ENG-1993-12-01 — Page 1

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1141 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 1 December 1993

The Council met at half-past Two o'clock

PRESENT

THE PRESIDENT

THE HONOURABLE JOHN JOSEPH SWAINE, C.B.E., LL.D., Q.C., J.P.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., 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 MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., 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 ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, O.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.

1142 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P. 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, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI

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, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING

THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT

THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING

THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG

THE HONOURABLE TIK CHI-YUEN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., J.P.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1143 DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM

THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN

DR THE HONOURABLE TANG SIU-TONG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI

THE HONOURABLE ROGER LUK KOON-HOO

THE HONOURABLE ANNA WU HUNG-YUK

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALFRED TSO SHIU-WAI

ABSENT

THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SIMON IP SIK-ON, O.B.E., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM

THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.

IN ATTENDANCE

MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

MR ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, O.B.E., A.E., J.P.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

1144 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

MR RONALD JAMES BLAKE, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR WORKS

MR JAMES SO YIU-CHO, O.B.E., J.P.

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE

MR ANTHONY GORDON EASON, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS

MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES

MR LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER

DR LEE SHIU-HUNG, I.S.O., J.P.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE

MR TAM WING-PONG

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES

THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

MR CLETUS LAU KWOK-HONG

THE DEPUTY CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL MR PATRICK CHAN NIM-TAK

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1145 Papers

The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject

Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.

Legislative Council of Hong Kong Administrative

Instructions for Regulating Admittance and

Conduct of Persons (Amendment)(No. 2)

Instructions 1993 ......................................................................................... 448/93

Clubs (Safety of Premises)(Fees)(Amendment)

Regulation 1993 .......................................................................................... 449/93

Electricity (Registration)(Amendment) Regulation

1993............................................................................................................. 450/93 Electricity (Wiring)(Amendment) Regulation 1993 ............................................ 451/93

Air Pollution Control (Specified Processes)

(Removal of Exemption) Order ................................................................... 452/93

Revised Edition of the Laws (Correction of

Errors)(No. 4) Order 1993........................................................................... 453/93 Specification of Public Office ............................................................................. 454/93

Amusement Game Centres (Appeal Board)

Regulation (L.N. 435 of 1993)

(Commencement) Notice 1993.................................................................... 455/93 Sessional Paper 1993-94

No. 32 — Sir Edward Youde Memorial Fund Report of the Board of Trustees for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

PRESIDENT: I should like to welcome Mrs Anson CHAN, Chief Secretary, to this Council.

1146 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 Oral answers to questions

Post-1997 holidays

1. MR PANG CHUN-HOI asked (in Cantonese): In reply to my question in early February this year concerning Hong Kong's holiday arrangements after 1997 and the designation of 1 May as a labour holiday, the Secretary for Education and Manpower indicated that a review would be completed this year. Will the Government inform this Council of the progress and outcome of the review?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, in my reply to Mr PANG Chun-hoi's question in the Legislative Council on 3 February this year, I said that the Administration was reviewing Hong Kong's holidays and considering the following:

(a) first, which of our present holidays should be retained after 1997; and (b) secondly, the need for additional or replacement holidays after 1997.

The review is still in progress. We intend to complete our initial review in the near future.

MR PANG CHUN-HOI (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary says in his reply that the review is in progress and that it is hoped that an initial review can be completed in the near future. In the answer the Secretary gave last time, that is, in February this year, he indicated that the review would be completed within this year. But now it is already early December. And in fact the last review on holidays Was conducted as early as 1982, more than 10 years from now. Can the Administration confirm when it can complete the present review?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Yes, Mr President, in our answer to Mr PANG's question earlier this year, we did say we hoped that the review could be concluded this year. So we are still within schedule. We hope we can complete our initial review as soon as possible, and then proceed to the next stage of preparatory work.

MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Secretary inform this Council if they will look at narrowing the gap between statutory holidays for blue-collar workers and general holidays for white-collar workers in its review? In the interim, will the

floating holiday of the first Monday following the Queen's birthday be replaced by a labour holiday on 1 May?

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1147

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, the present gap regarding holidays between these two categories of people is within the scope of the review. As to whether the present holiday on the first Monday following the Queen's birthday will be changed before 1997, the answer is negative.

MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, it has been mentioned in the official reply that the review will cover the Labour Day and other holidays after 1997. Does that mean that even if the results of the review are available, they will only be implemented after 1 July 1997?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, the emphasis of our current review is to identify those holidays that ought to be changed after 1997. During our review, we have listened to the suggestions of individual organizations on Hong Kong's holiday arrangements. Their views will be included in the review.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, as part of the review, has the Administration sought the views of the employers and employees or will it do so in the near future?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, since this review involves possible changes to some of our holidays as a result of changeover of sovereignty in 1997, we have to discuss with the Chinese side after the inital review has been completed. After the discussion and before any changes are implemented, legislative process will follow during which the views of the public will definitely be sought. Meanwhile, we are happy to listen to any views put forward by the public on this subject.

DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary has just said that the review on holidays after 1997 is in progress. Can he confirm whether 1 July will be designated as a general holiday after 1997?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, obviously we need to consider those holidays that will have to be changed as a result of changeover of sovereignty. As to whether 1 July will be designated as an additional holiday, I am sorry to say I cannot give my views now as the review is still in progress.

1148 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 Suspension of water supply in Tuen Mun

2. MR ALFRED TSO asked (in Cantonese): With regard to the suspension of fresh water supply in the whole area of Tuen Mun New Town as a result of the inundation of the water treatment plant in Fu Tei caused by torrential rain on 5 November, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the findings of the investigation into the causes of the inundation of the water treatment plant will be made public;

(b) whether the incident was caused by works in progress on road D9; if so, what plans are in place for improving the situation and how soon the improvement works will be completed so as to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in future; and

(c) whether compensation will be paid to the affected residents and the industrial and commercial undertakings for the damage inflicted if the incident was caused by the public works in progress or by the negligence of the Government in some way or other?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,

(a) On 5 November, at the time of an exceptionally severe rainstorm, fresh water supply to part of the area of Tuen Mun New Town was suspended due to flooding of the Fu Tei Fresh Water Pumping Station. The adjacent water treatment plant was taken out of operation at the same time, because it depends upon the pumping station also operating and flooding not only shut down the pumps but also the related electrical equipment. The cause of the flooding was explained in some detail at a joint meeting of the LegCo Panels on Community and New Territories Affairs and on Lands and Works, which was held in public on 22 November 1993. Briefing notes explaining the cause were distributed to members of the two panels for the meeting; the findings made public at that time remain valid today.

(b) The findings which have been already made public are that there is no evidence to suggest that works in progress on road D9 caused flooding of the pumping station, and hence the suspension of fresh water supply to part of Tuen Mun New Town.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1149

(c) In reply to the final part of the question, I must repeat that the findings to date are that there is no evidence to suggest that the incident was caused by the negligence of the Government nor is there evidence to show that it was caused by the public works in progress. If the question of compensation did arise, it would be considered in the light of all the facts and of the applicable law.

MR ALFRED TSO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the reply given by the Administration at the joint meeting of the Legislative Council Panels concerned is rather simple and has been described as "interim". First, may I ask if the Administration is going to compile and publish a more detailed investigation report? Second, we clearly know that the inundation was due partly to blockage of the culvert under construction which led to a rise in water level, and partly to the works on road D9, which had greatly altered the natural topography of the area, thus causing an accumulation of rainwater and flooding of the Fu Tei Fresh Water Pumping Station. Why does the Administration still insist that there is no evidence to show that the flooding of the pumping station was caused by the public works in progress? Can the Administration inform this Council whether such findings are subjective and even evasive?

PRESIDENT: Two questions there, Secretary.

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: With your permission, Mr President, I will try to answer both. The details of the cause as given to the joint panel meeting were quite clear. They are basically the ultimate reasons for the flooding and, as I have said in my answer, we have no grounds at this point in time to change our views on the causes made public at that time.

On the second part of the question, the cause was clearly vegetation and, particularly, large branches that were brought down by the intensity of the rainfall. This created a damming effect in the existing culvert at the point where it enters a new box culvert. The box culvert itself under the road D9 contract has been designed and is constructed to accommodate a 1:200 year rainstorm. The storm in question, we believe, was equivalent to about a 1:50 year rainstorm; so the new works under the D9 construction should be adequate to cope with the rainfall intensity and would have so coped had this blockage due to vegetation and branches not occurred.

So far as the D9 works are concerned, they do not raise the surrounding ground to a level which is higher than the existing ground in the area. Therefore, the actual D9 works themselves have not changed the natural topography of the ground in any way whatsoever.

1150 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration inform this Council if it has considered taking "safer" measures like relocating the water treatment plant in Fu Tei to a higher ground in order to avoid flooding in the future?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the pumping station has been there for 30 years and the level of the pumping station is an integral part of the fresh water distribution system. The level of the pumps in relation to the level of the water treatment station is operationally the most cost effective design that we could have in place. It is not, therefore, our intention to relocate the pumping station. The Water Supplies Department is, however, looking at the pumping station itself to ascertain if there are ways and means to protect the station further against flooding. We are also looking at the existing culvert and will be reconstructing the culvert, first of all, to a larger capacity to dovetail with that of the boxed culvert which has already been completed. We shall also be introducing means to trap debris vegetation in the culvert itself to avoid any recurrence of the damming by such vegetation which created the flooding incident.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, many people in Tuen Mun are not satisfied with the explanation of the Administration because what the Administration has conducted is only a self-investigation. Does the Administration intend to set up an independent investigation team to find out the truth of the incident so as to allay the misgivings of the public?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the evidence which has been collected so far by way of investigation of the direct cause of the flooding — corroborated by photographic evidence that is irrefutable — makes it quite clear as to what the cause of the flooding was. So far as other aspects of the investigation are concerned — namely, as to what can be done to avoid a recurrence — there are quite complicated technical issues and the Administration sees no virtue at this time in extending the enquiry beyond the present arrangements that are already in place.

REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, the flooding at the water treatment plant in Tuen Mun was mainly caused by the blockage of a culvert by vegetation and branches. Will the Administration provide additional manpower to conduct regular inspections of main culverts to prevent blockage from occurring?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the Drainage Services Department is certainly paying attention to all drainage works of this nature. And of course we will make sure that in this particular area, until the new works are

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1151

completed — that is to say, the trash screens and the enlargement of the existing channel — any necessary increase in manpower to ensure the channel is kept clear will be in place. The Drainage Services Department has also undertaken very detailed examination of the whole of the area upstream of the pumping station and likewise will pay attention to this area in the future.

MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, it has been said in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the Administration's reply that there is no evidence to suggest that works on road D9 and other public works in progress caused the blockage. Will the Administration inform this Council apart from the works mentioned, whether there were any reconstruction or other works in progress in the vicinity that caused the flooding and landslide, and why there was such a serious flooding at Alpine Court and Chi Lok Fa Yuen in the town centre?

PRESIDENT: Going beyond the main answer, but do you have the answer, Secretary?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, I do not have the details of the exact area in question. But of course I can say that part of the reason for flooding in urban areas is that the drainage gulleys and gratings are very often blocked temporarily by debris which is swept to the low point of the areas in question by the rainfall running across the ground. Once these gulleys are blocked, then of course there is local flooding and it is of course the Drainage Services Department who responds to such problems immediately with the available manpower to clear any temporary blockages. This may be, in this instance, the cause of the local area flooding which has been referred to.

MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration inform this Council whether it has inspected all the water treatment plants in the New Territories, including the one in Fu Tei, to see how many are located in low areas and will run the risk of being flooded when there is a rainstorm; and if so, what remedial measures it will take before the next rainy season comes?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the Water Supplies Department's preliminary investigation of all other major pumping station facilities indicates that there is none other which is subject to a high risk of any event of this nature occurring. However, they are continuing with that investigation to analyze all of the possible hazards and risks of failure, including of course the arrangement, if such failure took place, that could be made to provide at least a minimal amount of water being pumped into the service reservoirs. The work by the department is expected to be completed in March of 1994.

1152 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 Aircraft accident

3. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Regarding the recent accident in which an aircraft slid off the Kai Tak runway, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) when a report on the cause of the accident will be completed;

(b) whether the report will include recommendations on ways to prevent recurrence of similar hazards; and

(c) whether any measures will be considered to enhance Hong Kong's international aviation safety standards?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, an investigation into the circumstances and causes of the incident at the Hong Kong International Airport on 4 November 1993, which involved a China Airlines Boeing 747, is being carried out by investigators, appointed by the Governor under the provisions of the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations. The investigation will involve:

- detailed analysis of a wide range of aeronautical and meteorological data;

- careful examination of all available evidence, which includes sending certain parts of the aircraft or its components back to the manufacturers for testing;

- interviews with individuals such as members of the crew, passengers and staff of the Civil Aviation Department and emergency services on duty at the time; and

- providing the opportunity for persons involved in or concerned with the accident to make representations to the investigators and for these representations to be considered before a report is finalized.

Completion of the final investigation report is likely to take some time, depending on the time it would take the parties involved to respond to the draft report.

The report will seek to establish the cause or causes of the accident and make recommendations on the measures which, in the opinion of the investigators, will assist in preventing reoccurrence of a similar incident. Any findings or recommendations arising out of the investigation will be acted upon immediately.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1153

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the light of international experience, this kind of accident report would take a few months to several years to complete. If the Administration finds it necessary, before the completion of the investigation report, to take some measures that would involve manpower or resources to maintain our high aviation and meteorological standards in respect of operation of our airport, will it take immediate action in response to demands without waiting for the completion of the report?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the course of the investigation, the Director of Civil Aviation will release, when appropriate, the information he has obtained, including the relevant factual information. If in the course of investigation, the investigators find that there is something which warrants immediate action or improvement so as to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents, the Director of Civil Aviation will recommend taking immediate actions. May I cite a separate case for illustration. Recently, the Director of Civil Aviation cancelled the opposite runway mode immediately following the experts' report. He took action well before the final report was out. In fact, the decision to take such action was made when the draft report was released.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, what worries me most is the safety of Kai Tak Airport prior to the completion of the investigation report. In fact, it was reported that Kai Tak Airport was subject to the effects of wind shear which were potential hazards to landings and takeoffs under certain weather conditions or in certain wind directions.

Does the Administration have any plans or measures to minimize the hazards posed by wind shear to aircraft?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Civil Aviation Department is very concerned about the effects of wind shear on landings and takeoffs. At present, there is a set of surveillance equipment at Kai Tak Airport which can continuously monitor changes of wind speed and direction at the airport runway and its adjacent areas. The Civil Aviation Department has been working closely with the Royal Observatory in this connection. All such data is computerized and can be used to gauge accurately the possible effects on aircraft due to changes in wind speed and direction. Such information is stored in a recorder and constantly transmitted to aircraft for aviation purposes. When an aircraft is approaching Hong Kong and prior to its landing, the Air Traffic Controller in the control tower will keep on exchanging information with the pilot on wind speed and direction at the airport and runway.

1154 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, would the Secretary inform this Council if any independent members of the community are on the committee of investigation? If not, would the Secretary not agree that participation by community members would help ensure the impartiality of the conclusions reached and will he reconsider the position?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, under the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations, there is provision for the Governor to appoint investigators to investigate an accident, to appoint a board of review to review the findings of the investigator and, in circumstances where these are deemed necessary, to actually hold a public inquiry, having regard to the public interest, into the circumstances and causes of an accident. In the case of the present inquiry, the Governor has appointed a team of investigators who are accredited professionals from Hong Kong and also from the United Kingdom. Obviously, if circumstances warrant the consideration of other forms of investigation, for example, review or public inquiry, these will be considered at the time.

DR LAM KUI-CHUN: Mr President, I understand that the accident under discussion was caused by the aircraft's inability to stop in time and that the aircraft was actually very new at the time of the accident. Was the aircraft landing with a tailwind at the time because the new regulation banning the use of alignment approach prevented the aircraft from landing into headwinds? And did an excessively strong tailwind prevent that aircraft from stopping within an appropriate distance?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, the opposite runway mode did not actually have a bearing on this particular incident when in fact the aircraft was heading into a headwind. It would be wrong of me to speculate in any way on the causes of the aircraft continuing on from the runway into the sea. These are being studied.

DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the aircraft that crashed into the sea could not be towed away until a few days later. Did the Administration actually have enough equipment to refloat and remove the aircraft from the scene as soon as possible so as not to cause obstruction to air traffic?

PRESIDENT: Slightly beyond the main answer, but do you have the answer to that one, Secretary?

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1155

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Cantonese): Mr President, I will try to answer this question. First I have to make clear that although the aircraft was in the sea, it did not hinder the normal landings and takeoffs of aircraft at Kai Tak Airport. At one time we worried that the tail of the aircraft might hinder the landings and takeoffs of other aircraft, and so we dismantled the aft part of the plane. The removal of the aircraft from the scene actually involved many technical problems because it was submerged in water. The salvage team had tried many methods, including rewelding the bottom part of the plane and pumping out the water. Though we did have the equipment and facilities for such operation, two factors had to be taken into consideration. Firstly, the safe operation of Kai Tak Airport should not be affected. And that was why the salvage work could not be carried out easily during the landings and takeoffs of aircraft. Secondly, we intended to preserve all the evidence for future investigation of this incident.

MR PETER WONG: Mr President, will the Secretary confirm whether the report will be published in full? And if not, what will be the criteria for withholding any of the information?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, there are provisions under the law for the Governor to decide whether to publish in full or in part the report. In the case of the accident preceding this particular one, the entire report was published. I would not wish today to speculate on what we will publish.

MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, can the Secretary say whether a film record of the landing of this aircraft was made by air traffic control and whether this is done during abnormal weather conditions as a matter of routine?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, I am afraid I am not aware of the existence or otherwise of a professionally filmed record of the landing of that particular aircraft. I have to check on that and provide an answer in writing. (Annex I)

Subtitling and sign language in TV programmes

4. MR FRED LI asked (in Cantonese): Regarding the rights of the deaf to have equal opportunities to receive information and to participate in public affairs in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council of its plans to require the provision of captions and sign language in the news and public affairs programmes broadcast by local television stations?

1156 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, the Administration is fully aware of the needs of the hearing impaired to have access to news and public information and has done much to provide subtitles or sign language on the news and public affairs programmes broadcast on our local television stations. Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) is currently providing a half hour "News Review" programme every Sunday morning between 8:30 am and 9:00 am with full subtitling and sign language. RTHK's other public affairs programmes also carry subtitling when interviews with non Cantonese speakers are shown. Steps are also being taken to provide more captioning on announcements of public interest that relate to government policies. In addition, some 10% of the news and current affairs programmes broadcast by the two local commercial TV stations, which average about 10 hours a week, also carry subtitles. Wharf Cable's news channel which has come on stream since the end of last month, also provides subtitling to over 9% of its programmes, and this averages about 15 hours a week.

As stated by the Secretary for Health and Welfare in this Council when answering a similar question in June last year, the Government favours a voluntary approach in extending this service onto our local TV programmes. This is because there are real practical problems in making such a service mandatory. Other than costs, which can be quite substantial, one of the main difficulties is that news and public affairs programmes are often broadcast live. This makes it technically very difficult to provide subtitling. But despite this, it is clear from the statistics that I have quoted earlier, the local TV stations have responded well on a voluntary basis in providing subtitling to many of their news and public affairs programmes.

Members may, however, wish to note that the Administration is presently in the process of setting up a Working Group with membership drawn from interested welfare organizations, the television stations, RTHK as well as relevant government departments to consider how best to further extend this service for the hearing impaired.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, even if the issue I have raised today on the right of the deaf to have access to information can be broadcast tomorrow on RTHK's programme "LegCo Review", those deaf viewers would not be able to understand what I was saying. Can the Administration take the lead in providing immediately subtitling or sign language on announcements of public interest and public affairs programmes (including "LegCo Review")?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, as I have mentioned in the main answer, RTHK is already doing quite a lot. But I think, in providing subtitling or sign language services, resources are of prime importance. And as I mentioned also in my main answer, the cost of providing such services can be quite substantial. I would like perhaps just to quote a figure. The two TV stations indicated that if they were to provide subtitling

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1157

alone to all their news and public affairs programmes, it would cost them in the region of $1 million a week, that would add up to $52 million a year. So, with regard to the question of RTHK extending this service to government programmes, we have to consider the availability of resources. And naturally within the constraint of available resources, we will certainly do our best.

MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, a drive called the "Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons 1993-2002" emphasized that the barrier of communication should be removed by way of legislation in a bid to reduce the social segregation often faced by disabled persons. Just now the Secretary has mentioned that the cost of providing such services can be quite substantial. But can the Administration consider integration of legislation with certain commercial operations, thereby enabling the services provided are lasting and extensive?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I mentioned in my main answer that cost is only one factor. Technical difficulty is another factor. It is because public affairs and news programmes are often broadcast live and there are technical difficulties of providing such subtitling services when it comes to live broadcasts. I would like to mention here that the Government is adopting a voluntary rather than a mandatory approach, having regard to examples in foreign countries. In most of the overseas examples we have studied, for example, in the United States, Canada and Australia, it is all done through a voluntary approach rather than a mandatory approach. It is only in the United Kingdom that there is law requiring commercial TV stations to provide subtitling to their programmes. But in the United Kingdom, the BBC is not required under the law to provide the said service.

MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary says in his reply that RTHK does not provide subtitles to their public affairs programmes in view of substantial cost. That being the case, the Administration has no reason to require commercial TV stations to provide subtitles because all TV stations would likewise cite substantial cost as the reason for not providing subtitles or sign language. Would the Administration seriously consider introducing legislation to require at least non-live broadcasts, if not live broadcasts, to provide subtitles or sign language?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I do not think that I said in my reply that the Government is not going to provide subtitling services to RTHK programmes. What I am saying is that we are taking a step-by-step approach, having regard to resource constraint within RTHK. And indeed with regard to the commercial TV stations, the persuasive and voluntary approach that we have adopted in the past has achieved considerable results as the statistics that I have quoted in my main answer

1158 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

already show. But in addition to this, perhaps I should mention that wherever there are no technical difficulties, for example, in the case of documentary programmes where there are very few live broadcasts involved, over 36% of documentary programmes produced by the two commercial TV stations carry subtitling and in ordinary entertainment programmes like films or family entertainment programmes, unless they are broadcast live, some 28% of those programmes also carry subtitles.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary has mentioned "News Review" in his reply. The Chinese title for the programme, if translated literally, is "current affairs review". Obviously current affairs is different from news. My question is: Is the half an-hour news-in-brief for the deaf that is broadcast once a week up-to-date news or out dated news?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I think I agree with the Honourable Andrew WONG that this is a news review, as the title of the programme suggests. So it is not live news broadcast.

DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is obviously not sufficient as only 10% of the news programmes carry subtitles. This has deprived the right of the deaf to information. The Administration explains that substantial cost is the reason for this and says that TV companies may have to spend $1 million a week for providing subtitling services. Will the Administration inform this Council how the $1 million is arrived at? Does the Administration only believe what TV stations say?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, the element of cost is worked out not just on the basis of input provided by the commercial TV station, but that by RTHK which also provides programmes with subtitling as well. RTHK does carry a cost formula on how much it would cost to produce a programme with subtitling. And in this regard the cost is worked out on the strength of the government figures. According to the figures provided by RTHK, the cost, just for the technical equipment alone, would amount to $6,000 per hour. And should the staff costs involved be included, it could build up to well over double that amount per hour.

MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, only 10% of the news and current affairs programmes broadcast by the two commercial TV stations carry subtitles. Will that mean the hearing impaired do not have immediate access to the remaining 90% of the news and current programmes as the general public do, particularly when it comes to emergency and special announcements? Does the Secretary have any ways and means to make it mandatory that the two TV stations have to increase the subtitling services within a certain period of

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1159 time, say one or two years? If a working group is to be set up, will this be its primary task?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I should point out that all emergency and special announcements being made from time to time are required to carry subtitling and the TV stations have complied with this request made by the Administration voluntarily. As regards the second part of the question, I can say that the Working Group that is being set up to look into this particular issue will certainly examine this aspect.

Vietnamese migrants detention centre visitors

5. MR MARTIN BARROW asked: Will the Government inform this Council of its policy towards visitors to the Vietnamese migrants detention centres?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, there are several different categories of visitors to detention centres:

(a) there are visiting Justices of the Peace, who are appointed to visit each detention centre once a month;

(b) there are Detention Centre Visitors appointed under the Detention Centre Rules to provide welfare services on a long-term basis to the Vietnamese in detention. There are at present 10 organizations whose staff are appointed as visitors under this rule;

(c) there are relatives and friends of detainees, who are permitted to visit under Rule 27 of the Detention Centre Rules;

(d) there are legal advisers who are permitted to visit under Rule 44 of the Detention Centre Rules; and

(e) there are ad hoc visitors, to which category I believe this question is primarily addressed.

It is the Government's policy to permit persons in this latter category to visit detention centres from time to time. Each application is considered on its merits, taking into account the purpose of the visit and the good order and management of the detention centres. Visitors in this category have included Members of this Council and district boards, journalists, and persons working for human rights organizations.

1160 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, is the Secretary aware that under his categories (b) and (e) there appears to have been a policy of reducing access to the centres? Would he not agree that more openness, which was a key recommendation of Judge KEMPSTER, provides the necessary checks and balances in the management of the camps?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not agree with Mr BARROW that there has been any attempt to reduce the number of visitors. As regards lawyers, they are allowed to visit under rules agreed with the Law Society and the Bar Association and there has been no recent change in those rules. As regards ad hoc visitors, I would only point out that so far this year there have been about 500 such visitors to detention centres. There has been no curtailment.

Tolo Harbour Water Control Zone

6. REV FUNG CHI-WOOD asked (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) why effluents are allowed to be discharged from the Shuen Wan Landfill into the Tolo Harbour Water Control Zone without a licence;

(b) to what extent the water quality of the Tolo Harbour has been affected by the pollutants in effluents discharged from the landfill; and

(c) whether there are other Government facilities which are discharging effluents into water control zones without a licence?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,

(a) When the Tolo Harbour Water Control Zone was established in April 1987, the discharge from the Shuen Wan Landfill was exempt from controls under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. This exemption was removed in 1990 when the Ordinance was amended to require a licence for every discharge in a water control zone, except for the disposal of domestic sewage into public drains. On the removal of the exemption, the discharge from the landfill, as with other discharges which were exempt from control before 1990, was "deemed" to be licensed under section 16 of the Ordinance, for two years until December 1992. The purpose of this arrangement was to give dischargers time to meet the licensing conditions. In accordance with these arrangements, the landfill

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1161

contractor submitted an application for a licence before the expiry of the "deemed" licence. This application is being processed by the Environmental Protection Department.

(b) Routine monitoring of the water quality in Tolo Harbour does not indicate that there is a particular problem associated with the Shuen Wan Landfill. One of the potential problems is leachate produced by rainwater filtering through the wastes in the landfill. However, the leachate is significantly diluted on its way through the underground water system and the retaining seawall of the landfill. On reaching the harbour, it quickly disperses.

(c) The Water Pollution Control Ordinance, as amended in 1990, does not provide exemptions for any discharges. Therefore discharges from government premises in a water control zone are required to be licensed under the Ordinance. To date, 228, or 60%, of the approximately 380 government facilities in water control zones have been licensed, and, as a result, over 97% of the wastewater coming from these establishments is under control. Licence applications for almost all the remaining discharges have been received and are being considered by the Environmental Protection Department. The licences should be issued in 1994.

REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to the statistics of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, 30% of the pollutants containing nitrogen in the Tolo Harbour come from the Shuen Wan Landfill. As the Government has all along been promoting environmental protection, why does it fail to observe the laws on environmental protection itself? Eleven months have passed, yet 40% of the Government facilities, with the exception of Shuen Wan Landfill, are still operating without a licence. The Government enforces the law on the one hand but fails to observe it on the other. Will the Administration give a reply to part (a) of the question, that is, is it due to negligence or is it done on purpose because no action has been brought against government installations?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I am afraid the Rev FUNG Chi-wood is quoting figures to which I do not have immediate access. If he can provide those figures to me I should be glad to look into the details. But I think I have already covered fairly fully the question of the controls and licensing of the Shuen Wan Landfill.

Under the action plan for Tolo Harbour, the focus of that plan was to address the possible impacts on water quality in the Tolo Harbour of future developments in the area. At that time the design of the Shuen Wan Landfill was considered adequate to mitigate pollution by leachate, but recent study has indicated possible pollution, not so much by leachate as indeed by nitrogen

1162 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

coming from the landfill which contributed to about 20% of the total amount of nitrogen identified in the action plan. This will be reduced to 1% in 1996 when the restoration work for the Shuen Wan Landfill is completed.

PRESIDENT: Not answered?

REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, my question is "why", but the reply of the Secretary only describes the process. Why are the Government facilities mentioned earlier still not licensed after 11 months? Is it a problem with the work process, or is it due to negligence or other reasons?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I think I have indicated that the contractor operating the Shuen Wan Landfill has applied for a licence.

MR PETER WONG: Mr President, the leachate from the Shuen Wan Landfill is a significant contributor to the COD and BOD loading in the Tolo Harbour. Last week we were treated to a battle between two of the government departments over the quantity of loading due to mariculture. However, the loading from the landfill is really quite a significant amount when compared with the mariculture. My question is: When can the Secretary inform us that the leachate from the landfill will stop leaking into Tolo Harbour so that we have a chance of getting the loading of Tolo Harbour down to an acceptable level as set out by the EPD?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, a feasibility study into the scope for restoration works at Shuen Wan Landfill was completed in August 1993. The landfill is expected to be exhausted by the end of 1994 at the current waste intake. In spring 1995, comprehensive restoration works will begin. These works should be completed in 1996 and there will be continual monitoring thereafter. As a stopgap measure, some of the leachate is being collected and recirculated through the landfill to reduce the pollutants it contains. Work will start in 1994 for completion in 1996 with the main works to collect and pretreat the leachate before it is transferred to the Tai Po Sewage Treatment Works for secondary treatment. So the overall answer, as far as the restoration of this landfill is concerned, is 1996 but in the meantime interim works to collect the leachate will be put in place.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think the discharge from the Shuen Wan Landfill is something really ironical. The Secretary said on the one hand that applications were being processed by the Environmental

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1163

Protection Department, but on the other hand, his reply clearly indicated that the present contractor was without a licence. Given that the contractor operates without a license and that the Environmental Protection Department seems to have given its approval for this, are there in fact deficiencies in the enforcement of Water Pollution Control Ordinance in relation to Tolo Harbour which make it possible for some companies to discharge without a licence and without the danger of being prosecuted?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I do not think it is exactly correct to say that the landfill is leaking sewage. I think that is an extreme exaggeration. The point which I have made is that the Environmental Protection Department is responsible for issuing licences under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance. This is quite separate from the operation of the landfill which is controlled by the Civil Engineering Department. The point about issuing licences under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance is that clearly there are, as ever, questions of priorities. There are effluents coming out of industrial premises which are far more serious in their effect than the small leakages of leachate out of the Shuen Wan Landfill. And I think it is incumbent on any authority to take a sensible view of priorities in deciding on the enforcement and licensing programme. This is exactly what the EPD is doing in this case. As I have said earlier, the intention is that all these installations should receive their licences during 1994 and in the time frame that I think I have already made clear in previous answers. I think this is going at a reasonably good pace.

MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, the question I am going to raise is not hypothetical. It seeks clarification from the Administration on its policies. Suppose further studies into the issue confirm that the Administration is, in respect of its monitoring role, responsible for the discharge or guilty of negligence, is the Government going to take action to sue itself? If so, how will that be done? If not, then the Government is acting against the law without being prosecuted; will it not be unfair to other industrial and commercial undertakings which have breached the Water Pollution Control Ordinance?

PRESIDENT: What is the question there, Mr LEE?

MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, I believe, in this case, the Administration and we have drawn different conclusions. If we take a further look at this and have more discussions we may find that there was negligence on the part of the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch, which resulted in the discharge of effluents from the landfill into the Tolo Harbour. If the Administration breaches the law, will it take action against itself? If there is no intention to do so, is this not unfair to the public as far as enforcement is concerned?

