs Rita FAN, you too have not spoken in the debate and I believe you wish to exercise your right to speak before the question is finally put.
MRS RITA FAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, thank you for giving me leave to speak. My speech will be very short. Members need not worry that I may take up too much of their time.
The Honourable Eric LI already said a moment ago many of the things that I had been thinking of saying. The Honourable Ronald ARCULLI's motion is neutral. Nobody knows why the motion yesterday suddenly became a debate on the "multi-seat, single-vote" system. That, however, is not important. Since some colleagues thought that that was how it should be, they were of course free to speak their minds. Since we are having a debate here, we should all put forth our views and then discuss them calmly and dispassionately. Therefore, when I heard some Members speak in an acrimonious fashion and with great vehemence, I just wondered if all that was necessary. There will yet be more discussions of political development. Must this
Council hold its discussions in this way? I hope that colleagues will think this over.
In fact, the election system is a complex matter for the average citizen. More time should be spent on explaining things to the citizenry and on listening to their views. In fact, I think a quick decision may not be the best decision. This is why colleagues of the Co-operative Resources Centre (CRC) think that the best thing to do is to listen to other people's views and to continue with other people the
discussions on the 1995 elections as a whole and not to focus solely on the directly elected seats.
Mr Deputy President, for the above reason, members of the CRC will vote against the amended motion.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Deputy President, I shall not take up very much time but all I can say is, having heard Mr Eric LI, I wish he had entered the debate and brought some decorum, calmness and cool-headedness to our deliberations because much of what he has said today makes sense. But perhaps it is not too late, because what we are now asked to do is to vote on my motion, as amended by Mr McGREGOR's motion.
I simply would like to say to Members that if you vote "yes" there are no options kept open. If you want to keep options open, vote "no". If you are worried that you would be accused of changing your mind, becoming a turncoat, or whatever the right phraseology is, then I would have thought that I have demonstrated quite clearly today that you would not be the only one. So I urge you to consider the position seriously, coolly, calmly, as Mr LI has, and if you want to keep the options open it is still not too late to vote "no".
Lastly, Mr Deputy President, I would like to thank Mr Michael SZE and his colleagues for all the papers that the Administration supplied to the Select Committee. We put them under tremendous pressure to produce their research material for consideration by the Select Committee.
And, Mr Deputy President, I would also wish to thank you for agreeing to have two days as a sitting, so that Members could freely express their views on the Report of the Select Committee without undue time constraint, although I think when I first heard that you had decided to carry on last evening, my heart rather sank. But be
that as it may, we have had a very fruitful, tough year in this Council. I think my colleagues deserve a rest -- I know I do -- and I can only say that I certainly look forward to coming back in October.
Question on Mr Ronald ARCULLI's motion as amended by Mr Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment put.
Voice votes taken.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Council will proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes and the division will taken place immediately afterwards.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Would Members please proceed to vote?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Do Members have any queries? The results will now be displayed.
Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr Martin LEE, Mr PANG Chun-hoi, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Andrew WONG, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Albert CHAN, Prof Edward CHEN, Mr Marvin CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Rev FUNG Chi-wood, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Dr Conrad LAM, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr MAN Sai-cheong, Mr TIK Chi-yuen, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum and Mr WONG Wai-yin voted for the amended motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mr Stephen CHEONG, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Rita FAN, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr LAU Wah-sum, Mr Peter WONG, Mr Moses CHENG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Dr LAM Kui-chun, Mr Gilbert LEUNG, Prof Felice LIEH MAK, Mr Steven POON, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG and Mr Howard YOUNG voted against the amended motion.
The Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Timothy HA and
Mr Eric LI abstained.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT announced that there are 27 votes for the amended motion and 22 votes against it. He therefore declared that Mr Ronald ARCULLI's motion as amended by Mr Jimmy McGREGOR's amendment was carried.
EDUCATION COMMISSION REPORT NO. 5
MRS SELINA CHOW moved the following motion:
"That this Council urges the Government to allocate appropriate funding for those measures recommended by the Education Commission in its Report No. 5 which receive wide support from the community as demonstrated through the current consultation exercise."
MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr Deputy President, I rise to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Since the publication of Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5) there has been widespread and enthusiastic discussion on it among professionals, as well as in the community at large. As a member of the Education Commission -- and as such I must declare an interest -- I am glad to note that many comments, mostly favourable I might add, which have been voiced on the Report, have been heard.
I hope this debate will serve to generate even more public interest and comment before the close of the consultation period at the end of September, so that policy decisions can be taken with the benefit of the collective wisdom of everyone who has something to contribute to such an important issue that will have far-reaching effect on our future generations.
Very few people would disagree with the aims and objectives of ECR5. Most of Very few people would disagree with the aims and objectives of ECR5. Most of us have had personal experience of our school system, as parents, friends of parents, close relatives of parents and children, members or close associates of the education community. We may have many different ideas on how to improve on our school system but almost all of us would agree that teachers are the most important human resource that determine the standard and quality of our school education. It is for this reason that ECR5 has chosen to concentrate its attention on this profession which
requires our immediate attention and support if we are to ensure steady improvement that is much needed in our school education. It is only by doing so, urgently, that we will be able to ensure that our students will be prepared for life and work in the challenging years ahead, given the changes our society is experiencing and the demands made on our young people when they leave school for further education or employment.
ECR5 has identified three main issues which have the most effect on the ability ECR5 has identified three main issues which have the most effect on the ability of teachers to deliver a quality service.
The first is the education, training and preparation of teachers. This includes the Education Programme for Pre-service Training, In-service Training for experienced teachers, as well as the opportunity of upgrading and updating for all those in the profession who may wish to take up leadership and management positions.
On the first issue, the main recommendations are to introduce improvements to the Colleges of Education, and Institute of Language and Education, by separating them from the Civil Service, and to upgrade them into a new Institute of Education under its own Governing Council; to enable teachers to upgrade their knowledge and skills throughout their career by offering a new in-service qualification at
sub-degree level titled "The Advanced Teacher's Certificate", and to create a new Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and Qualification, to better co-ordinate teacher education programmes in Hong Kong, as well as to tender authoritative advice on teacher qualification.
The second is the status of teachers. In order to offer an attractive career path for our bright young people, it is important to ensure that the grading and ranking structure in our schools is appropriately set to achieve the desired result. On examining the present situation, the Commission considered that something must be done about the fact that all primary teaching posts are in nongraduate ranks. We concluded that a substantial proportion of posts should be upgraded to graduate status,
and that 35% of teaching posts in primary schools should be held by graduates within 15 years. Such a move will, on the one hand, enable schools with the knowledge and skills of effective leadership, while on the other hand maintain the attractiveness of a career in primary education which must necessarily compete with other expanding employment opportunities at graduate level. Such a move will mean that within a relatively short time, several thousand primary teachers will need to acquire degrees. The Commission believes the best way to meet this demand is to provide self-funding
part-time degree courses combining distance learning with face to face tuition for serving teachers. This will be coupled with two year full-time courses for holders of Teacher Certificates to pursue immediately after graduation from the new Institute of Education.
