HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2283 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 23 February 1994
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 SIR NATHANIEL WILLIAM HAMISH MACLEOD, K.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. THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., 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 TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
2284 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 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.
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, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
REV THE HONOURABLE FUNG CHI-WOOD
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY HA WING-HO, M.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA
THE HONOURABLE SIMON IP SIK-ON, O.B.E., J.P. 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
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2285 THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TIK CHI-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
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
IN ATTENDANCE
MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
MR ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, C.B.E., A.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
2286 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
MR CHAU TAK-HAY, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
MR ANTHONY GORDON EASON, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
MR HAIDER HATIM TYEBJEE BARMA, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
MR NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
MR LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR CLETUS LAU KWOK-HONG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2287 Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations
(Exemption) Notice 1994----------------------------------------------------- 91/94 Pesticides (Amendment) Regulation 1994 --------------------------------------- 92/94 Declaration of Constituencies (Districts) Order 1994 -------------------------- 93/94 Declaration of Districts Order 1994 ---------------------------------------------- 94/94
Boundary and Election Commission (Registration of
Electors)(Geographical Constituencies) Regulation---------------------- 95/94 Building (Construction)(Amendment) Regulation 1994 ----------------------- 96/94 Building (Planning)(Amendment) Regulation 1994---------------------------- 97/94
Animals and Plants (Protection of Endangered
Species)(Exemption)(Amendment) Order 1994--------------------------- 98/94
Designation of Libraries (Urban Council Area) (No. 2) Order
1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 99/94 Immigration (Places of Detention)(Amendment) Order 1994 ---------------- 100/94
Probation of Offenders (Approved Institution)
(Consolidation)(Amendment) Order 1994 --------------------------------- 101/94 Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 1994------------------------ 103/94 Hawker (Urban Council)(Amendment)(No. 2) Bylaw 1994 ------------------ 104/94
Bills of Lading and Analogous Shipping Documents Ordinance
(85 of 1993)(Commencement) Notice 1994 ------------------------------- 105/94
2288 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Buildings (Amendment) Ordinance 1993 (43 of
1993)(Commencement) Notice 1994 --------------------------------------- 106/94
Lifts and Escalators (Safety)(Amendment) Ordinance 1993 (44
of 1993)(Commencement) Notice 1994------------------------------------ 107/94
Registrar General (Establishment)(Transfer of Functions and
Repeal) Ordinance (8 of 1993) (Commencement) Notice
1994 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 108/94
Sessional Papers 1993-94
No.61 ― Hong Kong Productivity Council Annual Report 1992-93
No.62 ― Secretary for Home Affairs Incorporated Statement of Accounts for the Year Ended 31 March 1993
No.63 ― Li Po Chun Charitable Trust Fund Annual Report for the Period 1 September 1992 to 31 August 1993
No.64 ― Trustee's Report on the Administration of the Education Scholarships Fund for the Year Ended 31 August 1993
Oral answers to questions
Air pollution
1. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: With recent figures showing air quality objectives breached at nine out of 11 air quality monitoring stations, will the Government inform this Council of the immediate measures planned for this year to mitigate the air pollution problem?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, three measures are proposed which will produce positive effects in the short term.
We propose to amend the Air Pollution Control Ordinance and to make the Air Pollution Control (Motor Vehicle Fuel) Regulation to require the use of better quality diesel fuel after April 1995. The Bill which will enable this to be done was introduced into the Council for First Reading on 8 December 1993 and I understand will be scheduled for its Second Reading on 30 March this year.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2289
We also propose to amend the Air Pollution Control (Vehicle Design Standards)(Emission) Regulation under the Air Pollution Control Ordinance to require all vehicles registered after 1995 to meet more stringent emission standards adopted by Europe, the United States and Japan. Subject to consultation, the amendment regulation should be enacted by the third quarter of this year.
In addition to the two new regulatory measures mentioned, the smoky vehicle detection programme will be stepped up so that more vehicles are called up for examination.
A further measure which could help reduce pollution emissions from light duty diesel vehicles would be a switch to unleaded petrol and catalytic converters. The possibility of introducing this measure is being considered urgently by the Administration.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, could the Secretary confirm that from his answer in paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, that there will in fact be no effect on air quality improvement in 1994? And also, am I right in saying that for the initiatives in paragraphs 3 and 5, that they have significant financial implications? For example, in paragraph 3, it would mean car imports from Japan would be affected. Can the Secretary tell us who in the Administration will take these decisions?