1164 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, with respect, I believe there is a degree of hypothesis in this question because it begins with "if the Government is found to be negligent". I think the point that I have made is that the Government is pursuing, at the best pace possible in the light of priorities and the resources available to it, the enforcement of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance against polluting industries and taking action against government installations. All of Hong Kong's environmental ordinances state explicitly that their provisions shall apply to the Government itself. This is not exactly unique but it is certainly not common in legislation elsewhere in the world. I think the community in Hong Kong has a clear indication that the Government is serious about its own installations and is proceeding to bring them into line with the pollution control ordinances.

REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, may I know the number of prosecution cases for breach of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance since December 1992, and the number of such cases involving government departments. If no government departments have been prosecuted, what are the reasons?

PRESIDENT: Do you have the answer, Secretary?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: I do not have a detailed answer to that question, Mr President. But I think that the procedure for dealing with the government installations is to give them time to come into line with the ordinances and prospective licence conditions as with other installations under this legislation. The question that I think has to be asked is: If the Government is spending time prosecuting itself, is this a proper use of the resources available when there are far more serious pollution problems being caused by other polluters?

REV FUNG CHI-WOOD: Mr President, may I ask ......

PRESIDENT: No, I am sorry, let us get on with it.

MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, I think I am helping Mr LEE and Rev FUNG in asking this follow-up. Does the Secretary's reply mean that in order to save taxpayer's money from being spent on prosecutions or lawsuits taken by one government department against another government department, a government facility discharging pollutants into our environment will not be sued even if it does not have a licence?

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1165

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I have been trying to make the point about priorities and the gist of what I have been saying is that priorities dictate that prosecution action be instituted against the worst offenders. The worst offenders do not include the government installations.

PRESIDENT: We have overshot the time allocated.

Written answers to questions

Employment of trained mentally handicapped adults

7. DR LAM KUI-CHUN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the number of mentally handicapped adults who have successfully found employment after receiving special educational training, and as a percentage of those who have completed the training course; and what specific assistance is being provided by the authorities to those who have completed such training to ensure adequate job opportunities are available,

so that they need not stay idle at home?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, education for children with special educational needs is provided either in special or ordinary schools. Mentally handicapped children are provided with 10 years of free and general education in special schools.

As regards those disabled school leavers assessed as having the ability to work in open employment, they are provided with vocational rehabilitation. It covers vocational guidance, vocational training and support services. Vocational rehabilitation is at present provided by six Skills Centres for the Disabled. Three are run by the Vocational Training Council (VTC) and the rest by non-governmental organizations.

Relevant information on mentally handicapped school leavers undergoing vocational training is as follows:

1990 1991 1992

(Jan-Aug)

(a) No. of MH school leavers who completed vocational training courses

(b) No. of MH school leavers securing open employment

83 110 83 69 81 66

1166 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

1990 1991 1992

(Jan-Aug)

(c) Rate of employment 83% 74% 80%

(b)

---- x 100%

(a)

As regards those mentally handicapped school leavers who cannot benefit from vocational training, some of them are provided with supported or sheltered employment. Relevant information in this respect is as follows:

1990-91

School year

1991-92

School year

(a) No. of MH school leavers 343* 388*

(b) No. of referrals for supported or sheltered employment

(c) No. of MH school leavers securing supported or sheltered employment

99 93 17 43

(d) Rate of employment 17% 45%

(c)

---- x 100%

(b)

* Corresponding figures for the 1992-93 school year are not yet available. The remaining MH school leavers either underwent vocational training or were placed in day activity centres (71% and 64% in 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively).

To meet the existing shortfalls in day activity centres and sheltered workshops for mentally handicapped persons, the necessary funds have been sought to provide an additional 3 760 places by 1996-97. We are determined to improve the quality of life of these people.

VTC and non-governmental organizations running the Skills Centres normally arrange job placements or job placement referrals for their trainees prior to the completion of their training. This helps to minimize trainees' waiting time for open employment.

Additionally, the Labour Department's Selective Placement Division provides free placement services for mentally handicapped persons wishing to seek jobs in the open market. The division takes active measures to enhance the

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1167

acceptance of mentally handicapped persons by employers. Through visits, regular news bulletins to employers and publicity programmes, it has succeeded in creating more job opportunities for this disability group.

Broadcast channel for road users

8. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether consideration will be given to operating a dedicated broadcast channel for keeping road users informed of traffic conditions during rush hours; and

(b) what the estimated cost for providing such service will be?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I propose to answer the Honourable Howard YOUNG's questions in the order as they appear.

(a) We have no plans to start up a new dedicated radio broadcast channel for road users since RTHK already operates a dedicated traffic channel — Radio 7. Traffic reports are broadcast, in Cantonese, throughout the day at half-hourly intervals, with the frequency increasing to every 15 minutes during rush hours that is from 8-9 am and again from 5:30-6:30 pm. There is also flexibility in the programming of Radio 7 to allow for special announcements to be broadcast at any time of the day when necessary. The other RTHK radio channels also broadcast regular traffic reports, though not as frequently as Radio 7. Consideration is being given to improving further liaison between RTHK and the police and Transport Department to ensure that more timely traffic updates from all parts of the territory are made available to the programme announcer.

(b) The cost of operating Radio 7 in 1993-94 is estimated to be $6.7 million.

Scaffolding erection and removal

9. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): Recently there have been complaints that scaffoldings erected to facilitate maintenance works on buildings have not been removed after the completion of the projects, seriously affecting the living environment of residents and the operation of shops on the ground floor. Will the Government inform this Council:

1168 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

(a) what the provisions governing the erection and removal of scaffoldings are; which department is responsible for the enforcement of these provisions; and

(b) whether a review of the legislation will be conducted to strengthen the monitoring of the erection and removal of scaffoldings so as to protect the interests of residents?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the erection of scaffolding is subject to regulation under two Ordinances as follows:

Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59)

The safety of scaffolding is regulated under Part VA "Scaffolds, Working Platforms and Ladders and so on" of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance. For example, all scaffolding should be made of strong and sound materials, free from defects and properly maintained. The regulations also require the scaffolding to be fixed, secured and regularly inspected to prevent accidents.

The Labour Department is responsible for enforcement action against unsafe scaffolding. In addition to regular inspections, a special inspection and enforcement campaign on scaffolding was conducted from April to June this year. A similar operation will be mounted later in the year. Those who breach the law will be prosecuted.

Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123)

Scaffolding erected in connection with structural or drainage repair works and new building works is controlled under the Buildings Ordinance.

The Buildings Department is responsible for ensuring that all repair works and new building works are carried out to safety standards laid down in the Buildings Ordinance. Staff of the department inspect these works on a regular basis. As a standard procedure, they are required to satisfy themselves that scaffolding is safe and is removed following completion of the works for which plans have been approved or for which orders under the Buildings Ordinance have been issued.

These provisions are generally adequate to ensure the safety of scaffolding and, as far as possible, residents of buildings where scaffolding is put up are not subjected to undue nuisance. There is no intention to review the legislation for the time being.

Complaints about scaffolding should be made to the Buildings Department; or, in emergencies, the police.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1169 Non-graduate teacher qualifications assessment examination

10. DR LAM KUI-CHUN asked (in Chinese): Regarding the first Non-graduate Teacher Qualifications Assessment Examination organized by the Education Department this year, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) how many candidates have successfully passed the examination to become qualified non-graduate teachers in primary schools;

(b) how many of them came from China; and

(c) how many teachers qualified through the examination have been offered teaching posts?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the answers to Dr LAM's questions are:

(a) Ninety-six candidates have successfully passed the Non-graduate Teacher Qualifications Assessment Examination in 1993 for appointment to the Certificated Master/Mistress rank in primary schools. Of these, 23 candidates passed all three parts of the assessment and will become fully qualified teachers after completing a supervised teaching period of not less than one year in a primary school. The remaining 73 candidates who passed only Parts I and II of the examination may become fully qualified teachers in primary schools after completing a two-year part-time in-service course.

(b) Of the 96 successful candidates, 57 acquired their post-secondary qualifications in China.

(c) As at 25 November 1993, 59 of the 96 successful candidates have reported that they are teaching in schools in Hong Kong.

Illegal import of pork and pigs

11. MR MICHAEL HO asked (in Chinese): According to the data provided by the Department of Health, illegal import of pork and pigs into the territory is on an upward trend. As such pork have not been subject to any inspection and their hygienic condition could not be monitored, they pose serious threats to public health. Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the measures currently adopted by departments concerned in curbing the illegal import of pork and pigs;

(b) of the methods to be used by the departments concerned to prevent such illegally imported pork from being put on sale in markets;

1170 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

(c) whether there are loopholes in the existing legislation on the control over import of pork and in the enforcement process, hence giving smugglers opportunities for exploitation; and

(d) whether comprehensive plans will be worked out to crack down on the illegal import of pork?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, since 1988, China has been virtually the sole supplier of live pigs to Hong Kong for the purpose of local slaughter. These pigs are authorized to enter and land at:

(a) Man Kam To Control Point;

(b) KCRC unloading sidings at Homantin;

(c) Ng Luen Pier at Kennedy Town; and

(d) Ma Tau Kok Government Wharf.

Action against the illegal importation of meat (that is, pork) and livestock (that is, pigs) is a joint responsibility of several government departments.

Front-line control rests with the Customs and Excise Department and the Royal Hong Kong Police. These two departments have checkpoints along the border and sea patrols within Hong Kong waters. They act in concert with the other departments in both pre planned operations and day-to-day enforcement. Offenders found importing unmanifested cargo, that is, pork and pigs or importing frozen pork without a licence will be prosecuted by the Customs and Excise Department for contravention of the Import and Export Ordinance or the Reserved Commodities Ordinance respectively.

Following an interdepartmental strategy agreed in 1991, cases may also be referred to other departments for appropriate action, for example:

(a) to Department of Health in the case of meat;

(b) to the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries in the case of live pigs; and

(c) to the two municipal services departments in the case of possession for sale, where illegal importation cannot be established.

The police can cancel the closed road permit for any vehicle which has been involved in illegal smuggling.

Under Regulation 4 of the Imported Game, Meat and Poultry Regulations, all imported meat must be covered by an official health certificate issued by a

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1171

competent authority recognized by the Department of Health. Where imported pork seized at the border is not accompanied by such certificates (or sometimes accompanied by fake certificates), the Director of Health will take action under Regulation 4 and also seize and destroy the meat under section 59 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance as being unfit for human consumption or for having contravened regulations made under sections 55 and 56 of that Ordinance.

The two municipal services departments are responsible for preventing smuggled pork from being put on sale in retail markets. To this end, they have increased spot checks and raids on licensed fresh provision shops, meat market stalls, cold stores and restaurants and pig roasting factories. Surveillance is also maintained on premises suspected of selling illegally imported pork. Apart from routine inspections, surprise checks are conducted on meat shops and market meat stalls around usual delivery hours in the early morning to see if meat from illegal sources is delivered to them. Particular attention is paid to check whether the pig carcases bear stamps indicating that they have been slaughtered in a government or licensed slaughterhouse.

Meat from illegal sources detected in the marketplace will be destroyed under section 59 of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance and the offender prosecuted under the Food Business By-laws.

For the purpose of livestock disease control, the Director of Agriculture and Fisheries is authorized under Regulations 5 and 9 of the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Regulations to direct imported live pigs to abattoirs for immediate slaughtering. As such, the legislation is not designed to regulate the importation of live pigs from China.

There is a substantial difference in possible penalties, depending at what stage the meat is seized. The maximum penalty for illegal importation of meat under regulation 7 of the Imported Game, Meat and Poultry Ordinance is $25,000 fine and six months' imprisonment. However, once the meat has passed through front-line detection and has reached the marketplace, the offender can only be charged with sale of unstamped meat under the Food Business By-laws, for which the maximum penalty is a fine of $5,000 and three months' imprisonment. To rectify this discrepancy, both municipal services departments are preparing to revise the maximum penalty under the by-laws to bring it into line with that in the Regulations.

Once illegally imported meat has evaded seizure at the border and has been cut up for retail sale, there is a technical difficulty in identifying whether individual pieces of the meat bear inspection stamps or not. Emphasis is therefore being placed on earlier detection.

Following an increase in illegal importation of meat at Sha Tau Kok in August 1992, interdepartmental co-ordination has been improved and enforcement action has been stepped up, both at the border as well as at retail

1172 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

level. As part of an overall package of countermeasures, an additional customs post has been set up at Shek Chung Au to check vehicles coming from Sha Tau Kok. An average of 8 000 kgs per month of pork has been seized at Sha Tau Kok between August 1992 and October 1993. So far, in November, 11 000 kgs have been seized. Significant seizures have also been made at Man Kam To and Lok Ma Chau Control Points.

All departments concerned are co-operating to control the illegal importation of pigs and pork and concerted efforts of all enforcement agencies will be maintained.

Safety of slopes on Lantau Island

12. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): The heavy rainfall on 5 November 1993 led to landslip and flooding in various areas on Lantau Island. Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether and when inspections have been carried out on the slopes on Lantau Island;

(b) when the last inspections were carried out for slopes where landslip occurred and what the results of the inspections were; and

(c) what follow-up actions will be taken to improve the safety of slopes on Lantau Island?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,

(a) Yes, generally there are three kinds of slope inspections for man-made slopes being carried out in Lantau (and elsewhere in Hong Kong) as an on-going exercise:

(i) Regular maintenance inspections carried out either by private owners of the land or by the relevant government departments of land under their care.

(ii) The Government has a Landslip Preventive Measures Programme (LPMP) for which GEO investigates existing slopes which pose a potential risk to life, executes upgrading works on government land and initiates necessary actions for private land under the Buildings Ordinance. The investigation of slopes and execution of upgrading works are carried out in priority order on a territory-wide basis.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1173

Inspections were carried out by the Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) for 137 slopes under the LPMP between June 1991 and October 1993.

(iii) Emergency inspections carried out by GEO in response to complaints received and landslips reported. Sixty-five such inspections were carried out since 1984, before the 5 November 1993 incident.

There is no programme of inspection for natural slopes.

(b) It is estimated that about 470 landslip incidents occurred as a result of the rainstorm of 5.11.93, which include:

Natural slopes on hillside 200

Road 150

Catchwater 100

Others 20

All man-made slopes along South Lantau Road, Keung Shan Road and Tai O Road are inspected by Highways Department at about six-month intervals in conjunction with the detailed road inspection. Where the slopes require special attention, more frequent inspections are carried out.

The previous inspections revealed that there were minor defects to the surface protection of some slopes. Such defects were repaired.

Slopes adjacent the catchwaters are inspected by Water Supplies Department staff during their daily patrolling of the catchwaters. In addition, certain major slopes are also included in the routine inspection programme which will be carried out at least once a year and immediately after each typhoon/rainstorm. There was no record of abnormality during the latest inspection.

Slopes in the vicinity of government buildings which fall within the maintenance responsibility of Architectural Services Department are inspected at least once annually. No evidence of deterioration in the slopes was recorded during the latest inspection.

The existing maintenance inspections being carried out by government departments are based on the guidelines produced by GEO.

(c) The selection of government slopes for inclusion into the LPMP is an on-going exercise. Slopes in Lantau, including those failed during this incident, will be considered in conjunction with other slopes in the territory.

1174 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

As a result of the preliminary geotechnical studies undertaken on Lantau Island, 22 slopes which overlook buildings and pose a direct risk to life are being upgraded under the LPMP. Works have been completed on 14 slopes and works on the remaining eight will be completed by January 1994.

The Government will arrange for suitable repairs and stabilizing works to be carried out for other slopes failed on 5 November 1993 which are not included under the LPMP and ensure, by issuing internal technical circulars and so on, that proper slope maintenance will always be carried out to minimize the chance of failure.

Public housing allocation to public assistance recipients

13. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council whether the Housing Department allocates smaller or older flats with cheaper rents to families in receipt of public assistance when they apply for transfer; if so, what the reasons are; if not, what principles are being used in allocating flats to these families?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, tenants in public housing may apply for transfer on social and medical grounds or on account of overcrowding. Whether a tenant is in receipt of public assistance is not a key consideration in processing such applications. There are cases where fully refurbished older flats are offered to applicants if these flats meet their requirements.

During redevelopment, the Housing Department may offer smaller or older flats to families who prefer such flats in the same district where the rents are lower than in the new reception estates. The overall objective is to ensure a smooth process and to meet tenants' expectations as far as resources permit.