The third is the support factors that are essential to assist teachers to provide quality education. These include induction of new teachers, home-school co operation, school administration and management, school environment and teacher workload. Of these, I would like to give special mention to home-school co-operation which in my view, is vital if we are to realize the full benefit of education in its broadest sense on children. Like many parents, I have had children in the Hong Kong school system and I have been saddened by the relationship, or the lack of it, between us and teachers. While working in preparation for the Report, I have personally talked to school heads who have not exactly adopted a positive approach to establishing partnership with parents. Communication, understanding and co operation are not actively pursued and improvement can only come about with a basic change in attitudes on both sides.
Looking at the problem positively, there is a huge potential to be tapped through the successful setting up of a healthy partnership. This is urgently needed, particularly when young people have to deal with so much stress and pressure outside of the classroom nowadays.
On teachers' workload I do not intend to go into detail the recommendations regarding the proposed improved staffing ratios. However, what is worth a mention is the recommendation to reduce class size from 40 to 35 for conventional classes and from 35 to 30 for activity approach classes by 1997 for all primary one classes. This is made possible by a projected decline in the school population from 1995 to 2002. When enrolment starts to rise again from 2003, new schools should be built to cater for the maintenance of reduced class size.
ECR5 is rich and complex, and it would be impossible for me to go into every subject it contains, given the time constraint. I am sure other colleagues will have views to offer during this debate. However, before I sit down I would like to say a few words about the resource implications of ECR5. The planned period for full
implementation is 15 years, during which an estimated $23.5 billion at 1992 prices will be required. Some have asked why it takes so long? Considering some 7 500 teachers need to be trained and given that two years are needed to develop the in-service degree course which will take four years to complete, the first batch of
graduates will not materialize until six years after a decision is taken. It is for this reason that the Commission is recommending a review to be conducted 10 years after decision day.
As for the budget, I understand we will only be able to afford it if spending will not be trimmed as a result of declining enrolment. I therefore urge the Government not to adjust the baseline in accordance with the natural drop in student population if it is found at the conclusion of the consultation period that ECR5 has the broad support of Hong Kong.
Mr Deputy President, I so move.
Question on the motion proposed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Before I call on Members to speak, I would just remind Members that if we are to achieve our agreed timetable Members should limit their speeches to not more than five munutes each.
MRS RITA FAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Education Commission has spent 18 months to look deeply into the various issues relating to the teaching profession. It has, after careful consideration, come up with a number of recommendations to address these issues. Although it is going to take up to $23.5 billion and 15 years to implement these proposals, we are convinced that it is a very worthwhile investment.
For the improvement of teaching quality and learning environment will bring direct benefits to education and enable Hong Kong to have an adequate supply of talent to meet the challenges posed by the 21st century and international disputes.
I was cautiously optimistic on the day of publication of the Education Commis I was cautiously optimistic on the day of publication of the Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5). My optimism has increased considerably in the three weeks which have elapsed with most of the views expressed being supportive of the general direction of ECR5. But I am still far from being totally optimistic. We still need the full support of the education sector; we still need the endorsement of parents; and what is more, we still need Members of the Council to put aside their differences, for the cause of education, to support and pass the motion moved by Mrs Selina CHOW.
Some people worry that the ECR5 recommendations may not be implemented given the
huge expenditure which it requires and that the Government may not be able to come up with the funding. I agree that $23.5 billion is a very large sum of money in terms of the usually meagre funds available for education spending, but the money we are talking about only forms a small fraction of the annual public expenditure. If we look at the extra spending projected by ECR5 for 1995-96, it is but a mere 0.6% of the total expenditure. In the projections of the Financial Budget, education
spending for 1995-96 takes up 16.5 % of overall expenditure. Put it simply then, if education spending can be increased to 17.2% of total expenditure, then we will already be in a financial position to implement the ECR5 recommendations. When the issue of primary and secondary education was debated in this Council last time, I already expressed the wish that the Government could move in the direction of devoting 18% of its total expenditure to education. If we are able to achieve this by 2007, then not only will ECR5 be fully implemented, but also we will be able to make
improvement in other educational areas, and to implement systematically future recommendations as well. If I was asked "While you want to increase education spending, what spending categories are you prepared to trim for that purpose?" then what I would say in reply is this. First, Government revenue is not a fixed constant; there are many ways of tapping new sources of revenue. If we have a larger pie, then we can give a larger portion of it to education. The problem is whether people identify with the need for funding priority to be given to certain education measures. But I would also like to say at this juncture that I do not support tax increases, nor do I like the idea of having an education tax. Second, Government expenditure is not a fixed constant either. Savings may become possible in the context of the changes happening in our society, and this goes for education spending as well. However, ECR5 already states that teaching staff remuneration accounts for 90% of the expenditure on primary and secondary education. There is not much chance for savings to be made in that regard. Anyway, as Mrs Selina CHOW said just now, if enrolment declines as a result of demographic changes, and if the Government is able to maintain the original level of funding instead of reducing it, then it would be conducive to the implementation of the ECR5 recommendations. All in all, I am quite confident of securing the funding we need if ECR5 secures the strong support of Members of this Council as well as the community as a whole.
It has been said that ECR5 has not suggested a priority order for the implementation of its recommendations. This is quite true. Indeed, the Education Commission decided against such a priority order after careful consideration. Some of our recommendations are such that they should be implemented as soon as possible and some are more suited to phased implementation. In other words, the
recommendations may be for the short term or the long term but in our presentation we have already drawn up a time table. Moreover, some recommendations are inseparable from others. For example, the in-service courses for teachers may not achieve their desired goal unless recommendations on pay scale are also endorsed.
Given the wide scope of ECR5, certain specific details dealt with in the discussions by members of the Education Commission have not been set out in the document. In this connection, queries have been raised by certain concerned parties. I will try to respond to them here. I hope I would to be able to answer on other occasions those queries which I cannot adequately deal with given the time constraint.
The graduate posts in primary schools may not necessarily be filled by people who have a degree in primary education. Candidates with a degree and a teaching certificate (or other recognized teacher training background) may also be considered and decision to appoint someone as graduate teachers should be made by the school. It is not necessary for Assistant Masters to have degree qualification. It should be up to the school to make its appointment decision, taking into account factors such as personal ability, experience and academic background. We hope that the
teachers at primary schools will be able to enrol in in-service courses. It is for this reason that the Institute of Education will organize"Advanced Teachers' Certificate" courses for teachers. We also hope to give credit to certain courses taken by teachers, through a credit system. This is to enable teachers to make full use of opportunities for further studies in such a way as not to affect their teaching duties. The acquiring of an Advanced Teachers' Certificate will enable the teacher to have a salary increment. This is a way of encouraging all manner of further improvement; it is not just something we do to meet the target of degree qualification for all teachers. If the response to in-service courses is so enthusiastic that primary graduate teachers exceed the number of posts created for them, then a review will be conducted by the Education Commission 10 years after the policy decision is taken and adjustments will then be made in that review. The ranking structures and payscales relating to graduate teachers of primary schools and graduate masters of secondary schools will then be considered again. However, matters such as ranks and payscales need to be resolved eventually by the Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service.