PRESIDENT: Two questions, Secretary.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, I think the answer to the first part of the question, or the first question, is that since the effects of the two regulatory measures ― assuming they overcome the consultative and legislative hurdles with full support this year ― will be effective from April 1995.
As far as the second question is concerned, if the stringent emission standards which are already applicable in Europe, the United States and Japan are introduced from April 1995, they will obviously apply to new vehicles imported from elsewhere. My understanding of the situation is that vehicles which will meet these standards are available.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, getting motorists to switch from using diesel to petrol will improve air quality significantly as the former is a worse polluter than the latter, and I understand the Administration has been considering this measure for years. Why was this measure not mentioned in the Secretary's main reply?
2290 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, it is mentioned in the final paragraph of my main answer.
PRESIDENT: Not answered, Rev FUNG?
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, I was asking why the Administration did not implement the measure of getting motorists to switch from using diesel to petrol. I did not ask anything about strengthening the control on diesel vehicles. So I think paragraph 5 of his answer has not touched upon the measure I was asking. I hope the Secretary will give me a reply on that again.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: I am sorry, I am not sure whether I have yet fully understood the question, Mr President. Paragraph 5 of my answer says:
"A further measure which could help reduce pollution emissions from light duty diesel vehicles would be to switch to unleaded petrol and catalytic converters. The possibility of introducing this measure is being considered urgently by the Administration."
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, since the air quality is steadily deteriorating, what efforts have been made by the Administration to try to persuade the oil companies to bring forward the introduction of higher quality diesel fuel?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, as I have said, our target date for introducing the higher quality fuel is April 1995, which of course is just over a year away from now. We have considered an earlier introduction but this, we believe, is not practicable. It would require the oil companies to resort to purchase from the spot markets instead of the traditional source which is mainly Singapore. This would be more expensive and it would also not guarantee a steady supply.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, one of the major causes of air pollution in Hong Kong is vehicle emissions, which mainly come from the large number of container vehicles returning from China every day. What has the Administration done to prevent these vehicles from using illegally sub-standard fuel which contributes to the problem of air pollution?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2291
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, there is no doubt that all vehicles, which use whatever fuel and are not properly maintained and therefore burn fuel inefficiently, contribute to the problem of air pollution. But in the main urban areas of the territory, where the air quality standards are most in breach, the main problem is light duty diesel vehicles and these are taxis and public light buses. However, I think the question as to how we deal with the possibility that container vehicles are using, illegally, sub-standard fuel is a separate issue. And I would be prepared to take that up with my colleagues to determine what might need to be done about that.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Thank you, Mr President. When will the Government outlaw leaded fuel? It is because lead-poisoning in relation to the burning of leaded fuel causes neuro-psychology and psychological damage, particularly to children. And in many cities in Europe and the United States, leaded fuel has been banned for this very reason and their experience has shown that all cars running on leaded fuel can actually run on unleaded fuel, so will the Government ever consider outlawing leaded fuel?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, as far as I am aware, we do not at this stage have in any part of our programme a requirement that certain vehicles should be outlawed. But as I said in my main answer, we are proposing under the legislation to require that all vehicles registered after April 1995 should be able to meet the more stringent emission standards adopted by Europe, the United States and Japan, and my understanding is that that would achieve largely the effect that the Honourable Member is seeking to achieve.
Unlicensed travel agents
2. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the number of persons found to be operating as travel agents without a licence in the past three years and the number of such persons actually prosecuted; and
(b) the measures taken to deter such illegal operations?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the Registrar of Travel Agents, who is the licensing authority for travel agents, and the Travel Industry Council, which is the travel industry's own self-regulatory body, work together closely in monitoring the activities of unlicensed travel agents.
2292 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
In the three years from 1991 to 1993, the Registrar referred a total of 50 reports involving 90 suspected unlicensed travel agents to the police for investigation. Prosecution was undertaken in respect of 35 of those cases, as a result of which 38 persons were convicted and 11 cases remain outstanding.
In addition to enforcement action, both the Consumer Council and the Government make regular publicity efforts, particularly before each peak travel season, to educate the public that it is an offence to provide outbound travel service without a licence and that they should not patronize unlicensed travel agents. The Travel Industry Council has recently launched a similar publicity drive.