Gross National Product assessment

14. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked: Will the Government inform this Council of the progress of the feasibility study on the introduction of Gross National Product assessment for Hong Kong, for which funds were approved by the Legislative Council more than a year ago; and, if such introduction is found feasible, of the timetable for implementation?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, a feasibility study on the compilation of Gross National Product (GNP) statistics in Hong Kong has been in progress since earlier this year. It is designed to ascertain appropriate methods of collecting the necessary data, the associated costs to the Government,

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1175

and reporting burden on the private sector. The study has now reached an advanced stage and results obtained so far indicate that, granting adequate legal backing and support from data suppliers in the private sector, it should be technically feasible to compile such statistics.

The feasibility study will be completed in February 1994. Results will be put to the Executive Council for consideration. Subject to decision on the way forward and the availability of funds for the full implementation, necessary work can start thereafter. Allowing time for drafting and enactment of a survey order, collection of data in respect of 1993 will commence in October 1994 and the first set of GNP statistics (for 1993) will be released by the end of 1995.

Convalescent beds

15. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): In view of the inadequacy of convalescent beds for patients suffering from hemiplegia, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of hemiplegics admitted to hospital for treatment in the past year; if such statistics are not available, whether the number of patients suffering from cerebrovascular diseases can be made available;

(b) of the total number of convalescent beds in Hong Kong; of these, how many have been assigned mainly for hemiplegics; and

(c) what plans are in hand to augment such services?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the answers, seriatim, are as follows:

(a) the total number of patients treated in public hospitals for cerebrovascular diseases in 1992 was 16 124. There is no further breakdown into different types of stroke;

(b) as at 31 March 1993, there were 3 575 public hospital beds available to serve patients requiring convalescent care, including those suffering from hemiplegics according to their clinical needs; and

(c) plans in hand to augment existing services include the development and improvement of designated rehabilitation programmes for stroke patients, community care programmes for elderly patients who suffer a higher incidence of cerebrovascular diseases, as well as additional provision of convalescent beds and geriatric day hospital places.

1176 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 Central Committee on Services for the Elderly

16. DR LEONG CHE-HUNG asked: With regard to the recommendations put forward by the then Central Committee on Services for the Elderly in its report published in 1988, will the Administration inform this Council:

(a) of the progress so far in their implementation;

(b) of the timetable for implementing those recommendations which have not yet been implemented and for completing those which have made a start in implementation; and

(c) whether the newly established special working group on elderly services would be given the task of monitoring the implementation of any outstanding recommendation of the Central Committee?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the report of the Central Committee on Services for the Elderly was issued in September 1988 and contained more than 40 recommendations. Some of the recommendations were general in nature, while others were specific.

Nearly all of the recommendations have been implemented. In view of developments since 1988, the remaining recommendations may have to be reviewed.

A Working Group on Care for the Elderly has been appointed by the Governor recently to assess the social and economic impact of an aging population on the community and to conduct an overall review of the policy on care for elderly people. The Working Group has been tasked, inter alia, to advise on new and cost-effective ways of meeting the demand for services and to identify ways to co-ordinate services. It has not been tasked to monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Central Committee. The Working Group has to report by August 1994 and is not a standing committee.

Localization policy

17. MR MICHAEL HO asked (in Chinese): In response to Members' questions on the localization policy for the Civil Service, the Secretary for the Civil Service said at the Legislative Council Sitting on 10 November 1993 that the Government found it acceptable for the Police Force to carry on the practice of recruiting a certain percentage of inspectors from overseas. Will the Government inform this Council of the reasons for accepting such practice which deviates from the localization policy, and when will this practice be reviewed?

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1177

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, historically, the recruitment of Inspectors from overseas was justified on grounds of general policy. In recent years however, the emphasis has been more on ensuring that there are adequate numbers of Inspectors overall.

At the present time overseas recruitment is continuing at a modest level both to supplement local recruitment and because this is traditional. There are also some benefits deriving from a cross-cultural approach in terms of the territory's cosmopolitan image.

The following table shows the number of overseas and local Police Inspectors recruited in the past four years.

Intake of police inspectors

Year Recruitment target Local Overseas 1990-91 180 116 34 1991-92 90 75 15 1992-93 98 71 20

1993-94 131 71 16 (up to 27.11.93)

It should also be noted that local officers comprise 78% of all staff in the Inspectorate.

Annual reviews of overseas recruitment of Police Inspectors are carried out by the Force, in conjunction with Civil Service and Security Branches. It is anticipated that the number of overseas Inspector recruits will gradually decline, in particular due to the improved situation with respect to local recruitment, and that overseas recruitment should be phased out completely in two to three years time.

Tuition fees for tertiary institutions

18. MR TIK CHI-YUEN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the following:

(a) the criteria for determining the tuition fees for part-time courses offered by subsidized tertiary institutions and the level of fee increases; and

1178 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

(b) whether the amount of tuition fees received from these courses in the past three years cover the costs involved; if not, what percentage of the costs was recovered and what the difference between the highest and lowest rates of cost recovery was?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, there are two types of part-time courses run by the institutions funded by the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC):

(a) those funded by the UPGC wholly or partly; and

(b) those not funded by the UPGC.

(a) Part-time courses funded by the UPGC wholly or partly

Tuition fees charged for these courses are determined by the UPGC-funded institutions using formulae based on the recommended fee levels for full-time degree and sub-degree courses approved by the Government. Different institutions adopt different formulae for determining the fees for part-time courses.

The actual average cost recovery rates represented by tuition fees for all UPGC-funded courses, both full-time and part-time, for 1990-91 and 1991-92 were 8.6% and 9.1% respectively. The estimated cost recovery rate for 1992-93 was 8.9%. The UPGC does not keep separate statistics on the cost recovery rates for part-time courses.

(b) Part-time courses not funded by the UPGC

There are two types of part-time courses not funded by the UPGC: those operated by the extramural studies or continuing education departments of the UPGC-funded institutions solely; and those operated by the institutions in collaboration with overseas institutions. The criteria for determining the tuition fees for these two types of courses are different, and they also differ between institutions. In general, however, they are operated on a full-cost recovery basis.

Obscene Articles Tribunal

19. MR TIK CHI-YUEN asked (in Chinese): Regarding the representativeness and operation of the Obscene Articles Tribunal, will the Government inform this Council of the following:

(a) the criteria for appointment of adjudicators; their tenure of office on average;

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1179

(b) the criteria for assigning work to individual adjudicators; how a representative composition of adjudicators is ensured; whether a record is kept during the past three years of the number of times they have performed adjudicating duties; if so, please provide details; and

(c) the number of articles appraised by three or more adjudicators in the past three years and their percentage of all the articles appraised; and the average number of adjudicators involved in appraising each article?

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I shall answer the questions raised by the Honourable TIK Chi-yuen in the order as they appear:

(a) The eligibility criteria for appointment to the panel of adjudicators is stated in section 5(3) of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390). A person is eligible to be appointed to the panel if, in the opinion of the Chief Justice, the person is:

(i) ordinarily resident in Hong Kong and has so resided for at least seven years; and

(ii) proficient in written English or written Chinese.

Under section 5(4), a person shall not be appointed for a period exceeding three years but shall be eligible for reappointment. It is not meaningful to look at the average tenure of office of adjudicators as many have served on the panel since its inception in 1987 whilst others have been appointed more recently. However, for what it is worth, the average tenure of office of adjudicators is four years.

Under section 5(6), an adjudicator may be dismissed by the Chief Justice if that adjudicator: (i) ceases to be ordinarily resident in Hong Kong;

(ii) is convicted of any offence;

(iii) is declared a bankrupt; or

(iv) in the opinion of the Chief Justice, neglects or is unable to perform his duty.

It should be noted that the Chief Justice makes every effort to ensure that the panel of adjudicators has a fair representation of the

1180 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

public in terms of age, social background, educational background and the sexes. Appointments are made from nominations put forward by the Secretary for Home Affairs, Director of Education, Director of Social Welfare, Director of Urban Services and Director of Regional Services.

(b) There is no pre-determined criteria for assigning work to individual adjudicators. The adjudicators are selected by rotation. However every effort is made to ensure that the members selected represent different sectors of the community. A record is kept of attendance mainly to ensure that the load is spread evenly among the adjudicators as far as practical and no one is overburdened.

During the past three years, each adjudicator attended eight hearings per year on average.

(c) The presiding magistrate sits on the tribunal as a rule with two adjudicators. No articles in the past three years were classified by three or more adjudicators.

Construction sites inspection

20. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the department(s) responsible for conducting post-typhoon or post-rainstorm inspections of facilities or engineering works in construction sites to check whether there is any damage and whether safety standards have been complied with; and in the event of non-compliance, whether prosecutions will be brought; if so, what the number of such cases over the past three years is; and

(b) whether any review has been made of the adequacy of existing measures to ensure safety in construction sites?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, it is the responsibility of the contractors concerned to ensure that all on-site facilities and engineering works are safe before resumption of work after a typhoon or rainstrom. Under the general duties provisions of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, every contractor has the duty to provide a safe system of work for his employees.

The Labour Department undertakes regular inspection of construction sites to ensure compliance with safety standards. Prosecutions are taken out when a breach against any provision in the industrial safety law is discovered during the inspections by Labour Department. However, no separate statistics

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1181 are kept of prosecutions resulting from inspections made soon after typhoons or rainstorms.

As regards reviews made on the adequacy of measures to ensure safety in construction sites, these are carried out on a regular basis. The level of fines for breaches of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance has just been increased. The control of lifting appliances and lifting gears has been tightened. As a result of the latest review, a number of legislative proposals will be put before this Council for approval next year including:

(a) increasing the number of safety officers at construction sites;

(b) prohibiting the employment of untrained young workers below the age of 18; (c) tightening the safety standards of builder's lifts; and

(d) laying down a set of regulations to control the operation of working platforms.

Motion

PUBLIC FINANCE ORDINANCE

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY moved the following motion:

"That, with effect from 1 December 1993, the Disaster Relief Fund is established to provide aid in relief of disasters that occur outside Hong Kong on the following terms -

(a) the Financial Secretary is the administrator of the Fund and he may delegate his power of administration to other public officers;

(b) a Disaster Relief Fund Advisory Committee shall be appointed by the Governor to advise the Financial Secretary on disbursements from the Fund;

(c) the Financial Secretary shall make a single grant of cash for each purpose advised by the Disaster Relief Fund Advisory Committee;

(d) the Financial Secretary shall obtain the consent of the Finance Committee for a grant in excess of $8 million;

(e) the Finance Committee may amend the limit for which the Financial Secretary is required to obtain their consent;

1182 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 (f) the Financial Secretary shall credit to the Fund -

(i) appropriations from the general revenue approved by the Legislative Council for the purpose of the Fund;

(ii) donations received for the purpose of the Fund; and

(iii) other sums received for the purpose of the Fund including all moneys received as interest or dividends earned on moneys invested for the Fund;

(g) the Financial Secretary may expend moneys from the Fund for the purpose of disaster relief as may be advised by the Disaster Relief Fund Advisory Committee;

(h) the Director of Accounting Services shall, under the authority of a funds warrant issued by the Financial Secretary, pay from the Fund such sums as may be required to meet expenditure from the Fund;

(i) the Financial Secretary in his discretion may authorize the investment in the manner he may determine of any unexpended balance held in the Fund at any time; and

(j) the Financial Secretary shall not transfer any money from the Fund to the general revenue.

He said: Mr President, I move the resolution standing under my name on the Order Paper.

The resolution seeks to establish a Disaster Relief Fund to provide disaster relief outside Hong Kong. When disasters strike, swift provision of aid is needed to save lives and property. Hong Kong, as a responsible and comparatively well-off community, has a moral duty to help the less fortunate. At present, response to international appeals for assistance is made by the Government on an ad hoc basis. This sometimes means that the provision of aid has not been as swift as we — and no doubt the disaster victims — would wish.

To improve the situation, it is desirable to set up a dedicated fund for international disaster relief. We propose that, with the approval of this Council, the Fund will be launched in this financial year under the Public Finance Ordinance with an initial appropriation of $50 million from the General Revenue. In the context of the annual Estimates, we intend to top up the Fund every year as necessary.

The public will also be welcome to make donations to the Fund. However, for practical reasons, public donations will only be accepted for general relief purpose, not tied to individual disasters.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1183

Payments from the Fund will be made on the advice of a committee. It would be chaired by the Chief Secretary and would comprise the Secretary for the Treasury, the Secretary for Health and Welfare, two Executive Council Members and two Legislative Council Members. The committee will advise on the policy and practices regarding the use of funds for international disaster relief, advise on grant of specified amounts to specified recipients, and monitor the use of grants. To ensure that grants are used for the designated purposes, the agency or organization concerned will be required to submit to the committee an evaluation report and an audited account on how the grant has been used.

As with all other PFO funds, I shall be designated as administrator of the Fund. Disbursements made within the limit of delegated authority will be dealt with administratively. The Finance Committee's approval will be sought for individual disbursements which exceed the limit of delegated powers, currently $8 million.

We believe the establishment of the proposed Fund will provide a ready mechanism for Hong Kong to respond quickly to international appeals for humanitarian aid. This will be an improvement over the existing ad hoc arrangement. The proposal has been considered by the Legislative Council House Committee and Members have indicated support in principle. I believe that the public will also be supportive of the proposed arrangement.

Mr President, I beg to move.

Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.

First Reading of Bill

BREWIN TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993

Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).

Second Reading of Bills

BREWIN TRUST FUND (AMENDMENT) BILL 1993

THE SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Brewin Trust Fund Ordinance."

He said: Mr President, I move that the Brewin Trust Fund (Amendment) Bill 1993 be read a Second time.

1184 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

The Brewin Fund has a long history dating back to 1912. The Fund was created by donations from the friends of Mr A W BREWIN to commemorate his service in Hong Kong. The money was originally intended to provide assistance to needy widows by giving a monthly allowance in the form of a $5 "pension". The number of recipients was originally about 100. The assets of the trust fund were in the custody of the Tung Wah Hospital until 1954 when the Board of Directors indicated that they were not willing to continue to manage the assets of the Fund and handed them over to the Government.

The Brewin Trust Fund Ordinance was enacted in 1955. In line with the original purpose, the legislation provided for the Fund to be used to give financial support to Chinese widows and orphans. At the time there was only limited public assistance available for this purpose. Owing to changing social needs and an increase in the size of the Fund, the ambit of the Fund has been expanded over the years to allow payments to be made to Chinese workmen incapacitated at work and individuals in financial difficulty. In practice, the funds are allocated by a Trust Fund Committee to government departments and charitable organizations to make payments to eligible persons in accordance with established guidelines.

In 1992 the Attorney General advised that this practice does not comply with section 4 of the Ordinance, which requires that the Committee shall satisfy itself that an applicant is in need of maintenance or benefit before a grant is made.

In addition, the Attorney General advised that as section 4 of the Ordinance restricts the benefits of the trust fund to Chinese widows and orphans, the section is inconsistent with Article 22 of the Bill of Rights Ordinance, which provides that the legislation should not discriminate on any ground such as race, colour, sex ...... or other status. The Bill before us is intended to remedy these two anomalies.

Turning to the details of the Bill, it is proposed to amend section 2, the Interpretation Section, of the Brewin Trust Fund Ordinance by repealing the definition of "Chinese" and provide a new definition of "Charitable institution". Section 4 of the Ordinance is also repealed and substituted by a new section 4 to incorporate:

(a) the word "widowers" so that the Ordinance would not discriminate against potential beneficiaries on the basis of their sex; and

(b) a new subsection to enable the Committee to allocate moneys of the Trust Fund to government departments and charitable institutions for their further application of such moneys for the object of the Fund specified in the new section 4(1) at clause 3.

Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1185 GAMBLING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 28 October 1992 Question on Second Reading proposed.

MR LAU WAH-SUM: Mr President, the Gambling (Amendment) Bill 1992 seeks to exempt certain contracts for differences from the application of the Gambling Ordinance. These types of contracts may have the characteristics of gambling as defined in the Gambling Ordinance. There will not be any problem if the issuers are authorized institutions under the Banking Ordinance. Section 137A of the Banking Ordinance provides for the non-application of the Gambling Ordinance to any transactions proposed to be entered into, or entered into by authorized institutions. However, for those who are not authorized institutions under the Banking Ordinance, the entering into of these contracts in Hong Kong may be interpreted as a criminal offence. Moreover, the contracts may also be rendered unenforceable. There are no policy objection or regulatory reasons why persons who are not authorized institutions should not be able to enter into such contracts if these contracts are used as genuine financial management or investment means. Besides the Banking Ordinance, limited exemption is contained in section 116 of the Commodities Trading Ordinance which states that the Gambling Ordinance does not apply to any transaction to which the Commodities Trading Ordinance applies.