On the issue of enabling Mainland and Taiwan university graduates to become graduate masters and non-graduate masters, we have referred the accreditation of degree qualification to a proposed Advisory Committee on Teacher Education and
Qualifications and the accreditation of non-degree qualifications to the Colleges of Education which will organize a three-part test for this purpose. I am not able to give full details because of the time constraint, except to say that the Education Commission has no prejudice whatsoever against university graduates from any country, nor indeed is there any need for us to do so.
There is some scepticism about the fact that the Education Commission has not There is some scepticism about the fact that the Education Commission has not drawn up a time table concerning the upgrading of the Colleges of Education. But the reason for this is that the speed of improvement of teaching quality and redevelopment of College premises, and the design and validation of courses, are all matters which have to be attended to by the Provisional Governing Council and teaching staff concerned; the Education Commission has no wish to constrain or otherwise control their development. But we have recommended a large vote of money which is 50% more than the current unit cost of full time enrolment. Put in another way, given that the cost per student is more than $60,000, with the completion of the new Institute, it will rise to well over $100,000. In the cost estimation, we have used the set-up of other tertiary institutions as reference and we also have been able to benefit from the active participation of the Chairman and Secretary of the Universities and Polytechnics Grants Committee. We believe that this will enable the Institute of Education to have adequate resources, flexibility and autonomy to develop in their own ways and improve their academic standards. I believe that language policy should also be a matter which the Institute should decide for itself.
Whereas there are critics who favour the reduction of class size from 35 to 30, Whereas there are critics who favour the reduction of class size from 35 to 30, there are also critics who say that the Education Commission is turning a blind eye to the problems of floating class. Actually we have devoted two meetings to the discussion of the alternative between reducing class size and abolishing floating class. While cutting class size will enable the teacher to give more attention to individual students, abolishing floating class will enhance a sense of belonging among students. We have decided in favour of cutting class size. We have also made the decision that the way to cope with a resurgence of population and number of school children would be to build more schools instead of enlarging class size. However, the school has the discretion to either abolish floating class in which case the class size may exceed 35, or maintain floating class and achieve the reduction of class size. We believe that the schools will take their decision after consulting with teachers and parents.
Mr Deputy President, I think I have exceeded the time limit of five minutes and Mr Deputy President, I think I have exceeded the time limit of five minutes and
I apologize to Members for taking such a long time. The Education Commission welcomes views from all parties concerned. Regarding the points which we have not been able to take into consideration, we will certainly give them thorough consideration at the close of the consultation period.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I believe that the recommendations of the Education Commission Report No. 5 will, if public funding is forthcoming for its implementation, result in significant improvement to the quality of both primary and secondary teachers. However, as a Chinese proverb says, "Though the peony is lovely, it needs the support of green leaves", the improvement of teaching quality cannot be achieved by the improvement of teacher training alone. A vital point which we cannot afford to overlook is that the working conditions of teachers should be improved to attract more new blood to go into the teaching profession. In this regard, my position has always been that increasing the supply of social workers and
strengthening academic consultation and psychological counselling for problem students can take the pressure off the teachers to a certain extent to enable them to devote more time to the character building of their students.
As a matter of fact, it has always been acknowledged by parents and teachers alike that the school social work service, since its launching in 1979, has made great contribution in terms of student counselling. Recently, a coroner in an inquest into the suicide of a school child has made a point of requesting that the Government strengthen the manpower of counselling service. Indeed, the Government has very early on recognized the role of school social worker in a review report of 1982; it even favoured the reduction of social worker to student ratio from 1:3 000 to 1:2 000. Unfortunately, the Government has subsequently seen it fit to consistently put off the fulfilment of this promise to which the community has long given its blessing.
Three days ago, a representation was made to the OMELCO by a joint body of educators and social workers. I was fortunate enough to be invited to attend and listen to their proposed remedies to the grave crisis confronting our school education. One of their suggestions was that each school should have one school social worker, which is to say that worker to students ratio should be 1:1 000. One can see that not only are the school social workers playing an increasingly important role, but they have actually become the best working partner of the educators in terms of
educating our next generation.
School children related problems have become more serious and complicated in recent years. For example, the public housing estates are plagued with youth gangs. Student suicides have multiplied over the years. Young people need grown-ups' ready help to cope with their emotional problems arising from moral values in respect of behaviour and inter-personal relationship. However, given that teachers already have a very heavy workload, there is no way they can spare the time to attend to problems other than those relating to students' learning problems. Meanwhile,
school social workers are unable to help as much as they would have liked, given the great number of students put in their care. How can teachers possibly work with equanimity and devote themselves to the improvement of quality of education, under such enormous working pressure?
I think that manpower and other resources are not a problem at all if the Government is really committed to saving our younger generation by making long-term investment. Given that we have a surplus of $22 billion in the last financial year, and that the Financial Secretary has even solicited the views of this Council recently regarding the disbursement of funds of up to $5 billion for the next year, it is clear that the coffers have a given capability of further expanding social service. If we consider also the serious oversupply of social workers this year, we can actually see that, from a practical point of view, the increase of school social workers will achieve three objectives in one go. For one thing, student counselling service will be improved. Secondly, the Government can then project a caring image for itself. Thirdly, the pressure created by the surfeit of social workers will be alleviated. According to my preliminary estimation, the Government needs only to spend an extra $70 million to fulfil the promise which it made 10 years ago, such that one social worker can be deployed to serve two schools from the beginning of this school year in September. This will bring us closer to the ideal ratio.
Mr Deputy President, I would like to conclude that the increase of school social Mr Deputy President, I would like to conclude that the increase of school social workers will bring immense benefits to the Government, to the quality of education and to the social workers themselves. It is indeed disappointing if the Government is reluctant even to make that very modest investment. In that case, one would quite legitimately doubt if the Government is sincere at all about improving people's
livelihood.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK) are very concerned about the educational development of Hong Kong. In the past, we have done all we could to oppose the measures to increase class size and combine classes at primary and secondary schools. In today's debate on the Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5), the UDHK Members will address the various issues which have been raised, while commenting on the improvement of the quality of education as a whole. I will propose a full-scale implementation of whole-day schooling and the abolition of floating class at secondary schools, which I think is the only way to improve basic education fundamentally. Mr SZETO Wah will address the issue of the status of non-Commonwealth graduate teachers. Mr CHAN Wai-yip will speak on the working environment in schools. Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong will speak on the teaching
duties and professional development of primary graduate teachers. Mr LEE Wing-tat will concentrate on the role and functions of a General Teaching Council. Mr MAN Sai-cheong will look at the issue of pay for kindergarten teachers and ways of improving the quality of kindergarten education. Finally, Dr YEUNG Sum will speak on the upgrading of the Colleges of Education.