Moreover, the Registrar of Travel Agents and the Travel Industry Council have advised all licensed travel agents not to have dealings with unlicensed travel agents. The outbound travel industry has also been encouraged to report cases of suspected unlicensed travel agents to the Registrar of Travel Agents for necessary action.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration inform this Council whether it had received any complaints from consumers in connection with allegations of losses as a result of patronizing unlicensed travel agents? Can the Administration confirm that if there are indeed complaints of this nature, the consumers will not be able to get compensation from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Mr President, as far as I know, we have not received any of these complaints. But I can confirm that the Travel Industry Compensation Fund will not pay out any compensation in regard to claims for damages made by persons who patronized unlicensed travel agents.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Mr President, are group tours organized in the name of certain neighbourhood associations, district organizations or even Member's Offices in breach of the existing law?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Mr President, any person, regardless of who he is or his status, commits an offence if he engages in outbound travel service without a licence.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2293 Diminished shop spaces
3. DR TANG SIU-TONG asked (in Cantonese): Individual shop-space owners of two converted shopping arcades in Kowloon complained in September and November respectively last year, of inconsistencies between the information on saleable areas as provided by the developers/real estate agents and the actual areas of their units, that is the so-called "diminished shop spaces" issue. The actual areas of these shops are only about 30% to 50% of the floor areas specified in the information provided. Will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) of the number of similar complaints that were lodged with the Administration in 1992 and 1993;
(b) how the interests of the consumers are being protected under the existing legislation with regard to the purchase of property;
(c) whether the agreement for sale of converted or redeveloped property is currently not subject to any legislative control; whether consideration has been given to plugging the loopholes of the relevant legislation; and
(d) what findings have been made by the Buildings Department in its investigation into the "diminished shop spaces" issue of Jordan Square; whether the Administration has taken any follow-up actions?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, first of all, I would like to say that the undiminished nature of the question prevents me from giving a diminished answer.
(a) The Government does not have records of complaints of this type. The Consumer Council, however, has received 25 complaints relating to "diminished shop spaces" in three developments.
(b) There is no legislation governing such matters as the disclosure of information in relation to the sale and purchase of property. However, a subcommittee of the Law Reform Commission is currently studying the subject with a view to ensuring that sufficient information is available to prospective purchasers and in a form easily understood. I understand the subcommittee is now finalizing its report and I look forward to seeing the results of these important deliberations.
(c) In developments which are covered by the Consent Scheme operated by the Lands Department (this means developments whose leases stipulate that the prior consent of the Director of Lands must be
2294 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
obtained before the sale or disposal of uncompleted units) sales brochures must be produced for the sale of uncompleted units. The saleable floor area is one of a number of items which must be disclosed in such brochures. A standard form of Agreement for Sale and Purchase containing a definition of saleable floor area must also be used in these cases.
For developments not covered by the Consent Scheme, it is currently for the developer to decide whether or not to disclose saleable floor areas in sales brochures. The Law Society operates a Non-Consent Scheme which adopts a standardized Agreement for Sale and Purchase and a similar (but not identical) definition of saleable floor area as for the Consent Scheme. The Non-Consent Scheme applies where the same solicitor acts for both the vendor and the purchaser in respect of uncompleted developments by virtue of Rule 5C of the Solicitors Practice Rules of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. I understand that the Law Society is considering amendments to the form of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase in the Non-Consent Scheme, including the definition of saleable floor area, but these have not yet been finalized.
To protect their own interests, purchasers should make sure that they know what the precise saleable area of the unit they are buying is and check the floor plan of the unit attached to the Agreement when they sign the formal Agreement for Sale and Purchase. Purchasers are also advised to seek legal advice and, if necessary, engage an architect or surveyor to give them expert advice.
(d) The case of Jordan Square, where building works were carried out to convert the premises into a shopping arcade, has been investigated by the Director of Buildings. This investigation found that the conversion works are in accordance with the approved building plans and the Buildings Ordinance and Buildings Regulations.
Property sales and purchases are matters between vendors and purchasers and the Government does not normally intervene in private disputes over such matters. Purchasers should seek legal advice as to what action may be taken where they believe misrepresentation or any other questionable practice has occurred.