The Bill therefore seeks to amend the Gambling Ordinance to disapply the Ordinance to the following categories of contracts for differences, with a view to developing Hong Kong as an attractive international market for such contracts:

(a) those listed on the Unified Exchange; or

(b) those entered into as a result of an advertisement, invitation or document excluded from the application of section 4(1) of the Protection of Investors Ordinance by certain provisions of that Ordinance; or

(c) those entered into by way of business by a registered or exempt dealer under the Commodities Trading Ordinance — or Securities Ordinance.

The Bill was introduced into this Council on 28 October 1992. A Bills Committee of four Members was formed and commenced scrutiny of the Bill on 15 July 1993. Altogether we held four meetings, including two with the Administration. We considered six submissions from the Law Society of

1186 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Society of Accountants and met their representatives. As Chairman of the Bills Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the Committee for the time and effort they put in the discussion, the Administration for their co-operation and the two societies for submitting their views and taking part in the deliberations.

Mr President, I now come to the main points discussed by the committee.

The main issue which has been thoroughly discussed is the scope of exemption. The committee and the two societies consider that the scope of exemption is unduly restrictive and can hardly encompass all forms of contracts for differences presently serving a genuine business and investment purpose in the capital market. In particular, they are concerned that if the Bill is passed in its current format, any transaction which amounts to a contract for differences and which does not fall within the exceptions set out in the Bill would be interpreted by both practitioners and the courts as being caught by the Gambling Ordinance. This includes the following types of contracts:

(a) those listed on an overseas exchange;

(b) those entered into by investment advisers and commodities trading advisers;

(c) those entered into by subsidiaries, holding and associated companies of registered persons and authorized institutions; and

(d) those traded in over-the-counter (OTC) markets.

The Hong Kong Society of Accountants has suggested that listed contracts for differences should not be limited merely to those listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong but should be expanded to cover other international stock and option/futures exchanges, by making reference to the stock markets identified in Schedule 2 and the options markets in Schedule 5 of the new Financial Resources Rules promulgated by the Securities and Futures Commission which come into operation today. After discussions, the Administration has agreed to add a list of recognized overseas exchanges for the purpose of exemption by way of a schedule and will move the necessary amendment at the Committee stage.

The Committee has noted that a large number of contracts for differences are entered into by Hong Kong entities who are not registered or exempt dealers. This is particularly so in the case of OTC transactions which Hong Kong entities would like to enter into with foreign counterparties or other Hong Kong entities on a principal to principal basis without the use or cost of a broker. Furthermore, registered dealers or authorized institutions are unlikely to enter into significant contracts of this nature, given the impact this would have on their financial resources calculations. For practical reasons, subsidiaries, holding or associated companies of registered dealers and

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1187

authorized institutions often conduct such transactions without the need for the service of a registered dealer. Moreover, commodities trading advisers and investment advisers have power to enter into contracts for differences. The two societies have therefore suggested that the scope of the exemption should be extended to include the above transactions. Otherwise, they would, in all probability, be conducted offshore, to the detriment of the development of Hong Kong as an international financial centre.

The Administration has explained that according to legal advice, it is not correct to interpret the Bill on the basis that a transaction which amounts to a contract for differences and which does not fall within the exceptions set out in the Bill must be construed as being caught by the Gambling Ordinance. Whether such a contract amounts to gambling as defined in the Gambling Ordinance, should be assessed on its own merits. This view is supported by legal advisers of the Office of Members of the Legislative Council. However, in order to remove the doubt that the proposed section 29(1) would affect contracts entered into before the enactment of this Bill, the Administration will propose an amendment to clarify this point at the Committee stage.

In response to the question of extending the scope of exemption to OTC products, advisers, subsidiaries, holding companies and associated companies, the Administration has explained that it is not appropriate to extend the scope of the Bill to widely. As OTC products have never been the intended ambit of this exercise, it would be necessary to examine such products and their market carefully. Moreover, subsidiaries and other companies are within an unregulated sector in this field of activities. The Administration has therefore proposed that further extension of the scope of exemption should be the subject of a separate review. The review will commence following the enactment of the Bill and will be completed in about three to six months' time.

Another point discussed by the Committee is the United Kingdom Gaming Act 1710. The Act, as applied to Hong Kong, provides among other things that securities of every kind given where the consideration is money won by gaming is void. The Committee and the Law Society of Hong Kong have suggested that the opportunity should be taken to disapply the Gaming Act 1710. The Administration has explained that this should be examined in the wider context of disapplying the United Kingdom statutes which are applicable to Hong Kong by various legislative means. In view of the constitutional issues that might be involved, its implications on the gambling policy generally and since there is no pressing need to disapply this particular Act, the Committee has decided not to pursue its disapplication at this stage.

The Committee was faced with two alternative courses of action, that is, either to proceed with the Bill now leaving the remaining issues to be considered in a review, or to await the result of the review before finalizing the Bill. However, in view of the complexity of this matter and the urgent need to clarify the position of the three categories of contracts included in the exemption provision, the Committee, after careful deliberation, has accepted the

1188 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

Administration's proposal and agreed that the Bill should proceed whilst the separate review should be monitored by the appropriate Legislative Council Panel.

With these remarks, Mr President, I support the Bill.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, I am most grateful to the Honourable LAU Wah-sum and the Bills Committee for their careful scrutiny of the Bill. The suggestions for improvements are indeed very useful.

As I have explained when I introduced the Bill into this Council in October 1992, the exercise seeks to disapply the Gambling Ordinance to several categories of contracts for differences in order to address market practitioners' concern that the prevailing uncertainties about the status of these contracts had become an obstacle for market development in areas such as the cash settled currency warrants and commodity warrants. The Administration believes that the Bill will help to remove uncertainties in certain circumstances as Mr LAU mentioned in his speech. Mr LAU has already summarized succinctly the deliberation of the Bills Committee and I will try not to be repetitive. However, I would take this opportunity to respond to a few points raised by Mr LAU.

On the question whether the exclusion of certain contracts from the application of the Gambling Ordinance means that other contracts for differences will be contrued as "gambling", our legal advice has confirmed in the negative. I should reiterate that the exercise is intended to disapply the Gambling Ordinance to certain financial instruments but not for catching any specific contracts under the Ordinance.

Having said that, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, I will move a Committee stage amendment to ensure that the wording used in the Bill will state the intention of the exercise in clearer terms.

Questions were also raised regarding the scope of disapplication being too restrictive.

I have put to the Bills Committee that the objective of the exercise is not to grant a blanket exemption to all classes of contracts traded under all circumstances. The Government must balance initiatives for market development with the need to maintain an orderly market and adequate protection to investors. Nevertheless, after considering views expressed by Members of the Committee and the professional bodies, we have agreed to extend the exemption to instruments traded on certain overseas exchanges and options markets through amendments which I will move at the Committee stage.

Other suggestions to further widen the scope of exemption fall outside our legislative intent for this present Bill and require very careful consideration. In order not to hold up this Bill, it was decided to leave these suggestions to a

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1189

separate review and I am very grateful for the Bills Committee's agreement to allow enactment of the Bill to go ahead and subject the question of the scope of exemption to a separate review. I am pleased to inform this Council that together with the Securities and Futures Commission, we have commenced work on the review and we aim at concluding the review in six months' time after the enactment of this Bill. The Administration will then take a view on whether any extension of the scope of exemption from the Gambling Ordinance should be made.

The third aspect raised related to the United Kingdom Gaming Act 1910. The Honourable LAU Wah-sum has explained the position very clearly and I do not intend to repeat the arguments involved.

Apart from the above, the Committee had also agreed to several minor amendments, mainly technical in nature, which will help to clarify the scope of the Bill.

Mr President, with these remarks, I recommend the Bill to Members.

Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.

Bill read the Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).

Committee stage of Bill

Council went into Committee.

GAMBLING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992

Clauses 1 and 2 were agreed to.

Clause 3

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr Chairman, I move that the clause specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.

Clause 3(a) of the Bill is amended to extend the scope of exemption from the Gambling Ordinance to instruments listed in specific stock exchanges and options markets outside Hong Kong to be stipulated in a schedule to be added to the ordinance. In drawing up the lists of exchanges and options markets, references have been made to similar lists in the Financial Resources Rules promulgated for dealers and advisers registered under the Securities Ordinance and Commodities Trading Ordinance and which will come into effect on

1190 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

1 December 1993. The Financial Secretary is empowered to amend this new schedule through clause 3(e).

Clause 3(b) puts it beyond doubt that contracts for differences entered into by dealers under the Commodities Trading Ordinance or Securities Ordinance are covered by the proposed exemption whether the dealers do so as principal or as agent.

Clause 3(c) express in clearer terms the scope of the Bill. In essence, the amendment points to the fact that in the absence of the Bill, the contracts being exempted may or may not be regarded as gambling under the ordinance. In other words, the Bill does not affect those contracts not covered by this exercise and the mere fact that such contract does not fall within the scope of exemption provided for in the Bill shall not automatically render it as gambling.

Clause 3(d) updates the Bill since the Secretary for Monetary Affairs had been renamed as the Secretary for Financial Services since 1 April 1993.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move.

Proposed amendment

Clause 3

That clause 3 be amended —

(a) in the proposed section 29(1), by deleting everything before paragraph (b) and substituting -

"(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Ordinance shall not apply to any contract for differences which is -

(a) listed on the Unified Exchange or on any stock market specified in Part I of the Schedule or traded on any options market specified in Part II of the Schedule;".

(b) in the proposed section 29(1)(c), by adding ", whether as principal or agent," after "business".

(c) in the proposed section 29(1), by deleting everything after paragraph (c) and substituting -

"and which may, but for this subsection, be subject to this Ordinance.".

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1191

(d) in the proposed section 29(2), by deleting "Secretary for Monetary Affairs" and substituting "Secretary for Financial Services".

(e) in the proposed section 29, by adding -

"(3) The Financial Secretary may from time to time, by notice in the Gazette, amend the Schedule.".

Question on the amendment proposed, put and agreed to.

Question on clause 3, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to.

New clause 4 Schedule added

Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr Chairman, I move that the new clause 4 as set out on the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time.

Clause 4 is a consequential addition due to the relaxation of the scope of exemption to instruments listed on stock exchanges or traded in options markets outside Hong Kong. It introduces a schedule to the ordinance which sets out the exchanges and markets recognized for this purpose.

Mr Chairman, I beg to move.

Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to. Clause read the Second time.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 4 be added to the Bill.

Proposed addition

New clause 4

That the Bill be amended, by adding —

"4. Schedule added

The following is added -

1192 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 "SCHEDULE [s. 29]

PART I

STOCK MARKETS

American Stock Exchange

Amsterdam Stock Exchange

Australian Stock Exchange

Brussels Stock Exchange

Copenhagen Stock Exchange

Frankfurt Stock Exchange

Helsinki Stock Exchange

Korea Stock Exchange

Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange

London Stock Exchange

Luxembourg Stock Exchange

Madrid Stock Exchange

Makati Stock Exchange

Manila Stock Exchange

Milan Stock Exchange

Montreal Stock Exchange

Nagoya Stock Exchange

New York Stock Exchange

New Zealand Stock Exchange

Osaka Securities Exchange

Oslo Stock Exchange

Paris Bourse

Securities Exchange of Thailand

Stock Exchange of Singapore

Stockholm Stock Exchange

Tokyo Stock Exchange

Toronto Stock Exchange

Vienna Stock Exchange

Zurich Stock Exchange

PART II

OPTIONS MARKETS

Australian Options Market

Chicago Board of Options Exchange

Chicago Board of Trade

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

Commodity Exchange, Inc. (New York)

DTB Deutsche Terminborse

European Options Exchange (Amsterdam)

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1193

London International Financial Futures Exchange

London Metal Exchange

Marche a Terme International de France

Marche des Options Negociables de Paris

New York Cotton Exchange, Inc.

New York Futures Exchange

New York Mercantile Exchange

New Zealand Futures and Options Exchange

Osaka Securities Exchange

Philadelphia Stock Exchange

Singapore International Monetary Exchange

Stockholm Options Market

Swiss Options and Financial Futures Exchange AG

Sydney Futures Exchange, Ltd

Tokyo Grain Exchange

Tokyo International Financial Futures Exchange

Tokyo Stock Exchange

Toronto Futures Exchange".".

Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to. Council then resumed.

Third Reading of Bill

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the

GAMBLING (AMENDMENT) BILL 1992

had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bill. Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Members' motions

PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to time limits on speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 29 November. Movers of the first two motions under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance and the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance respectively will have five minutes for their speeches including their replies; other Members will have three minutes for their speeches. Movers of the next two motions, that is the motions on "Single Parent Family" and "Sewage Charging Policy" will have 15 minutes for their

1194 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

speeches including their replies and another five minutes to reply to proposed amendments; other Members, including movers of amendments, will have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech.

INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

MR JAMES TO moved the following motion:

"That in relation to the Civil Aviation (Aircraft Noise) (Limitation on Landing or Taking Off of Aircraft) (Amendment) Notice 1993 published as Legal Notice No. 421 of 1993 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 3 November 1993, the period referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance for amending subsidiary legislation be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance until 15 December 1993."

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper that in relation to the Civil Aviation (Aircraft Noise) (Limitation on Landing or Taking Off of Aircraft) (Amendment) Notice 1993 laid on the table of this Council on 3 November 1993, the period for amending subsidiary legislation be extended to 15 December 1993. The purpose of making this technical amendment is to allow Members to have more time to consider the subsidiary legislation in question and to reserve the right of making amendments.

Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

MRS SELINA CHOW moved the following motion:

"That for the purposes of enquiring into the circumstances surrounding the termination of the employment of Mr Alex TSUI Ka-kit, Senior Assistant Director holding the post of Deputy Director Operations, Independent Commission Against Corruption, on 10 November 1993, the Legislative Council Panel on Security be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance."

MRS SELINA CHOW: Mr President, I rise to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The sudden and unexplained dismissal of Mr Alex TSUI, Deputy Director of Operations of ICAC, under section 8(2) of the Independent Commission

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1195

Against Corruption Ordinance, has come as a shock to the public as well as to Legislative Council Members. It has caused much public concern and speculation.

Many Members are of the view that a public explanation of this case is necessary and important. It would dispel any speculation about the case, satisfy public accountability and preserve public confidence in the ICAC. Unfortunately, the Commissioner of ICAC has declined to disclose any details on this case on grounds that it is a long standing policy of the public service not to comment on individual cases involving personnel matters. The Governor has also refused Members' request to depart from this general policy and to give a public explanation of the case.

The legislation enacted in 1974 does not excuse the ICAC from public accountability. The public has the right to know sufficiently of the circumstances to be satisfied that the power under section 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance has been fairly and properly exercised in this case. The information provided so far is so scanty that it is not possible to tell whether the decision has been right or wrong, fair or unfair.

While there is no assumption of fault, we do need more information to enable this Council to decide how to proceed further with the case. The Legislative Council Panel on Security has therefore suggested to hear from Mr Alex TSUI.

Members of the Panel feel that Mr TSUI should be protected in giving information to the Panel on his case. For this purpose, it is necessary to lawfully order him to attend the Panel under section 9 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. The Commissioner of ICAC should also be given the opportunity to appear before the Panel in the same manner. It is for this purpose that I am moving this motion, so as to seek a resolution of this Council to authorize the Legislative Council Panel on Security to exercise the power under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Members are fully conscious of the case and the care and responsibility we must exercise in using this power. We are committed to a step-by-step approach, and will report back to this Council as soon as Members acquire enough information to make a meaningful recommendation on follow-up action on this case.

Question on the motion proposed.

CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, the motion which is laid before us today calls into question the balance that needs to be struck within our system of government between the proper role of the Legislature and the proper role of the Executive in the administration of the public service. The Legislature has an essential role in law-making, in the voting of funds and in the monitoring of

1196 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

public expenditure. The Executive should of course be accountable to the Legislature. But it cannot be right, in my view, that the Legislature should require the Executive to explain decisions affecting the appointment, discipline and removal of individual officers.