Mr Deputy President, the bisessional system in primary schools has been a fact Mr Deputy President, the bisessional system in primary schools has been a fact of life for the past 40 years. In the past, the Government said that it was an interim measure and undertook to abolish it in due course. The promise, however, has not been fulfilled. Primary students have had to put up with the ill effects of the bisessional system. People who went through the bisessional primary schooling are now themselves parents, and grandparents if they had the Chinese good fortune, of marrying and giving birth at a young age, of children who are attending primary schools run on the same bisessional mode which they experienced. It is a completely absurd situation.
The recently released ECR5 declares as one of its primary goals the improvement of school environment and the quality of education. But it has chosen to evade the issue of whole-day schooling in primary education altogether. Does it mean that we have to live with bisessional primary schooling for another 40 years, or is it another case of no change for 50 years, like what the Joint Declaration says?
The Education Commission had actually accepted the proposal of educational organizations that we make the transition from bisessional primary schooling to whole-day schooling over a period of 14 years; it has given its endorsement to the
positive values of whole-day schooling. Unfortunately, the Executive Council has recently taken the decision to postpone the 14-year transition to whole-day schooling, on the grounds of low priority and inadequate resources. It was a very wrong decision which has sacrificed the interests of all of our primary students.
We all know very well that the bisessional system in primary schools is an interim measure which came into being in the context of a rapidly rising number of primary students, inadequate Government financial resources, and school building falling behind demand for school places. It is in itself an extremely unreasonable system.
It is particularly so in the context of nine-year free education which has been implemented since 1978. Our primary schools have been faced with various problems in terms of student discipline, slipping standards, broken families, student suicide, youth gangs and triad infiltration, and so on. All of these problems can only be resolved by a good educational system. Whole-day schooling is the right answer to these problems.
We can all imagine how stressful it would be to have to complete a whole day curriculum, including extra-curricular activities in half the time and what little time would be left for teacher-student contact consequently. This is no good for either the teachers or the students involved; it constitutes a big hindrance to the improvement of the quality of primary education. In this connection, for the sake of our students, and for the sake of our educational ideal and principles, it is paramount that whole-day schooling for primary education be introduced without delay.
Mr Deputy President, I would like to move on to the issue of floating class, which also has a bearing on the quality of education.
Presently, floating class is a fact of life in most of our secondary schools. What is a floating class? Put it simply, a secondary school which is designed to run 24 classes and which has facilities designed for the running of this number of classes ends up actually running 30 classes.
Let me describe what the floating class system means in real terms. Students have no classroom of their own, no seats of their own. After attending one class, they pack up and move on to another classroom which may be located on another floor. They become nomads in their own school moving from place to place. Not only is time wasted, but discipline problems have also arisen as a result. Students have no sense of belonging to their school. The only advantage to be gained is that these students
will make very good unlicensed hawkers, thanks to the skills acquired in their school days of packing up and moving on very fast. Mr Deputy President, given the fact that nine-year free education has been implemented for many years, is it a situation which we can allow to continue in which students have no classroom and desks they can use on a more regular basis?
In this regard, I suggest that the Government should consider the abolition of the bisessional system in primary schools and of floating class in secondary schools in order that students will be able to study in a normal and reasonable environment, and that our educational standard will be improved consequently, to keep pace with our economic development.
Mr Deputy President, the greatest victims of the unreasonable measures are our next generation -- our students. I consider it a grave shortcoming of ECR5 that it has failed to address the issues of bisessionalism in primary schools and floating class in secondary schools, for all its proposals to improve the teaching and school environment. In this regard, I request that the Government accept the views of the UDHK, and refrain from delaying reform on the pretext of economic constraint, so that the quality of primary and secondary education can be improved.
Mr Deputy President, the development of our human resources is just as important as the development of our economic infrastructure. It is short-sighted for the Government to engage in the latter to the neglect of the former, for eventually, without the supply of talent, our economy will suffer. In this regard, the UDHK hopes that the Government will allocate more funds from our reserves so that we can develop our manpower properly.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, the UDHK support the motion. Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, the UDHK support the motion.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, last September, I switched from the Teaching Functional Constituency which returned me to a six-year term of office in this Council to run in the direct election held in the Kowloon East constituency. In September this year, I will be about to retire from my educational career of 40 years. But having said that, education is and will continue to be the issue in Hong Kong which is closest to my heart.
Nineteen years ago -- that is 1973, an unprecedented territory-wide strike was
staged in all schools in protest against the Government's move to slash the pay of certificated masters. Teachers of St Paul's College unfurled a banner which, written in the form of an elegant Chinese couplet, reads, "Injustices, not at all confined to the education circle, are found everywhere; like a single spark, it can start a prairie fire." I do not know if Mr Timothy HA who is here with us now has recollection of that couplet, as he happened to be the principal of that College at that time. Speaking for myself, I still remember quite clearly. Why? Because such injustices still exist, even now. Today, I will look at the issue of degree holders from
non-Commonwealth universities, mainly Taiwan and Mainland universities, who are being discriminated against in terms of pay and status, even if they are allowed to teach in Hong Kong.
For example, the Diploma in Education course run by the School of Education of the Chinese University of Hong Kong has a 10% quota reserved for university graduates of Taiwan and Mainland China each year while 90% of its intake are local university graduates. Both categories of applicants have to take the same admission test and they receive the same kind of professional training and sit for the same examinations while on course. They will receive the same teaching diploma at the end of the day to become qualified teachers. However, when they are actually engaged as teachers in secondary schools, the locals will receive the pay and status of a graduate master while graduates with a Taiwan or China background will be employed only as
certificated masters who can hardly compare with the graduate masters in terms of pay and promotion prospects.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong has a recognized academic standing. Teachers who have the same experience of enroling in, receiving training from, and eventually managing to graduate from the University should receive the same pay package for the same kind of work. However, of the various forms of injustice in the education circle, the most serious one being the long-standing discrimination against Mainland and Taiwan graduate teachers. I consider the failure of ECR5 to address this issue to be deliberate evasion rather than careless oversight.
ECR5 proposes a three-part written test for all graduates from non-Commonwealth countries. Teachers may be able to attain the salary point of a certificated master after they have passed the serial of examinations. This measure is in fact designed to prolong the long-standing policy of not giving recognition to degrees granted by Mainland and Taiwan universities. One of the reasons given is that it is difficult for the Government to assess the academic standing of and qualification acquired from
these universities. I consider that this is in fact a problem, from a technical point of view. However, from the perspective of Hong Kong's demand for teachers, it is technically possible, and a measure worth considering, for us to hire degree holders from non-Commonwealth universities, including Mainland and Taiwan universities, as teachers at secondary schools.
The arbitrary distinction made by the ECR5 proposal relegates all non Commonwealth graduate teachers, whether or not they are degree holders, as certificated masters. It is unjust and unfair; it disregards the political reality that Hong Kong will cease to be a British colony in five years.