Thank you.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is mentioned in the second paragraph of part (c) of the Secretary's reply that "The Law Society is considering amendments to the form of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase in the Non-Consent Scheme, including the definition of saleable floor area". Will
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2295
the Secretary advise this Council when this will be implemented? For developments which are covered by the Consent Scheme operated by the Lands Department, it is stipulated that the saleable floor area must be disclosed in the sales brochures. Why can the Administration not legislate to the effect that developments covered by Non-Consent Scheme will also be required to provide such information to purchasers?
PRESIDENT: Two questions there. Have you got them both, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: The matters now under consideration by the Law Society are of course matters within the purview of the Law Society's Non-Consent Scheme. And as regards when the Law Society may decide on whether amendments are appropriate and when they might be introduced is a question which I should have to put to the Law Society.
As regards the second question, if I understand it entirely correctly, my answer is this: the Consent Scheme is operated under the system of control whereby the Director of Lands is the authority. In order to secure the agreement to redevelopment proposals, the developer requires to satisfy the Director of Lands, so the Director of Lands has a degree of control. The Consent Scheme operates only in those circumstances. Where those circumstances do not apply, the Director of Lands has no control. It is under those circumstances that the Law Society has introduced a Non-Consent Scheme. But it is under the Law Society's Non-Consent Scheme and not under the government authority that that scheme operates.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the crux of the problem concerning diminished shop spaces and diminished flats is that purchasers have no way to know at the time of purchase the saleable floor areas of the uncompleted units or the units awaiting redevelopment. Now the Secretary seems to say in part (b) of his reply that the Law Reform Commission will study the problem and come up with proposals which will be examined again by the Administration. Will the Secretary assure us that the proposals in the Law Reform Commission's report will cover this to ensure better protection? If the law does not give that protection, then a purchaser who has signed a preliminary agreement is probably too late to do anything by the time he instructs a solicitor. Has the Secretary considered these problems or has he washed his hands of it and leave it to the Law Reform Commission?
PRESIDENT: Are you able to answer the question in full, Secretary, or do you wish part of it to be re-interpreted?
2296 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: I am prepared to make an attempt at a reply, since the Honourable Member worked so hard on the question.
I would not at this stage wish to pre-judge the efforts of the Law Society. I believe that the Law Society and other members of the Working Group who of course are not necessarily members of the Law Society have invested a great deal of time and effort in considering this matter in considerable detail. I do not think it has been superficial or an attempt to find a quick fix. I am therefore confident that substantive proposals and recommendations will come out of that review. Since the review is almost complete, I believe that it is well worth awaiting the outcome and the opportunity to examine those recommendations before pre-judging them and before we start a round of exactly duplicated effort to consider the same issues.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, during the construction of buildings, is there any channel for the Administration to know about the progress of works and any possible problems? To take the example of the two shopping arcades mentioned in the main question, besides the inconsistencies between the actual areas and the saleable areas mentioned in sales brochures, there are also other problems including the poor suitability for use of the units. For example, an owner who wants to sell candies may end up selling fragrance essences because there is a sewage drain pipe stretching across the unit. And there are some very small units which practically cannot be used because there is a large pillar at the centre of these units. Can the Administration inform this Council whether the department concerned has the responsibility to detect the problem at an early stage and caution the developers accordingly, so as to protect the interests of owners?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the Administration's concern under the Buildings Ordinance is about the safety and health of the situation in the building and in many of the similar situations, and I believe this is the case in the Jordan project. We are not talking about new construction. We are talking about the alteration of an existing building. And it is not, I believe, for the regulators under the Buildings Ordinance to ensure that premises which are the subject of rental agreements are suitable for the uses to which the renters wish to put them. I believe that a prudent renter or purchaser of property would establish clearly in his mind, if necessary with professional advice, what he is getting, and that when the time comes, that is exactly what he gets.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it can be seen from the Administration's reply that its only concern is to see whether the Buildings Ordinance has been complied with and little attention has been paid to other aspects like the commercial value of the premises. If it is established that there
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2297
is misrepresentation in the information provided, will the Administration, on receiving complaints, institute criminal proceedings against the developers or real estate agents; if not, why not? Why does the Administration only care about collecting rents and rates and does not do what a responsible government should do?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: I am not sure that in these circumstances, Mr President, there is any question of rent collection by the Government. I think the point here is that if there is a question of breach of contract, to use the layman's term, then it is a matter for the parties to consider whether action is justified, with legal advice. And since most of the people we are talking about here are commercial businesses, they should have access to good legal advice. If we are talking about a question of a criminal action, then I am sure that the authorities, if they receive a report which is actionable, will take action.