When the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was established in 1974, corruption was endemic in Hong Kong public life and particularly in the Police Force. It was therefore considered essential to establish an entirely independent force of dedicated men and women and to endow them with exceptional powers of investigation. The Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance emphasizes the independence of the Commission by making its Commissioner directly responsible to the Governor and to him alone.

All the disciplined services rely for their effectiveness on the quality and integrity of their officers, but the whole purpose of the ICAC would be subverted if the reliability of any of its officers becomes suspect. The standards of conduct imposed upon these officers are most rigorous and the consequences of any departure from those standards may include summary dismissal without assigning any reason. When officers join the ICAC they are made fully aware of the standards expected of them and of the possible consequences if they conduct themselves in a way which causes the Commissioner to lose confidence in their integrity or which may prejudice the operations of the Commission. In the lifetime of the Commission the power of summary dismissal has been exercised on 58 occasions and officers can be in no doubt that the power will be exercised if the Commissioner thinks necessary. All these decisions have been taken extremely seriously by the Commissioner.

When moving the Second Reading of the ICAC Bill in 1974, the then Colonial Secretary (Denys ROBERTS) acknowledged that the power vested in the Commissioner to terminate an officer's services without giving any reason runs contrary to the well established rules which govern the public service and which provide that an officer can only be discharged after formal disciplinary proceedings but went on to say:

"that officers of the Commission must be treated differently. The Commissioner must be able, if there is any suspicion of the loyalty or the integrity of an officer, or any doubts as to his energy and efficiency, to remove him from the Commission immediately."

The Administration believes that those words remain as true today as 20 years ago and that the Commissioner must not be inhibited from terminating the appointment of an officer in whom he has lost confidence.

I am however concerned that the responsibility for exercising the power of dismissal places a heavy burden on the shoulders of the Commissioner which it is perhaps unfair to expect one person alone to bear. We therefore propose to

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1197

review the disciplinary provisions and procedures governing ICAC staff. In this context we will consider the need for additional safeguards.

If this motion is passed, then I shall have to consider in consultation with the Commissioner whether the public interest requires that some information on Mr TSUI's case should be withheld from the Security Panel. In those circumstances, Mr President, I should be seeking urgent guidance from you on how a claim of public interest immunity should be determined.

If it is concluded that the withholding of information is essential for the proper functioning of the ICAC then the effect of this motion will be to permit Mr TSUI under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to make unsubstantiated allegations against other members of the ICAC which the Commissioner cannot, consistent with the wider public interest, explain or rebut.

When Lord MacLEHOSE as Governor proposed the establishment of the ICAC in his address to this Council in October 1973 he said:

"To combat corruption, good laws and good organization are essential, but I put my trust principally in the services of sound men."

Mr President, to reflect changing times one should perhaps add "and women". The battle against corruption is a continuing one in which we depend upon the services of the men and women of the ICAC. There must be no reason to doubt their soundness.

We believe in accountable government but we cannot agree to the Legislature and its Panels exercising the judicial functions of a court to determine a matter which is clearly within the responsibilities of the Executive.

Mr President, with these remarks, I oppose the motion.

MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, I endorse what the Chief Secretary has just said.

My first concern about this motion relates to the structure of government which has become known as the parliamentary system. It owes its origins to the Westminster Parliament and is a system of separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial junctions with checks and balances between them. This system will be preserved in Hong Kong under the Basic Law.

Under our system of government, the question of the disciplining of an individual public servant is a matter for the executive. This Council, the legislative arm, can and should lay down the executive's powers in such matters, monitor in a general way the exercise of these powers and, for example, debate the role and powers of the ICAC.

1198 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

But what this Council should not do is to substitute its own judgement in an individual case for that of the executive. To do so is to usurp the separation and balance of powers between the arms of government.

Thus, the proposed motion goes to the heart of the Legislative Council/Government relationship and the overall role of the Legislative Council. I recognize the Council's accountability to the people of Hong Kong and its legitimate right to question and monitor the Government's performance. I do not accept this Council second-guessing the Government in dealing with issues relating to specific individuals.

My second concern relates to the issue of privacy. In all matters of discipline in government, particularly those which lead to the termination of the appointment of an officer no matter how senior, disclosure is given careful consideration. An officer's contract is a private matter between him and his employer as indeed are any disciplinary proceedings concerning the officer. To disclose information concerning disciplinary proceedings may amount to interference with the officer's privacy.

In the particular case behind this motion, the decision by the Commissioner would only have been taken after the most careful consideration.

If the Commissioner is summoned to appear before Members of this Council, he will surely be forced to seek immunity from answering on the grounds that ICAC operations or procedures would be prejudiced if he did. Thus nothing will be achieved in holding the proposed hearing, and it is likely that the individual concerned may well introduce issues unrelated to the specifics which led to his dismissal.

Thirdly, other checks exist without the need for action by this Council. We must remember that both the Advisory Committee on Corruption and the Operations Review Committee are independent overseers of the Commissioner's powers. These "checks and balances" committees will no doubt be advised of the background to the dismissal.

The individual concerned has indicated that he is contemplating legal action against the ICAC. That is even more reason not to proceed with a Legislative Council hearing.

In conclusion, Mr President, many matters will remain as unresolved as are unresolved now. Far from clearing the air, as some Members may suggest, we will end up muddying the waters even more.

The buzzer sounded a continuous beep.

With these words, I oppose the motion, and I urge other Members to reconsider and vote against the motion.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1199 PRESIDENT: Mr BARROW, you have to discontinue.

MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, we are today on the horns of a dilemma. We are trying to decide whether the Commissioner of an organization set up 20 years ago to rid Hong Kong of endemic and very serious corruption which was eating at the heart of our society and which has done a magnificent job for us, should be required to come before us and be questioned, as closely as we wish to question on the reasons for his dismissal of his immediate subordinate, Alex TSUI. The law gives the Commissioner the absolute right of dismissal and does not require him to tell Mr TSUI why he was dismissed from the second most important job in the ICAC. The law also allows this Council to require Mr de SPEVILLE and Mr TSUI to appear before it and to have questions put to them. The law further provides that Mr de SPEVILLE can refuse to provide the information we seek. Therein lies the dilemma. Which legal right shall prevail, the right for this Council to know or the right of the Commissioner, and the Governor, to remain silent?

Before we set off down the path of righteous indignation we must be very sure what we seek to do and why we wish to do it. I would not wish to destroy the authority vested at present in the Commissioner and the Governor, even if we were able to do so, without being very sure of the long-term consequences. I do not, for example, think there is a crisis of confidence nor, indeed, a crisis of any kind resulting from Mr TSUI's dismissal. I have enough confidence in the integrity of the officials concerned to be sure that the most careful assessment of Mr TSUI's record of performance and personal qualities was carried out prior to his dismissal and probably over a period of time. I believe that the reasons for dismissal must therefore have been sound.

Mr TSUI has stated that he does not know why he was dismissed and has apparently spoken about some form of harassment. He does not mind detailed investigation by this Council. I have listened to many opinions which assert that Mr TSUI had an unacceptable connection with triads and/or triad members. These are questions that can be put to Mr TSUI and I imagine he would deny them.

The need for the highest level of personal integrity in all ICAC personnel is very clear. The health of our society depends on it. It is also the case that although substantial circumstantial evidence may be adduced to provide a damning picture of a person's dangerous liaisons, there might not be enough to provide a complete case in law. In such circumstances, the public interests might demand that the person be relieved of his responsibilities without cause being shown. Mr TSUI might be in that category.

I want to seek information and clarification but I do not want to take part in a witchhunt. I have every confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the ICAC.

1200 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

I therefore support the motion but do not agree that any further action should be considered to modify the authority of the Commissioner to dismiss subordinate staff without giving a reason.

Finally, Mr President, I do make the point that the Executive Council is answerable to the Legislative Council. With these words, Mr President, I support the motion.

MR VINCENT CHENG: Mr President, although this motion is well intended, I have to oppose it for the following reasons.

First, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has acted entirely within the power given to it by this Council as contained in the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance. If we are not satisfied with the power enjoyed by the ICAC Commissioner under section 5(2) and section 8(2), we should examine the policy and seek to change the law rather than circumventing it.

Secondly, if Mr TSUI feels that he is wrongfully dismissed, he could challenge the Commissioner's decision in court, which would be a much more appropriate forum.

Thirdly, the Security Panel is not a court, nor is it equipped to act as such. We have no expertise to determine whether the allegations and counter allegations which may be put forward by either party are true or false. In the end, we would most likely end up receiving contradicting statements which can never be verified. What purpose could such hearings achieve other than satisfying our own curiosity? This would not be fair to Mr TSUI, the ICAC and the public.

Mr President, what we are seeking today is a high privilege granted by 6 million people to the 60 people of this Chamber. This is a great honour and trust which should not be used lightly. The dismissal of one public officer does not justify such action. I do not see how we can achieve the stated objectives through such enquiries, however well intended. I therefore oppose the motion.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, our debate on this ordinance today has aroused public concern across the territory and is an indication that Members of the Legislative Council are in a position to monitor the operation of the Government for the purpose of ensuring fairness and justice in Hong Kong. However, we should realize that the duties and powers of Legislative Council Members are mainly in Law-making, and that the execution of judicial duties should be left to other government departments. We should be fully aware of this and should not intervene in this case because it is a matter of policy on handling this case.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1201

Undeniably, over the past 19 years since its inception, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has earned the support of the majority of the Hong Kong community. Yet the problems that have surfaced involve not only the ICAC. For example, we may find that many of the ordinances, such as the Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance and the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance and so on, are relics of colonialism which have to be reviewed. Of course, as Members of the Legislative Council, if we are conscientious and confident in making the whole Hong Kong Government operate fairly and equitably with adequate transparency, then we should make hay while the sun shines by coming forward with amendment motions in the interest of the public whenever we discover anything wrong with the ordinances.

The case at issue is undeniably a challenge to, and a manifestation of, the special powers vested with the ICAC under the relevant ordinance. We find that time has changed after 19 Years. Our Bill of Rights Ordinance has been passed, and Hong Kong is moving towards the transfer of sovereignty in 1997 at a more democratic pace. No matter what, on the issue of whether the ordinance concerning the ICAC should be reviewed, we have to realize that the crux of the problem is that today, after a lapse of 19 years, we must not place our emphasis merely on the need and importance of entrusting the ICAC with the special powers as before. Therefore, I think whether the motion on this ordinance should be carried is a side issue. The most important thing is that we should seek to achieve an objective, that is, instead of trying to find out who is to blame in this specific case, we should take follow-up actions to strive for future fairness and justice or to move amendments. This is our foremost objective.

I firmly believe that although it is the usual practice of government departments to side with each other, if there are loopholes for which amendments are required, other departments will not object to doing so. Therefore, Mr President, though being a Members of the panel, I shall abstain from voting.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, since its establishment, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has built up a positive and favourable image. In the 1970s, the ICAC was regarded as an organization which would "fight the tigers and swat the flies". In the eyes of some Hong Kong people, the ICAC is "Pao Kung reincarnated" (an ancient Chinese judge renowned for his integrity and impartiality). Some people even went to the ICAC for assistance in all sorts of trivial matters.

The dismissal of Mr Alex TSUI is basically an employer-employee dispute and this Council should not intervene by invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. But I think it is worth our while to take such a step for the following four reasons:

1202 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

1. The sudden dismissal of Mr TSUI has been agreed to and supported by the Commissioner of the ICAC. However, on another occasion, he said that the dismissal of TSUI was a loss to the ICAC. When he was asked to give a full account of the incident, he was tight-lipped.

2. Mr TSUI was the most senior Chinese officer in the ICAC.

3. Mr TSUI has made severe accusations against the ICAC.

4. It was recently reported that the ICAC would take over part of the duties of the Special Branch of the Police Force.

These events have made the dismissal of TSUI a complicated and worrying incident. What are we worrying about? First, the ICAC is an independent organization which has its own internal policies. In other words, it operates independently from the Government. Apart from having an independent establishment, the ICAC has its own procedures in the promotion and demotion of its staff which are different from those applied in the Civil Service. I think that such a difference may give rise to dictatorship.

Secondly, in view of the four points mentioned above plus the fact that the ICAC is a law-enforcing organization like the police, if it is further given part of the powers of the Special Branch, people cannot help but think that the ICAC will turn into a sensitive department. It has aroused the fear that the ICAC will gradually become a secret service, thus threatening the safety of individual citizens.

Thirdly, Mr de SPEVILLE, the Commissioner of the ICAC, has remained silent to the accusations levelled at him concerning the dismissal of MR TSUI. This will indeed shatter the credible image of the ICAC that has been built up through all these years. The internal operation of the ICAC has always been kept highly confidential, giving an impression of mystery. If the credibility of the ICAC is weakened, the public will perhaps entertain unnecessary suspicions and worries about the ICAC.

In view of the above, I think that it is appropriate for us to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. In so doing, I hope that the following three purposes can be achieved: First, we are not going to judge who is right and who is wrong in this incident. Second, actions should be taken to clarify the incident and to dispel the public's worries concerning the operation of the ICAC in order to maintain the ICAC's credibility. Third, this Council may take this opportunity to continue reviewing legislation relating to the ICAC so as to enhance its operational transparency and to introduce a counterbalancing mechanism in view of the fact that the ICAC is accountable only to the Governor. Actions in this direction are urgently needed and have to be taken.

With these remarks, I support the motion.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1203

MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, I speak to support Mrs Selina CHOW's motion to authorize the Security Panel under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to call a hearing and summon witnesses to answer questions relating to Mr Alex TSUI's case. Mr President, Mr Alex TSUI's case has already sparked extensive concern and anxiety in the community. For this reason, contrary to what the Chief Secretary said just now, it is no longer just an incident concerning the dismissal of an ICAC officer. The Governor pointed out in his letter dated 18 November 1993 to Mrs Elsie TU, the chairlady of the House Committee, that the Government subscribes to the principle that the interests of departments and individual officers concerned be upheld and, therefore, it would not divulge the details of internal personnel matters. Yet, as Mr Alex TSUI has already stated that he does not mind attending the Security Panel to discuss openly the whole matter concerning his dismissal, the Government's worries can be reduced by half. The question is whether the ICAC has any hidden secret. Mr President, I think the Government should at least tell members of the public how seriously the interests of the ICAC will be prejudiced if it explains the matter to the Legislative Council. I feel very disappointed that the Chief Secretary did not account for this point just now.

In addition, Mr President, the Governor also mentioned in the letter that the Commissioner of the ICAC is empowered under section 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance to dismiss an officer without having to give any reason. The point is that he does not necessarily have to invoke such power, especially at the present moment in view of the extraordinary matter before us. It is for this reason we urge the Government to give us an explanation.

Mr President, I support the motion because I cannot accept the Governor's assertion that he need not explain the matter to the Legislative Council. This does not seem to be the Governor's usual style because he often says that he is accountable to the Legislative Council. In this connection, I am of the view that the Security Panel should, if necessary, consider summoning the Governor to give evidence in the hearings.

Mr President, this is a serious matter because it involves such sensitive issues as racial discrimination and sexual harassment by a senior officer against his juniors. My impression is that these serious allegations have not been properly handled. Given such perplexing problems and a government seeing no need to be accountable to the public, we have no alternative but to exercise the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to, as far as practicable, grasp such a complicated situation. We are not, as the Chief Secretary said, exercising the judicial functions of a court but, in fact, intend to urge the Government through this means to give a positive response and face up to these entangled problems.

With these remarks, I support the motion.

1204 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have served as long as 11 years on different advisory committees under the ICAC since early 1983. Where Mr Alex TSUI's case is concerned, I know no more than any other people except that I know the parties concerned very well. Therefore I believe I have no material interest in this case.

I have great sympathy for the plight of Mr TSUI. This is no empty talk. I did throw my weight behind the House Committee's decision to write a letter to the Governor to seek the truth. I also telephoned the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Corruption and the Commissioner, requesting a meeting as soon as possible and an account of the incident. In other words, I have been exploring all the existing monitoring channels with my best efforts to find out the truth. And I strongly disapprove in this case of exercising powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

Just like many non-affiliated Members, I think that as a lawmaking body, this Council should respect laws it has passed irrespective of public opinion, provided that the government officials concerned have acted completely in accordance with the law. This is then a true manifestation of the rule of law. The law may have conferred too great a power on the Commissioner of the ICAC who is accountable only to the Governor. For this reason, I agree that the existing legislation should be reviewed, with a view to introducing more stringent controls on the Commissioner's powers. Yet I do not think we should take to the "back door", that is, exercising our powers and privileges to conduct a "political interrogation" in order to achieve a short-sighted objective, that is, to come to the so-called "more satisfactory political conclusion".