I would like to make a new proposal here. Two different levels of examinations I would like to make a new proposal here. Two different levels of examinations can be administered in Hong Kong, one for graduate teachers and the other for certificated masters. Anyone who has obtained a pass in five subjects at the School Certificate of Education Examination and has a degree or sub-degree qualification obtained at an overseas university, including a university in Taiwan or Mainland China, which is recognized by the respective government concerned, should have the opportunity of sitting for either one of these two examinations. They should be given recognition when they manage to pass the examination(s) as graduate master or certificated master, as the case may be. And it should be left to the discretion of the school whether or not to hire them.
One feature of this proposal is that the teachers in question have all received One feature of this proposal is that the teachers in question have all received secondary education in Hong Kong. They are closely related to Hong Kong and most of them are Hong Kong people. Returning to Hong Kong after completing their education in an overseas country (including Taiwan and Mainland China), these people actually have contribution to make to Hong Kong; they will only bring benefits, not harm, to Hong Kong. While their numbers can be regulated, they will only have a minimal impact on the job opportunities of graduates from local universities and Colleges of
Education.
Presently, the more pressing problem is that immediate improvement has to be made to the pay and promotion prospects of Taiwan and Mainland graduate teachers who are subject to discrimination at local secondary schools.
I wish I could one day forget the couplet which protests, "Injustices, not at all confined to the education circle, are found everywhere; like a single spark, it can start a prairie fire."
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion. Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, it has been more than a month since the Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5) was released. The contents of ECR5 have been positively received and praised by various sectors, and by educators in particular. Although difference of opinion is still evident on certain issues, it would appear that the education circle has found ECR5 generally acceptable.
Since its implementation in 1978, nine-year general education has made considerable achievement, but it has certainly its problems as well. One of the notable problems is the declining quality of primary education. Rapid expansion of tertiary and post-secondary education has given rise to a weakly based, top-heavy educational structure. Indeed, the various stages of the educational process have to be well linked and co-ordinated. There is no question of producing good quality students for the tertiary institutions if we do not have a sound basic education. The Chinese like to say that there is no way one can build a tall building without a firm foundation. Similarly, a firm foundation is the most important element in education for otherwise it would be very difficult for the tertiary institutions to produce good quality graduates. And we would achieve very little result even if we double our effort to raise the overall education quality.
As a matter of fact, it is of paramount importance that substantial resources have to be committed to the improvement of our overall education quality. However, even now, spending on education only accounts for 3% of our gross domestic product (GDP); in the eighties, the percentage varied merely between 2.4% and 2.8%. This level of investment is lower than the average of the countries around the world; it is even lower than that in some developing countries. Our limited education spending naturally hampers our education development.
In this regard, I consider that the Government should attach greater importance to our intellectual investment. It should not become reluctant to commit itself to intellectual investment just because intellectual investment tends not to produce instant results. We must bear in mind that education spending is of tremendous
significance to Hong Kong in the long term. It is only in a well-educated citizenry that we can have the motivated force for creating great wealth. I hope that the Government will not merely see the funding of education as nothing more than spending
for it should be regarded as an investment as well.
ECR5 stresses, "quality in education depends greatly on educators themselves, ECR5 stresses, "quality in education depends greatly on educators themselves, in particular classroom teachers" and it is "of strategic importance". It suggests that teachers should be attracted, developed and motivated to give their best in a supportive school environment. These are principles which are worth supporting. However, I think that there are other important issues which we should look at apart from stepping up teacher training and providing trained manpower resources for
primary schools.
According to the views which I have received from the Hong Kong Federation of According to the views which I have received from the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers, teachers should be allowed to devote themselves to teaching and moral education if they are to be able to perform to the best of their ability. Presently, Hong Kong teachers are burdened with a very heavy workload. The Education Department prescribes that primary schools have 38 periods, and secondary schools 40 periods, on a weekly basis. And the average secondary/primary teacher teaches between 30 and 36 periods each week. They have very few free periods and very little time to attend to extra-curricular matters. What is more, given that most teachers have to double up as class masters and are required to assist in extra-curricular activities, while at the same time engaging in non-teaching duties, such as assisting students in returning applications for public transport subsidy and for public examinations, they have scarcely the time and energy to take care of the needs and problems of individual students. Neither can they instill correct moral value in their students and enable them to have a proper outlook on life. In the context of such adverse conditions, it goes without saying that the morale of teachers has been badly hit and some of them find the situation very frustrating.
In this connection, I suggest that the Government considers ways of reducing the workload of teachers, particularly their non-teaching duties, and also ways of increasing the class to teacher ratio. The present ratio is 1:1.2 for primary schools and 1:1.3 for secondary schools. It is evidently not good enough and calls for improvement. Meanwhile, the roles of a class master should be strengthened and the tripartite relationship between schools, social workers, and parents be fostered as well. This is not only good for giving more moral education to the students but will also enhance the professionalism of teachers and help retain well qualified teachers.
Finally, in addition to giving suitable remuneration to our teachers, the proper way for the Government to raise the morale of teachers is to give whole-hearted support
and encouragement to our teachers, both spiritually and also in terms of fostering a favourable environment for them to work in, and enhancing their social status, such that society as a whole will show respect to the teaching profession.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5) makes it very clear in its first chapter that "the time has now come to look in detail at teachers" and we should "see education spending as an investment". I entirely agree with this point of view. We need to have academically and
professionally qualified teachers before we can provide our children with a sound education. Considering the crucial role played by teachers in the education process in terms of teaching and counselling, one important condition for improving the quality of education is to raise the quality of teacher education. Given the fact that Hong Kong has a scarcity of natural resources, our present economic achievement owes much to the hard efforts and endeavours of Hong Kong people. Human resources are the driving force behind Hong Kong's economic development. Put in another way, the knowledge and expertise of Hong Kong people, their civic sense and sense of responsibility, their enterprise and sense of belonging, have a direct bearing on the social and economic development and future performance of Hong Kong. Looking back on the international scene over the past 10 years, one sees tremendous changes.
And science and technology also have forged ahead rapidly. These changes will certainly continue into the nineties and indeed the 21st century will bring with it a new shape of things to come and new challenges. As Hong Kong enters into the latter half of the transition period, it will have to meet with new internal changes at the same time as it faces up to the economic competition from various parts of the world. In this connection, there is a need for Hong Kong to produce more managerial, professional and technical expertise to sustain and provide further impetus to high speed economic development in keeping with the trend towards economic diversification and internationalization. I agree that the Government should make extra investment so as to enable our education system "to meet Hong Kong's needs adequately over the coming decades".
ECR5 has been able to address the various problems involved in its comprehensive ECR5 has been able to address the various problems involved in its comprehensive and thorough review of the issue of teaching standard. It has done a detailed and systematic analysis of the situation and come up with a number of constructive and far-sighted recommendations. Generally speaking, these recommendations have taken
account of the various views and different needs which have been articulated. They are practicable and in line with the principle of cost effectiveness. I am sure they will have a positive bearing on teacher training, their professionalism, and the provision to schools of suitable manpower resources.