Hospital Authority's transparency
4. MR TIK CHI-YUEN asked (in Cantonese): In reply to a question raised in this Council on 20 October 1993, the Government indicated that it would explore with the Hospital Authority further ways to enhance the latter's transparency. Will the Government inform this Council what new measures have been or will be taken by the Hospital Authority to this end?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the Hospital Authority enhances its transparency along two strategic directions: first to cultivate public participation in its decision-making process and further to be accountable to the public for the decisions made.
There is strong public participation in the work of the Hospital Authority through the Board of the Hospital Authority itself, the Regional Advisory Committees and Hospital Governing Committees. These Board and Committees are served by over 300 community leaders, comprising some 40 members of district boards. They play a key role in laying down the strategies and directions of the Hospital Authority, overseeing the management and reviewing the performance of individual hospitals.
The Hospital Authority is substantially funded from public revenue and is accountable to the public for decisions made and is indeed answerable to this Council. Furthermore, under the Hospital Authority Ordinance, the Director of Audit may conduct examinations on the economy and efficiency with which the Authority has expended resources in discharging its statutory functions.
The transparency is further enhanced by a patient-centred culture. To take a very positive attitude in dealing with patient complaints, a Public
2298 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Complaints Committee handles complaints received at the hospital level as well as cases referred to it by Members of this Council and the Commissioner of Administrative Complaints.
There is a constant flow of information about the Hospital Authority through newsletters, press briefings and interviews. Last year, 198 press releases were issued, 217 press conferences, media briefings and interviews were conducted, and over 3 000 press enquiries were dealt with.
The Hospital Authority has ongoing plans to further increase the transparency of its work and the above activities are only examples of some of its efforts in this direction.
MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, from the Administration's reply, it seems it also subscribes to the view that the Hospital Authority should enhance its transparency and accountability to the public. But I cannot see any significant or marked improvement from what it has put forward today. Has the Administration reviewed with the Hospital Authority to see if it can open up its meetings so that the public will know how it operates? If the Hospital Authority is to open up its meetings, what are the difficulties that it will have?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the Boards and Committees under the Hospital Authority are entrusted under the law to deal with day-to day management, which is directly related to the delivery of hospital service under the Hospital Authority. It would serve little purpose, I think, in opening up routine meetings of a purely executive nature, where management and confidential staff issues are discussed. On matters of public concern, as I said in my main reply, press conferences are held, answers are given and the Chief Executive of the Hospital Authority regularly attends Legislative Council Health Panel Meetings. The Hospital Authority therefore is accountable through various ways to this Council which we all know is open and fair in its scrutiny of public policies.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am pleased to learn from the Secretary that there are more than 300 community leaders serving on Hospital Governing Committees and various advisory committees, and they help in laying down the strategies and directions of the Hospital Authority. Can the Secretary give us some concrete examples so that we may know that they really work well. For instance, which strategies or directions suggested by these 300 or so community leaders were adopted by the Hospital Authority?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the composition of Committees is set out in schedule 3 to the Hospital Authority Ordinance. As I said in my main reply, membership of these Committees comprises mainly
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2299
community leaders and experts in the administration and management of hospital services. As regards the details of the running of hospitals, some hospitals have, for example, newly established patients' resource centres, as a result of public consultation and the initiative taken by the hospitals in consultation with its Committees. At the regional level, in the overall development of their policies and new suggestions on how to cater to community needs, the Council's Advisory Committee members will offer very important advice to the Hospital Authority, not only in terms of its business plan but also its corporate plans.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all I would like to declare interest as a Member of the Hospital Authority. The question in essence asked what measures have been or will be taken to enhance the transparency of the Hospital Authority after the Administration undertook to study the subject with the Hospital Authority? The main reply mentioned a lot of measures that the Administration has taken. But what was the outcome of the study? And what measures will be taken to enhance its transparency? Will the Administration provide further details?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, in developing the transparency of the Hospital Authority further, we hope also that the Hospital Authority is as open and as transparent as it can reasonably be. We have established periodic and in fact regular meetings with its Chief Executive with a view to putting forward some ideas for public consultation. I think Members will have realized that the Hospital Authority, before submitting an annual business plan to the Administration for its endorsement, indeed announces the proposed amendments to its business plans first to the public, probably in consultation with members of the public. And I think some of its operational targets, which are aimed at opening up the work of the Hospital Authority, are always negotiated between the Administration and the Hospital Authority in deciding how best to deliver the services to the people of Hong Kong.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have received a complaint about the lack of transparency of the Hospital Authority not long ago. Someone very concerned about the services provided by the Eastern Hospital told me that he was not able to get a reply from the hospital when he asked the person in charge to tell him the breakdown of the charges. May I ask the Secretary what will be done to let members of the public know the charges of each hospital and therefore be psychologically prepared for the charges?