On the basis of the rule of law, the Legislative Council should not, and practically cannot, assume a dual role of functioning both as the legislature and the judiciary. I am afraid this "public hearing" might smear the case and end up serving no purpose at all.

I do not believe Members who support this motion do not have the slightest doubts about the foreseeable outcome. If they do have doubts, they should then ask, hand on heart, whether or not the powers conferred on this Council be wielded to protect Mr TSUI from the consequences of making accusations against ICAC. Should Mr TSUI's accusations be well founded, then the public should have the right to know the true picture and this case should be made known outside this Chamber.

I felt that the remarks so far made by Mr TSUI in public are some unsubstantiated allegations short of prima facie evidence to support the request that he be granted immunity so that he can speak his mind freely.

The chances of any government department, once having been subject to a public trial by the Legislative Council, clearing its name and restoring its credibility to the public are minimal. The reason is so simple that any citizen will understand. Now the Legislative Council is already a monitoring body. To

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1205

invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, legislators affiliated with political parties on the Council could enhance their appeal and Mr TSUI, with immunity, could attack the ICAC mercilessly without having to offer any evidence. The media would then have a dream story, stirring up a furore. The public, on their part, would have their curiosity satisfied. They are all winners with the ICAC being the sole loser. Are these in public interests? Who will dare to come forward, in such political atmosphere, and say a few fair words for ICAC?

I believe that it is impossible for me to revert the fate and I think this motion would be carried. But I do appeal to Honourable Members to give careful consideration to the idea that Mr TSUI should give evidence behind closed doors, in order to ensure that the reputation of the ICAC is not damaged inadvertently, as well as to forestall any undesirable consequences that may be brought about by a misuse of powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

With these remarks, Mr President, I oppose the motion.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, after hearing the speeches made by Mrs Selina CHOW, Miss Emily LAU and Mr Frederick FUNG, I absolutely agree to all their views.

There is only one principle for the invocation of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, that is to safeguard public interests. This time, the incident has two aspects that concern public interests:

Firstly, whether the Independent Commission Against Corruption's (ICAC's) effective operation would be affected by its credibility as well as the public's confidence in it.

Secondly, after weighing the situation, I think that this ordinance should be invoked in order to maintain the ICAC's credibility and the public's confidence.

I would like to respond to the comments made by some Members, including the Chief Secretary, just now. Mr CHIM Pui-chung and Mr Eric LI have said that if the Legislative Council invokes this ordinance, it would mean that the Council has assumed the role of a court. I hope that we will not be confused by such a statement. A court's role is to determine and judge the rights and wrongs. However, the Legislative Council Panel on Security is not to determine the rights and wrongs or who is right and who is wrong. The Legislative Council has a very important monitoring role to play. It has to get an in-depth understanding of matters involving public interests so as to query the Government and make amendments to the relevant legislation later.

1206 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

If we look at the contents of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, we will know that the power conferred by the ordinance is tremendous. At present, the court cannot force anyone to disclose any self-incriminating facts. For example, if a person has killed someone, the court cannot force him to admit that he has done so. However, if the Legislative Council asks him to give evidence, theoretically, he has to confess his crime because the ordinance protects him from any prosecution arising from the evidence he gives. The Legislative Council has supreme power which enables it to know the truth and represent public interests.

Just now, several Members, including the Chief Secretary, have said that if we take such an action, it would mean that only Mr Alex TSUI can speak out at the hearing while the ICAC would seem to be lip-sealed without being able to respond. Let us not have such a preconceived idea at this stage. I learnt from the newspapers that the ICAC is considering whether to attend the hearing or not. Mr Eric LI has said a moment ago that Mr Alex TSUI's allegations are all "accusatory" and if we take such an action, it would be a public trial. I would like to ask Mr LI: If you know some inside stories, are you willing to disclose the facts at all tremendous risks including imprisonment? If you would do so, I have to congratulate you. However, if someone is unwilling to do so, and the Legislative Council wants to know the truth, I really think that protection has to be offered to him.

Moreover, some Members have just said that there are a lot of rumours about the ICAC. It seems that such an action is taken purely to satisfy curiosity. If that is your intention, please do not come because I feel that your intention is not right. I think that the invocation of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance is not to satisfy curiosity but for the sake of public interests.

The UDHK fully support the motion.

DR SAMUEL WONG: Mr President, the stated purpose of this resolution is to "clear the air" concerning the dismissal of Mr Alex TSUI from the ICAC. While the intention is good, the method is flawed.

The Commissioner of ICAC has refused to provide information surrounding Mr TSUI's dismissal to the Security Panel. The law, as it stands, rightly or wrongly, says he has the power to do so.

The Commissioner is subject to the direction or control of the Governor. The Governor has also declined to divulge the reasons for the dismissal. The present question is: Can the stated purpose of this resolution be achieved by invoking the powers under section 9(1) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance? The short answer is "no".

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1207

There is no reason to suppose that the Commissioner or the Governor will change their previously adopted position. In this case, the Security Panel will hear only one side of the story, that of Mr TSUI. This will not "clear the air" but will cast further suspicion and create greater speculation. Even if the Commissioner and the Governor were to decide to respond fully to what Mr TSUI might say on a range of issues not confined to the circumstances surrounding his dismissal, the Security Panel would be faced with allegations and counter allegations which it would not be in a position to resolve. Thus, far from "clearing the air", the process will merely muddy the waters.

The Security Panel is not a court of law. It is not equipped to elicit evidence by a process of examination, cross-examination and re-examination, as in a court of law. It is an inefficient and inappropriate forum to embark upon a fact-finding mission. This is the function of the courts to which Mr TSUI has reportedly indicated he may resort. Any grievances of wrongful dismissal should rightly be aired in that forum.

That said, it is right that the Legislative Council should examine the legislative framework of the ICAC to decide whether provisions enacted 20 years ago have become outdated and whether proper accountability should be achieved while preserving the Commission's operational integrity and efficiency when discharging its undoubtedly important function. That question has been brought to light because of Mr TSUI's dismissal, but it is capable of being considered and debated as a separate issue without it being complicated by the facts of any particular case.

In short, this Council should not embark upon a fact-finding mission which it is ill equipped to conduct and which is likely to produce the opposite result to that intended. I oppose the resolution, and my colleague, the Honourable Simon IP, associates himself with my view.

MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, Meeting Point supports the motion that the Legislative Council Panel on Security be authorized under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to enquire into the issues surrounding the termination of the employment of Mr Alex TSUI Ka-kit, Deputy Director/Operations of the Independent Commission Against Corruption which occurred some time ago.

Meeting Point supports the invocation the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance on two grounds. Firstly, Mr Alex TSUI was dismissed on 10 November 1993. After being released, the news became a hot topic among colleagues in this Council and members of the public. Mr Alex TSUI was the most senior Chinese officer in the ICAC. Prior to his dismissal, he fired a broadside at his superior Mr J E BUCKLE, Director/Operations. Whether his denouncement is justified is, indeed, a matter which the ICAC has to clarify. Furthermore, Mr Alex TSUI also stressed on a number of occasions that his dismissal was unreasonable and that he was willing to attend Legislative

1208 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

Council meetings to tell the inside story of the incident and talk about the possible existence of problems in the internal operation of the ICAC which involve public interests. According to the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance, the Commissioner of ICAC has the power to dismiss an ICAC officer without giving any reason. What is more, the Commissioner is responsible to the Governor alone in the execution of his duties. Although the ICAC Ordinance was enacted to meet certain needs in 1974, the ICAC has already won public trust after a lapse of 20 years, and with the continuing development of our society, it is natural that there is a growing demand for public monitoring of its work.

The Legislative Council Panel on Security has held a special meeting on issues surrounding Mr Alex TSUI's dismissal but the Commissioner of ICAC refused to disclose any information. The fact that the officer concerned did not breathe a single word about the dismissal has increased doubts among members of the public. Is the power of the Commissioner of the ICAC too great? Are there any internal problems in the ICAC? Will these problems affect ICAC's effective execution of duties? Given the present development of the incident, we think it is no longer merely an internal issue concerning the dismissal of an individual officer of the ICAC. The incident has aroused public concern and directly affected the ICAC's public image. In order to dispel public doubts, we think there is a need for the persons concerned, including Mr Alex TSUI and the Commissioner of ICAC, to be offered an opportunity to explain issues surrounding the dismissal.

According to the existing legislation, members of the public invited by a Legislative Council panel to attend its meeting are not protected by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance for what they say at the meeting. In other words, if the aforesaid Ordinance is not invoked, the persons concerned may not be able to speak their mind freely at the panel meeting for fear of legal liability.

Mr President, the four Members representing Meeting Point in the Legislative Council will support today's motion for the aforesaid reasons.

MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, it is understandable that the public is interested to know the reason or reasons for Mr Alex TSUI's dismissal. We are all naturally curious. It is easy to say that we would like to have more "information" but what we must ask ourselves is: What is the object of the exercise in summoning the ICAC Commissioner and Mr TSUI before this Council? We need to be very clear about this, and clear about how questioning them would help us to achieve that objective.

I have reservation about this Council exercising its powers under the Powers and Privileges Ordinance to provide a forum for the Commissioner and Mr TSUI to put to us the reason or reasons for the dismissal. My concern is that after the event we are unlikely to be any wiser.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1209

Let me elaborate with an example. The reason for, or one of the key reasons for, Mr TSUI's dismissal, according to press reports, was racial discrimination. This allegation is easy to make but hard to prove or disprove. It is difficult for me to see how questioning the Commissioner and Mr TSUI will establish whether racial discrimination was, or was not, the reason for the dismissal.

If our real intention is to review whether the powers which this Council has given to the ICAC Commissioner in section 8(2) is too broad, then I think this Council can debate how the use of that power could be circumscribed without hauling before this Council the Commissioner and Mr TSUI to tell us about the particular circumstances of Mr TSUI's case.

There are dangers in going over the circumstances of a particular case when this Council is not equipped to determine the facts and pass proper judgement. Mr President, I therefore oppose this motion.

MR ROGER LUK (in Cantonese): Mr President, it has been said in the Chinese classics: "Those holding public office should care about the people while those holding no public office should be concerned about their emperor." In this light, the Legislative Council, given its functions of monitoring the executive, has the bounden duty to be concerned about public policies which have a bearing on people's well being, and to take necessary follow up actions.

The incident of the ICAC invoking its statutory power to terminate the employment of Mr Alex TSUI has aroused extensive public concern not only because Mr TSUI was a senior official in the ICAC but also that the incident, shrouded in mystery, has been accompanied by many unconfirmed rumours.

The Security Panel of this Council invited the other day the Commissioner of the ICAC to attend a closed-door meeting and give an account of the whole incident. The Commissioner found it, however, not proper to reveal the true picture. It is regrettable that the panel was unable to find out the truth due to restrictions imposed by the relevant ordinance.

Our debate today is to determine whether the powers conferred by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance should be invoked in order to summon the parties concerned to attend and give evidence at the meetings of the Security Panel with a view to giving a full account to the public. This motion is well intended. But given the circumstances of the case, the result may be that our efforts will be wasted and the investigation backfire.

In the 20 years since the establishment of the ICAC, social trends and values have undergone great changes. The ICAC's existing mode of operation, structure and establishment, and rules governing the employment and dismissal of staff may be unable to keep pace with the developments of our society. Therefore, I welcome the review proposed just now by the Administration on

1210 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 the procedures concerning the disciplinary actions taken against the staff of the ICAC.

Members of this Council always, as a Chinese saying goes, "plan and worry ahead of the people and enjoy the fruits after the people." The move to follow up the case of Mr TSUI in order to ensure that the Commissioner of the ICAC has not abused his power is in itself praiseworthy, but it is unfortunate that in so doing this Council may be blamed for abusing its powers.

Mr President, with these remarks, I oppose the motion.

MS ANNA WU: Mr President, let me state at the outset that I do not support the motion and this is not because that I do not regard as important the circumstances surrounding the termination of Mr TSUI's employment. The questions are: What does this Council wish to know and why does this Council wish to know?

The Commissioner of ICAC has been given statutory power by this Council to terminate the appointment of an officer without assigning any reason therefor.

The allegation of unfair dismissal has been raised in public. The need to shield the Commission from allegations of unfair dismissal is the very reason for granting that extraordinary power. Indeed, any attempt to establish the justification for the dismissal of Mr TSUI would undermine the very use of that statutory power which this Council gave.

The exercise by this Council of its powers to subpoena witnesses and to order production of documents should only be used where matters of public interest are involved.

Public interest by definition relates to matters which are significant and concern the public. I would regard the need to assess the desirability of maintaining that power and the role and accountability of the ICAC to be matters of public interest.

These concerns should however be debated openly and separately and should not be tackled under the highly charged atmosphere of an inquiry as to the circumstances relating to the dismissal of Mr TSUI.

Mr President, I do not object to the use of the powers of the Council to subpoena witnesses or to order the production of documents for the purposes of establishing facts and extracting information. But those powers should only be exercised where there is a reason to know as opposed to a desire to know. This power is not intended to be used to satisfy public curiosity per se.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1211

The Council when considering the use of its powers is obliged to articulate clearly what and why this Council wishes to know. Mr President, in the interest of fairplay, the Council is also obliged to state precisely the issues and matters of inquiry for the benefit of those who become subject to the process whether now or in future.

Finally, Mr President, I have been asked by Mr Andrew WONG to state that he shares my view and my negative vote. Thank you.

MR PETER WONG: Mr President, the rather draconian procedures that have been legislated under Lord MacLEHOSE for the Independent Commission Against Corruption were deemed necessary to combat the cancer within Hong Kong. Rights of persons investigated were more than somewhat restricted whilst those who worked in the Commission itself had their rights sacrificed in the name of expediency to achieve its objects.

Here we have a very senior officer removed from duty without any chance to defend himself. He has been condemned and his reputation lies in tatters. I support this motion to give both sides a chance to explain to the legislature and the public of Hong Kong the circumstances of that dismissal, whilst accepting that there may be good reasons why certain details should not be divulged. I am sure that if there is a willingness on all sides, justice can be done and the public interest can be satisfied.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, I had not intended to actually speak on this particular motion, but I think the matter is of sufficient weight that I should really state clearly the position of the Liberal Party on this.

The Chief Secretary mentioned several matters and two points particularly struck me. The first was that this power, since its inception, has only been applied or used in the case of 58 officers of the Independent Commission Against Corruption who were summarily dismissed without reasons being given. I imagine Mr Alex TSUI is No. 58. And the second matter she referred to really is the accountability of the Government to this Council.

Mr President, as far as the first is concerned — so far as I can remember, and I stand subject to correction — I do not think this Council made any move in seeking the explanation that we are seeking now regarding the case of Mr Alex TSUI. That, in my respectful view, actually underlines that this Council, and indeed the public in Hong Kong, can quite easily accept the exercise of the power under section 8(2) by the Commissioner in limited circumstances. But the trouble is that in the present case we really have fairly unusual circumstances and I think the disturbing factor is that whilst the Government professes to be accountable to the Legislative Council, it has chosen in this instance not to actually give an explanation.

1212 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

Mr President, I need not remind the Chief Secretary that section 8(2) is permissive and is not mandatory. If the Commissioner and the Government choose to remain silent on this matter, then clearly in terms of the powers and position of this Council in order to seek an explanation, the seeking of the power today under the resolution moved by Mrs Selina CHOW is perfectly right and adequate.

As regards the argument against the motion, the one theme that has run through the speeches by some of my colleagues — some of my more liberal minded and democratic colleagues, I hasten to add — is: "What will it achieve? The Commissioner will come and tell us nothing. On that basis, why bother?" I must say it was a shock and a disappointment for me to hear this from Members of this Council.

Mr President, the Liberal Party believes that, in the exceptional circumstances facing us in regard to this case, an explanation should be given and should be given by the Commissioner. The Liberal Party therefore supports the motion.