I have the following views on individual recommendations of ECR5.
(1) I think that a systematic induction course for new recruits to the teaching (1) I think that a systematic induction course for new recruits to the teaching profession will improve efficiency and foster a sense of belonging, and that improved co-operation between parents and schools will enable teachers to have a better understanding of the situation and the mentality of students such that they would be in a better position to offer appropriate counselling to students. Existing defects of school premises should also be rectified as a matter of urgency.
(2) The proposed improved teacher to student ratio is acceptable for the time being (2) The proposed improved teacher to student ratio is acceptable for the time being insofar as the present situation is concerned, but it is essential that the goal of providing more teachers should be expeditiously achieved within shorter time frame. Although computerization may lessen teachers' administrative workload, I would
consider a more effective way is to further improve the teacher to student ratio.
(3) Regarding the issue of class size, I hope that the authorities concerned will (3) Regarding the issue of class size, I hope that the authorities concerned will bring back the repeater places as soon as possible and give greater autonomy to the schools so as to enable students who cannot attain the required standard to have the chance to do remedial work instead of being arbitrarily promoted. Reduced class size will lessen the workload of teachers and enable them to give more individual attention to students. This will in turn have a positive impact on the academic performance and growth of students. In this regard, I think that, circumstances permitting, and in keeping with the shifts in enrolment numbers, efforts should be made to reduce the class size from 40 to 35 as expeditiously as possible, in order to reach the target class size of 30 eventually.
(4) I very much agree in principle that susidized school teachers should have sim (4) I very much agree in principle that susidized school teachers should have similar fringe benefits as government school teachers, particularly insofar as housing benefits are concerned. A proper housing benefits scheme will go a long way towards raising the morale and professionalism of teachers.
(5) The proposal to create graduate master posts in primary schools is most (5) The proposal to create graduate master posts in primary schools is most encouraging, in terms of raising the quality of primary education. But I would
consider that 35% is not quite enough and the 15 years required to achieve that percentage target is too long. We should work faster to shorten the time and increase the percentage of graduate masters in primary schools.
(6) In keeping with the principle of raising teaching stan (6) In keeping with the principle of raising teaching stan In keeping with the principle of raising teaching standard, I consider that all dard, I consider that all teachers should receive professional training. The Education Commission's proposals of offering different courses to in-service teachers and newly qualified certificated masters, indicate that individual needs of different teachers are taken care of, and that resources may be used cost-effectively to achieve our goals in an expeditious manner. In this regard, the creation of an Advanced Teacher's Certificate is an appropriate interim measure towards the ultimate goal of hiring graduate masters for all teaching posts so that it would enable non-graduate teachers to have more opportunity to further their professional knowledge, expertise and career development. I consider that the pay gap between graduate masters teaching in whole-day primary schools and their counterparts teaching in secondary schools should not be too wide and that teachers with Advanced Teacher's Certificate should receive tangible recognition, in terms of a higher salary point and better promotion prospects.
(7) The setting up of an Institute of Education to improve the quality of teacher (7) The setting up of an Institute of Education to improve the quality of teacher training is a natural development. The upgrading of the Colleges of Education and the Institute of Language in Education is both feasible, cost-effective, and in line with the objective of providing the trained teaching personnel for primary and
secondary schools.
All in all, I consider the various proposals of ECR5, if implemented, will be of great benefit to the education system of Hong Kong. If the working conditions, pay and promotion prospects of teachers can be improved systematically and properly, coupled with the provision of different kinds of induction and in-service training for teachers, then these will surely have positive effects on encouraging more people to join the teaching profession and helping to retain those already in the profession, and reducing the drain on experienced teachers. Given that raising teaching standard to improve the quality of education generally is a matter of top priority, I hope that the Government would be able to make available the necessary funds so that the recommendations of ECR5 may be implemented as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support Mrs Selina CHOW's motion.
MR PETER WONG: Mr Deputy President, as the Chairman of the Open Learning Institute, I wish to comment on the proposals of the Education Commission Report No. 5 concerning the initial and in-service training of teachers, and to take this opportunity to explain the concept of distance learning.
The OLI, one of Hong Kong's tertiary institutions, welcomes the opportunity to provide a co-ordinated programme of teacher education and development to meet Hong Kong's growing expectation for quality education in a systematic and cost-effective way. Far from popular belief, distance learning is not education by a correspondence course. Unlike conventional tertiary systems where once you are admitted, with few exception, you are accorded a degree, open learning has very meticulous exit standards that must be met. Our oft criticized failure rates bear witness to our commitment to give degrees only to those that have earned them -- the hard way. Being learner centred rather than institution centred, distance education has been successfully applied in the upgrading of teachers in almost all countries of the world. In
emphasizing quality upfront in the planning of curriculum, in the creation of learning materials, in extensive tutor supported feedback systems, and in organized periodic discussions and assessments, distance learning brings out teaching and learning into the open. This makes sense as it allows large numbers to be trained rapidly at an affordable cost, enables participants to continue with their professional
commitments and is least disruptive to the educational system.
Teacher training through distance learning offers some advantages over conventional courses. The geographical compactness of Hong Kong makes it easy to combine distance learning with face to face tuition. Teacher educators from all relevant institutions could collaborate in developing and running courses, thus ensuring optimum use of all local expertise. Since distance learning courses for working adults are funded by student fees, this approach should not require any substantial amounts of public funding.
The OLI was set up specifically to offer distance learning degree courses in arts, science and business for some 20 000 people. There are currently over 900 serving teachers enrolled in degree programmes at the OLI. Feedback from them and their performances indicate that the specially designed courses sit comfortably with this group of adults. As such, the OLI is confident that it will not have any difficulties in designing, developing and delivering professional courses specifically for
upgrading the quality of educational activities in Hong Kong.
Following a detailed expert study on the tertiary education needs in Hong Kong, the OLI plans to establish its fourth school -- a School of Education which will hopefully enroll its first students in 1993. Fees to be imposed are expected to be well within the range of existing fee scales and the period of study will be short.
Mr Deputy President, given the size of the demand for in-service courses in primary education and the need for an early start, the OLI is well equipped to take up the challenging task of providing adequate and relevant degree courses with the necessary speed. The OLI believes that the Report's plans for teacher upgrading will be best accomplished through the collaboration of all those tertiary institutions competent and interested in teacher education. On its part, the OLI will appoint experienced specialists who, together with other local teacher educators, will form a powerful resource and collaborative enterprise. Preliminary discussions are underway to collaborate in curriculum and programme planning, course creation, tutoring and assessments, practicals and quality control.
The OLI strongly believes that self-funding degree courses for teacher training The OLI strongly believes that self-funding degree courses for teacher training is a cost effective way to achieve the ultimate objective of improving our quality of education. We support the Report's recommendation for a development grant of $10 million to be provided during 1993 for this worthy cause.
With these remarks, Mr Deputy President, I support the motion. With these remarks, Mr Deputy President, I support the motion.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the long awaited Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5) was released last month. It has been quite positively received by the education circle generally, but there are still a great number of shortcomings which we should look at.
I would like to express my personal opinions on Chapter 2 of ECR5 which deals with problems arising from the working environment in schools. On the issue of induction for newly recruited teachers, ECR5 mentions that, in recent years, substantial number of new teachers have left the profession within a short time of joining to look for other jobs. It has also mentioned problems faced by the newly recruited teachers. The various problems raised by ECR5 reflect that the Education Commission is also concerned about the situation. That in itself is an encouraging sign.
Indeed, the salary point for graduate masters is quite attractive to the young fresh graduates. It is for this reason that most of our graduates from the two universities choose to go into teaching every year. However, most of these new teachers have no formal teacher training. They have to face the class alone, in addition to preparing lesson plans and marking homework assignments. They also have to perform other trivial duties such as, among others, helping students with the filling of their applications for public transport subsidy and for resitting the School Certificate of Education Examination. They have to keep order in the classroom and deal with disciplinary problems of students. I do not believe that such problems can be effectively dealt with by a young graduate who has no previous working experience. No wonder new teachers like to sarcastically talk about their being engaged in a fight with trapped beasts.
Presently, there is not much in the way of induction programmes organized for this group of new teachers in secondary schools. Even if these programmes exist at all, they are mainly held at the beginning of the school term. If anything, this kind of induction programmes are seldom organized by schools in the first place. ECR5's recommendation that a systematic induction programme be instituted is very well worth supporting. But ECR5 fails to mention what commitment and arrangement the Government will make towards this end. Neither is there any mention of whether these proposals made by ECR5 will be promoted and carried out only jointly by
principals and teachers of some sponsoring bodies, together with teacher training institutions. One cannot see any answer in ECR5 to questions about how many schools have indicated interest in taking part in these programmes, or indeed whether the Education Department will come up with the required assistance and resources. I am not very optimistic, if the present situation is anything to go by. In this regard, I wish to make the point that if new teachers are not given appropriate induction or assistance, they will suffer far greater frustration than they will get job
satisfaction. And this will eventually lead to a teacher drain, let alone improving. For this reason, I am earnestly hoping that the Government will be able to give us a clear reply and make concrete commitment to ease the wastage problem.
The second problem relates to the improvement of school premises. ECR5 mentions that many old schools are exposed to noise pollution. And the Government is engaged in a phased programme for mitigating this problem. Presently, 109 schools are equipped with noise abating devices. While this would seem to be an insignificant problem raised by ECR5, I would consider that the noise problem has a grave impact
in students in the affected schools. I have the following views. ECR5 is certainly right to recommend that noise abating devices should be installed in schools which are exposed to a noise level measuring 65 decibels. However, it is unfortunate that no timetable has been set for the installation of noise abating devices at some schools which are exposed to hourly continuous noise pollution from road and rail transport, reaching a noise level as high as 66 to 70 decibels. It is still anybody's guess when the Government will provide noise abating devices to schools which are exposed to a noise level measuring between 65 and 69 decibels. Parents, students and
principals in the districts affected by such noise pollution are eagerly awaiting an answer to their problem. Indeed, according to the principals of the schools most affected by the noise pollution coming from adjacent roads, both teachers and students have to struggle through the noisy days, with some teachers resorting to speaking in class through a microphone, and consequently reducing direct contacts with their students. Meanwhile, teachers have to shout in order to get heard and they will ruin their voice if they do it too often. Insofar as students are concerned, they find it hard to concentrate and their learning spirit is seriously affected, given the poor school environment. Despite the large amount of money spent on education each year, I am afraid some of the projected aims will not be achieved due to such problems pertaining to the learning environment. The Government should indeed take stock of the situation. In this regard, I think that the Education and Manpower Branch should work out a timetable as soon as possible to improve the learning environment of these schools plagued by noise pollution.
The third problem I wish to bring up is one of class size, which is also mentioned by ECR5. But the study's findings are that slight changes in class size may not necessarily have substantial effect on student performance. In this regard, I would like to point out that the class size in the primary as well as the secondary sector invariably exceeds the 40 mark. That is no good for teachers and students alike.
Given the large class size, it is very difficult for teachers, the class masters in particular, to take care of each student, particularly students who need closer attention. It is very difficult to get to know their learning and emotional problems. I therefore think that the Government should gradually reduce the class size, in an effort to improve teachers' morale and the relationship between teachers and students. And it is only with improved relationship that students will be able to receive better care and attention. Mr Deputy President, given the various problems raised by ECR5, both the Government and the community as a whole should join hands to work for the betterment of our education standards.
I support the motion. Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, I speak for the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK) and the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union (HKPTU) on the issue of teacher education. Education is a human enterprise. It is important to have good teachers to give proper education to our younger generation. It is a step in the right direction for the Education Commission Report No.5 (ECR5) to attach great importance to teacher education. It is also an appropriate step forward for emphasis to be laid on primary education and for the proposal to be made for graduate masters to take up 35% of the teaching posts in primary schools in 15 years.
Granted that graduate masters have to be trained for primary schools, we must Granted that graduate masters have to be trained for primary schools, we must also make sure that we are able to offer quality training in the first place. Quality training, of course, means that teachers should be able to attain professional expertise as well as a given academic standard. The training of graduate masters as recommended by ECR5 mainly relies on distance learning with a curriculum oriented towards professional expertise. One is rather sceptical of the quality of such a degree. This training method has the apparent advantage of producing a large number of graduate masters for primary schools on a grand scale in relatively short time, to meet ECR5's objectives. In practical terms, however, if speed is achieved at the expense of quality, it would only lead to the degree attained by primary graduate masters being relegated to a second-class degree which is discriminated against in society. It will not help much in the cause of equal pay and status between primary and secondary graduate masters.
As a matter of fact, discrimination has already begun in the sense that a pri As a matter of fact, discrimination has already begun in the sense that a primary graduate master is expected to receive a significantly lower pay than his secondary counterpart. Why is there a pay gap between them, both being degree holders? This problem has to be resolved otherwise it will give rise to future disputes and be detrimental to the efforts of attracting more talents to join the ranks of primary teachers.
Mr Deputy President, there are two other important aspects of teacher training which are not given due consideration in ECR5, namely, non-graduate teachers in secondary schools and kindergarten teachers. There are still about 40% of teachers in secondary schools who are not degree holders. Does the Government perceive the need for the universities and relevant colleges of education to organize courses so
that these teachers will be able to become graduate masters through proper training? Meanwhile, is it possible for the Government to consider generally enlarging the ratio of graduate masters teaching in a secondary school, now only 70%, to encourage more secondary teachers to become graduate masters?