PRESIDENT: Mrs CHOW, you have 2 minutes 40 seconds.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, I feel very regretful about the remarks made by the Chief Secretary just now. She said the Government should be responsible and accountable to the Legislative Council. But how can that be achieved if the Commissioner of the ICAC refuses to provide any information? The Chief Secretary said the Commissioner had exercised his powers under section 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance on 58 occasions. She, however, did not mention this was the first time the dismissed officer opposed and challenged the decision. What I find most regretful is that the Chief Secretary did not look at this matter with an open mind and pre empt the Legislative Council's vote on this motion by stating that the Government would not make available certain information. The Government shows no respect to this Council and turns a blind eye to public scepticism as a result of this incident. It is also totally not in line with the Governor's oft-quoted principle of being "open, fair and acceptable to people of Hong Kong".

Many of the colleagues who oppose this motion generally hold that the Legislative Council should not poke its nose into an employer-employee dispute. Yet, it should be realized that this is not an ordinary dismissal. The officer dismissed is the most senior local officer in the ICAC, who has been highly regarded by the Commissioner as the potential successor to the top management of the ICAC and in fact, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director a year ago. Mr Alex TSUI has publicly challenged this decision and also levelled a broadside at the top management of the ICAC. However the ICAC did not give any response. The public could make neither head nor tail of the whole matter.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1213

This incident will no doubt undermine public confidence in the ICAC to a certain extent. The Legislative Council will be regarded as burying its head in the sand if it decides not to look into this matter.

Just now Mr Eric LI said that invoking the powers under Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance was not appropriate, like "entering a house through the back door". Yet, he once said with helpless resignation at a House Committee meeting that even he, as a member of the ICAC Advisory Committee on Corruption, was not informed of the details. It seems that he has to go through the "back door" to gain access to more information. Dr Samuel WONG said we would only be told one side of the story because of the position adopted by the Government. I, of course, hope that things will not turn out that way. But who should be held responsible if this is really the case? It must not be this Council. As long as we have carried out our responsibility, we will have a clear conscience.

Question on the motion put.

Voice vote taken.

PRESIDENT: Council will proceed to a division.

PRESIDENT: Would Members please proceed to vote?

PRESIDENT: Are there any queries? If not, the results will now be displayed.

Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr LAU Wah-sum, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Jimmy McGREGOR, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Peter WONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Moses CHENG, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Rev FUNG Chi-wood, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Dr LAM Kui-chun, Dr Conrad LAM, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr TIK Chi yuen, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Dr TANG Siu-tong and Mr Alfred TSO voted for the motion.

The Chief Secretary, the Attorney General, the Financial Secretary, Mr PANG Chun-hoi, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Martin BARROW, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Timothy HA, Mr Eric LI, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr Roger LUK and Ms Anna WU voted against the motion.

1214 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 Mr CHIM Pui-chung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 33 votes in favour of the motion and 14 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.

SINGLE PARENT FAMILY

MR FRED LI moved the following motion:

"That as single parent families in Hong Kong are facing lots of problems in housing and other aspects of livelihood, this Council urges the Government to:

(a) promptly solve the housing problem of single parent families, especially those low-income families which are receiving assistance under the social security scheme;

(b) set up an independent working group as soon as possible to review and look into the measures and services needed by single parent families, so as to explore the feasibility of formulating a long-term comprehensive policy on such families."

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move the motion on single parent families standing in my name in the Order Paper.

I had great difficulty in drafting this speech because I found that single parent families were facing so many problems that I did not know where to begin with. At first, I had the naive thinking, like most people in the community, that the greatest difficulties of single parent families were financial problems. Given that their income was low, as long as their financial problems were solved by giving them more material and financial support, then everything would be well settled. It was not until I got a deeper understanding of their problems and had personal contacts with more such families that I realized their problems were far more than that and long-term poverty, helplessness, hardship and grief were their grave problems.

Social Welfare Department officials have told me that Hong Kong's social welfare services take good care of single parent families. Those with insufficient income can apply for comprehensive social security assistance (CSSA). Those who are homeless can apply for compassionate rehousing. Those with children but nobody to take care of them can use the temporary child care services provided by the Social Welfare Department or voluntary agencies. Domestic helpers are available to help single parents in doing household chores. In short, single parent families can be said to be well served.

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1215

However, after making a further study of the relevant information, I wonder whether the situation is really so. According to the information provided by the Social Welfare Department there are about 35 000 single parent families in Hong Kong, of which 5 000 families subsist on comprehensive social security assistance, accounting for 30% of all CSSA recipient families in Hong Kong. More than half of the 23 000 CSSA recipient children, that is 12 000 of them, are in single parent families. At present, the median family income of single parent families is about $4,900 a month, much lower than the median family income of $11,000 of an average family. The median family income of CSSA recipient single parent families is only $2,325 a month. How can they subsist on such a low level of income?

Those single parent families rehoused in public housing are quite fortunate already. The others who are not so rehoused have yet to pay high housing expenses on top of what is already a very heavy burden of life.

In many cases, low-income single parent families can only afford to live in cubicles in the worst slums, where some single mothers are even often looked down upon by others and subject to the threat of sexual harassment by male co-tenants.

In fact, these are the problems that cannot be ignored. As such, will relevant authorities give serious consideration to the needs of single parent families and render appropriate support to them? Should the Housing Department, for instance, relax the eligibility requirements for single parent families applying for public housing, and handle such applications from individual single parent families with flexibility? For example, a more practical way to help single parent families in solving their housing problems is to raise their income eligibility limit and to treat the requirements for the length of residence in Hong Kong with flexibility.

Of course, single parent families can apply for compassionate rehousing. But once a single mother told me tearfully that she and several children of hers lived in a small cubicle of less than 100 square feet in an old building. Every day, she had to compete with other co-tenants for the use of the toilet and the kitchen. Her children had even no place to do their revision. When she applied to the Social Welfare Department for accommodation on compassionate grounds, a staffer there told her, "You still have a place to live. Your situation is not miserable enough. You are not yet eligible to apply." Do they really have to sleep out in the streets before they would be considered miserable and eligible for compassionate rehousing? This really makes people wonder if there is a set of fair and objective approval criteria for compassionate rehousing.

In the cases that I have come across, low income and housing problem are the greatest difficulties faced by single parent families, especially single mothers. In some cases, the single mothers were evicted from their original accommodations, which remained occupied by their ex-husbands. They went around here and there looking for places to live. Those who were "not eligible"

1216 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

for public housing or compassionate rehousing had to pay high rentals. Those who got rehoused were allocated dilapidated public housing flats in remote areas without even private toilets. Is it not a predicament that a mother and her three children have to leave home every time when they want to go to the toilet? Why has the Housing Department made such mistakes?

At this point in our discussions, it is clear that one of the most basic ways to help single parent families is to solve their housing problem. Without secure accommodations, other problems, such as employment and child education, can hardly be solved. Therefore, expeditious steps to solve the housing problem of single parent families are the key to the study on the formulation of a long-term policy on single parent families.

Let me turn to another problem area. Apart from low income and housing problems, child care should be one of the most important problems facing single parent families. Single parents have to shoulder single-handedly the heavy burden of taking care of their children. Two thirds of Hong Kong's 35 000 single parent families are families with single mothers. Due to inadequacy of child care services, many single parents cannot go out to work, or have to leave their children unattended at home resulting in lack of proper care for their children.

In fact, what single parent families need most are flexible and urgent temporary child care services. Imagine the case of a single mother with four small daughters ranging in age between 11 and four. They went together to the market or shopping arcade for shopping. One of her daughters fell accidentally, wounding her head and bled, and had to be rushed to the hospital immediately. Unfortunately, the rules provided that the injured child could only be accompanied by one family member in the ambulance. So the mother got on the ambulance to accompany her injured daughter. The other three daughters had to go home by themselves, waiting at home unattended for the mother to come back to prepare the dinner. They waited and waited for six hours until mid-night when the mother finally returned home to prepare the dinner.

I am not forging a story. This is a real case. In fact, similar cases are very common to single parent families. For instance, suppose there is a mother with a son and a daughter. If the son becomes ill at night and has to be rushed to the emergency ward, what is the mother to do to the daughter? Should she leave the daughter unattended at home or to bring her along to the hospital? If she brings the daughter along, there would be nobody to look after her at the hospital. There would, indeed, be many problems.

In the light of these problems, can the Social Welfare Department and the Hospital Authority provide some emergency support services to single parent families? For instance, can consideration be given to the provision of urgent temporary child care services in hospitals so as to take care of the children for single parent families when necessary?

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1217

Up to this point, we may feel that single parent families need a lot of "relief." But the truth is that it is absolutely not their intention to ask for handout. Nor do they want to fawn and rely permanently on public assistance and social welfare services. Single parents very much want to rejoin the workforce and be self-dependent. Unfortunately, single parents, especially single mothers, often have great difficulties in finding a job. Many employers would fear that the burden of children might affect their performance. Of course, many single parents have to give up their jobs in order to look after their small children.

In this connection, can the Government enhance some of the support services, such as child care services, employment counselling services and employees retraining services? All these are effective ways to enable single parents who have the intention or ability to work to rejoin the workforce, and thereby assist them to shred off their financial difficulties and build up a self-reliant image.

In the information paper that I have circulated to colleagues, I have already set out in detail the problems that exist today. I do not want to repeat them here. I would reiterate that single parent families are not "abnormal" families. Sometimes the public, as well the media, would like to label single parent families as "problem families" or "broken families." In fact, they are not necessarily problematic and should not be discriminated. I would say that people generally have greater sympathy for single fathers because they think that it is very hard for single fathers to go out to work on the one hand and to look after their children on the other. Therefore, relatives and friends tend to be more ready to offer help on their own initiative to single fathers. On the contrary, people are of the general view that it is a matter-of-course for women to stay home to take care of their children. This is a wrong concept.

Following social changes, the number of single parent families has grown. We have to accept the continuous change of family patterns. A "normal" family is not necessarily a family with "a couple and two children." Single parent family can also be one of the patterns of a normal family, and should, by no means, be discriminated against.

Next year is the "International Year of the Family". The Governor also mentioned in his policy speech that welfare was "a family affair". Will the Government give serious consideration to formulating a long-term policy for single parents? Or will it only consider their problems as special problems of individual families? Or will it assume that such problems are only a temporary and transitional family situation which would ultimately be solved by the single parents themselves, and is believed to be sustainable? The Government should take a square look at this situation.

Now is the time to conduct a comprehensive review on the existing housing service, family service and employment service so as to map out services and measures that better suit the needs of single parent families. For

1218 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

example, the existing tax system should, among other things, be reviewed to find out if the tax allowance for single parent families should be raised. As regards the legal system, what can be done to help divorced women press for alimony? In many cases, divorced single mothers failed in pressing for alimony. They do not have the knowledge to do so. Nor can they afford a lawyer. Has the Government ever thought of providing legal aid services to single parents? All these are questions that the Government has to take into consideration.

In conclusion, to tackle the problems of single parent families, we should first help them find an ideal accommodation so that they can have a shelter. Then, we should provide them with appropriate social services, such as child care and employment counselling so that they can be self-dependent and lead a normal life.

Therefore, in the long term, the Government should set up as soon as possible an independent working group with representatives of single parent families as members to look into the feasibility of formulating a long-term comprehensive policy on single parent families.

Mr TIK Chi-yuen, another member of Meeting Point, will be speaking on the problems of single parent families in new towns. Lastly, I call on those Members who are also members of the Housing Authority to listen more, in their capacity as members of the Housing Authority's Action Group, about the problems of single parent families in public housing so as to reflect their needs and strive for their interests.

Mr President, with these remarks, I move the motion.

Question on the motion proposed.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, as an institution, the family is the most basic unit of human society, and it exists in all civilization generally. However, our convention is such that whenever the term "family" is mentioned, we would naturally associate it with the "nuclear family" or the "extended family". In other words, in our minds, a family is primarily a two parents family. People generally ignore the single parent family, made up of one parent — father or mother — and a child or children. The Liberal Party is sympathetic with, and concerned about, these so-called "anomalous families" because of the predicaments that they are in, such as housing problems, financial strain, child care difficulty and social disapproval.

Housing is indeed a headache to single parent families among all the difficulties that they face. In July 1991, the Housing Authority introduced a conditional Compassionate Housing Scheme. The scheme was not meant solely for the benefit of single parent families. Application is open to those with special difficulties and the needy people. The scheme, in fact, has many

HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993 1219

restrictions. It could not satisfy the housing needs of the single parent families. The application procedure, for instance, is very cumbersome. The instructions to applicants are not clear. The waiting time is long. The housing units assigned are either very old or in remote areas. All this has effectively discouraged applications.

True, we want the Government to put an early end to the housing problem for single parent families. But there is one point that I must mention. It is admittedly that low-income families that are recipients of social security assistance have a dire need for housing. Yet, we must not forget that, according to Social Welfare Department statistics, there are 35 000 single parent families. (Some put the figure at 45 000. An unconfirmed report even has it that there are 100 000 such families. I believe that we will not readily have the exact figure. In any case, the figure may vary from day to day.) Only several thousand among them are recipients of public assistance. We hope that the Government will take a square look at the housing problem that is probably being faced by all single parent families. The housing assistance given to single parent families should cover also those from low-income group, which are recipients of public assistance. From the above statistics, it appears that many single parent families do not seek public assistance. They insist on being financially independent. The single parents in these cases would rather go out to work. Their incomes in most cases are scanty. Well then, why should we help only those single parent families with low incomes which are recipients of public assistance? Why should we not help other single parent families as well? As far as I know, divorcees who own properties jointly with their ex-spouses are not eligible for compassionate accommodation. While they are nominal owners of property, the real occupants are their estranged spouses. They own homes but cannot live there. It is therefore clear that they need housing just as badly. We must not ignore those single parent families that are not recipients of public assistance. I am of the opinion that the Government should make a review with a view to giving help to all single parent families in need.

We support Mr Fred LI's proposal as to the setting up of an independent working group. However, where the group's terms of reference are concerned, we must point out that an interdepartmental body should be established not only to map out the long-term goals but also to handle the existing services in many areas. The problem now before us is that every department seems to be minding its own business without any co-ordination among themselves. Very often, individual departments do not work together to provide help to those who really need it. I hope that the independent working group will work quickly with a sense of urgency to identify such families' real needs and deal with them accordingly.

The truth is that single parent families need a lot of emergency support services. In each single parent family, there is only one adult taking care of things. If this adult has the misfortune to become ill and be admitted to hospital, there will be nobody else to take care of things at home. I have heard this story: Mrs CHAN became ill and was confined to bed. She had three small children

1220 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 1 December 1993

(ranging in age from three to eight) at home. Nobody looked after them. When Social Welfare Department (SWD) was asked to offer help by sending a household assistant, it said that none would be available until a week later. How would Mrs CHAN and her children manage to struggle on in the meantime? How would they cope? So I hope that the Government will quickly make available emergency support services in all local communities. Single parent families will then be able to receive emergency child care and other services in times of need. This should receive priority attention.

Another problem is that single parent families are discriminated against in varying degrees by society. The main reason has to do with the deep-seated tradition in which two parents families are regarded as the norm while single parent families are not accepted. In this connection, the Government must step up public education and publicity to educate the public to stop discriminating against single parent families. This is one of the important things that must be done. The Government, including all its competent departments, has never dealt with the plight of single parent families head-on. All existing social institutions and policies are rooted in the traditional values in relation to two parents family. This is conceptually wrong.

1994 will be the International Family Year sponsored by the United Nations. I urge the Government to study ways to address the plight and to meet the real needs of single parent families and account for what measures will be taken.

Mr President, with these remarks, I support Mr Fred LI's motion.

MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the emblem of the Family Planning Association is a family unit composed of a couple and their children. This may be regarded as the portrait of a standard family unit. But I believe that some may like to have a family with one child or even no child at all. This can still be regarded as a happy family. However, no one would like to choose a single parent family because it could represent a broken family or a family which has experienced the death of a spouse.

However, how can we expect events always happen as one wishes? With the rapid increase in the number of divorce cases in Hong Kong, the number of single parent families is on the increase as well. Basically, separation due to incompatibility is in full accord with the personal wishes of the adults and the death of a spouse is something which cannot be retrieved by human efforts. However, if dependent children are involved, the emergence of single parent families becomes a problem which we have to look squarely at and tackle.

It is a pity that we lack systematic information to tackle the issue in an overall manner. To our already inflexible Government, in the absence of strong supporting statistics it would hardly take any steps to formulate policy in response to social changes to cater for the needs of the people. The interacting