Mr Deputy President, I am greatly disappointed at the kindergarten teacher training. In the past, the Government has not strictly required that the kindergartens follow the pay scale it stipulated to remunerate properly trained teachers. This has resulted in the general reluctance of kindergarten teachers to receive training. There has only been a pitiable 2% increase over two years in the number of trained teachers serving in kindergartens, between 1989 and 1991. Why has kindergarten education been accorded such a low priority in our kindergarten education system? Why do we regard the kindergarten education which is so vital to 99% of our infant population as something which is so inconsequential like an abandoned child?
ECR5 recommends that kindergartens should be encouraged by legislative means to hire properly trained teachers to make up 40% of their staff in 1994. But I consider that we must at the same time make sure that the trained teachers will be able to draw a reasonable pay commensurate with the Government guidelines. We should not allow kindergarten teachers to be treated as no better than modern-day Cinderellas who will quietly slog away without voicing any complaints. And no one seems to care about their wastage rate.
Mr Deputy President, education is a continuous process and so is teacher training. I propose in the present context that teacher training should have three goals: professionalization of kindergarten teachers; graduate masters making up 50% of our primary teachers, and graduate masters making up 100% of our secondary teachers. We should gradually improve the quality of our basic education within a time frame of 10 to 15 years.
Mr Deputy President, teacher training is a vitally important aspect of education, but it does not represent the whole picture. I would regard as equally important, improvement of the mode of education in terms of, as Mr Martin LEE suggested, implementing whole-day primary schooling and the abolition of the floating classes in secondary schools; and also improvement of the teaching conditions in terms of, as Mr Albert CHAN suggested, reducing the class size and increasing the number of teachers. Mr Deputy President, I completely agree with the point made in ECR5 that education is an investment. The manpower investment we make today will yield good
returns for us in future. Education is always a worthwhile investment; it is the project hope of tomorrow.
Mr Deputy President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5) mainly addresses the issues of professional development of teachers and manpower resources for primary teaching. It is estimated that over the next 15 years an additional investment of $23.5 billion will be required to implement the recommendations of ECR5.
ECR5 recommends that 35% of primary teaching posts will be upgraded to graduate ECR5 recommends that 35% of primary teaching posts will be upgraded to graduate status in 15 years in an effort to enhance the quality of education. Moreover, it also recommends a package of teacher education and development programmes to encourage more people intending to pursue a teaching career to continue to develop in the teaching profession.
Teachers play a very important role in the education process as a whole. They are vital in terms of transmitting knowledge to students and providing moral education to them. In addition, they play a key role in school administration. It goes without saying that the improvement of the professionalism and qualifications of teachers will directly help to improve the quality of education. It is in keeping with this principle that most of the recommendations of ECR5 are worthy of support. The problem is whether the Government has the sincerity to allocate funds for the implementation of these recommendations.
Before the discussion of funding, let us look at what has happened since the publication of Education Commission Report No. 4 (ECR4). The recommendations of ECR4 were also widely supported by the community. However, the Executive Council has recently deferred the implementation date of whole-day primary schooling recommended by ECR4 on the pretext of inadequate funds and giving priority to the implementation of the recommendations of ECR5.
Another example concerns the wide discrepancy which exists between the present supply of trained kindergarten teachers and the actual demand for them. Even now, trained kindergarten teachers account for merely 30% to 50% of teachers involved in kindergarten education. We can see from this example that the Government has also
deferred the implementation of some of the recommendations of ECR2 on the pretext of inadequate funds.
The objectives of ECR4 are to address the problems relating to the curriculum The objectives of ECR4 are to address the problems relating to the curriculum and behaviour of students at school. Its recommendations are aimed at students. However, these recommendations have not been implemented according to schedule. The plan for implementing whole-day schooling for all primary students within a time frame of 12 years, starting this year, would require only a modest additional spending of $2 billion. It has nevertheless been deferred by the Government, again on the pretext of inadequate funds. Given a required investment totalling $23.5 billion
recommended by ECR5 for dealing with the seemingly less immediate problem of teacher training, one is quite justifiably worried that the Government will once again do what it has done to ECR4, that is, disregard its recommendations on the pretext of inadequate resources. If that is the case, then ECR5 will suffer the same fate of making recommendations which will not be implemented even in the remote future.
Apart from urging the Government to reserve sufficient funds for the Apart from urging the Government to reserve sufficient funds for the implementation of the recommendations of ECR5, I would also like to stress that the student-oriented recommendations of ECR4, such as whole-day primary schooling, should be implemented simultaneously with the recommendations of ECR5.
I am convinced that, in keeping with principle of "Positive Discrimination or Equality of Educational Opportunity" (which means we should allocate more resources to students who are in need of assistance so as to help them to catch up with better endowed students), the plan to upgrade primary teaching posts to graduate status should be implemented in schools or for classes which have a proven inferior academic performance.
With these remarks, I support the motion of Mrs Selina CHOW. Thank you, Mr With these remarks, I support the motion of Mrs Selina CHOW. Thank you, Mr Deputy President.
MR TIMOTHY HA (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy President, the Education Commission Report No. 5 (ECR5) has drawn enthusiastic comments from various sectors of the community since its release. I am most gratified and encouraged by the fact that the comments given have so far been positive and the importance of strengthening teacher education is generally recognized.
Primary education has always been the weakest link in the basic education process. The greatest contribution of ECR5 is the way in which it has broken the taboo that no graduate master posts could be created in primary schools. As all educators know very well, teaching is no way to get rich. What teachers expect is a decent standard of living, and of course, a bit of job satisfaction and a sense of pride. A degree will not make the teacher a rich man, but higher qualification will not only result in improved quality of education but also a revitalized primary education sector. It will receive a shot in the arm and be better poised to achieve better results.
However, there is no perfection in our real world. ECR5 is not a cure-all for every problem relating to education. I heard a lot of criticisms on specific and technical areas of ECR5, both from the press and at the various briefings organized by the Education Commission. In order to allay scepticism and to secure greater public support, I wish to take this opportunity to offer some explanation and respond to the issues raised.
First of all, some critics of ECR5 have made the point that there is too much First of all, some critics of ECR5 have made the point that there is too much reliance on distance learning in the training of graduate masters for the primary sector and opined that the conventional way of instruction is better geared towards two-way communication.
I agree with this point. However, the proposed distance learning has three I agree with this point. However, the proposed distance learning has three advantages. First, distance learning is the most flexible way of learning and is suited to teachers who wish to further their studies in their leisure time or holidays; it offers them optimum convenience in terms of optional learning time. Second, given the fact that primary schools are scattered all over Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, the New Territories and even the outlying islands, distance learning saves the commuting time of teachers and offers convenience in terms of learning venue. Third, in addition to distance learning courses run by the Open Learning Institute, both Hong Kong University and the Chinese University will also provide relatively conventional training in the form of pre-service degree courses in primary education. In this regard, distance learning is aimed at providing one more channel through which teacher training may be obtained such that teachers will be able to have diversed choices. What is more, ECR5 points out that a suitable proportion of the degree work will be conducted through tutorials. There is no question therefore of participants not being able to benefit from two-way communication.
There is another view that the setting up of a Council on Professional Conduct
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.