2300 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I will certainly look into complaints of this kind as raised by the Honourable Member. In respect of complaints, I also receive periodic letters from citizens who write to me and we always take the complaints up item by item. On the complaints itself, I am pleased to share information with this Council that the number of complaints received has gone up, so has the number of appreciation. For example, in 1992-93, the Hospital Authority received 1 632 complaints, as against 2 340 appreciations over the same period. We make sure that individual complaints are individually answered, individually looked into.
As to the general question ― I think the second part of the question is, if I understand the question correctly, a very general one ― that is to say: how transparent are the fees? I think Members will realize that all the fees charged by the Hospital Authority are gazetted, so by the very act of gazetting there is no question of secrecy. Indeed under section 8(6) of the Hospital Authority Ordinance, the Secretary for Health and Welfare may give directions, in writing, of a general or specific character to the Authority in relation to the determination of fees payable to hospital services and this is really to safeguard our time-honoured policy that nobody should be prevented, either through lack of means or through ignorance ― because we do not know how much is involved ― from obtaining adequate medical treatment.
Hand massage trade
5. MR HUI YIN-FAT asked (in Cantonese): While it has become increasingly common for members of the public to receive hand massage service, due to the lack of a management system and appropriate promotion, the proper image of the trade is often being confused with obscene activities operating under different guises. In this regard, will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) the number of people presently engaged in the hand massage trade, and how many of them are blind people;
(b) whether consideration will be given to encouraging the hand massage trade to draw up a Code of Practice and operational guidelines for its practitioners, so as to enhance their social image and safeguard the health of such practitioners and their customers; and
(c) whether consideration will be given to setting up a licensing system for persons practising hand massage, so as to establish the social status of the trade and guarantee the quality of service?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2301
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, as regards the first part of the question, we do not have statistics on the number of people presently engaged in the hand massage trade. According to the Hong Kong Society for the Blind, there are 40 trained blind people engaged in the trade.
As regards the second part of the question, the Government itself has no intention of drawing up Codes of Practice and Operational Guidelines for individual trades. This is best left to trade associations.
As regards the final part of the question, we do not consider it necessary to set up a licensing system for persons practising hand massage. Massage establishments at present are adequately regulated under the Massage Establishments Ordinance.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, apart from licensing control, has the Administration thought of other ways to clear the confusion that always associates the trade with obscene activities? If not, will the Administration just have their arms folded and do nothing?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, yes, it is the purpose of the licensing and control operated by the police to prevent massage establishments becoming vice establishments. This is done in three ways: first, massage establishments are monitored by the police to prevent vice activities from taking place. When an application for a licence is received, the Commissioner of Police must satisfy himself that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence and all staff engaged by the applicant must be approved by the Commissioner of Police. Secondly, monitoring is exercised by way of licence checks, warnings, use of undercover officers and acting upon reports and complaints. As a result of this monitoring activity, in the past five years, 24 licences have been revoked or not renewed on the grounds that the premises were found to be operating as vice establishments. And thirdly, the police do take action against unlicensed massage parlours. In 1993, some 230 persons were convicted for keeping an unlicensed massage establishment.
Labelling of dispensed medicines
6. MR MICHAEL HO asked (in Cantonese): The Health and Welfare Branch has recently decided not to introduce legislation for the compulsory labelling of dispensed medicines, and instead to leave it to the medical professions concerned to implement such measure through self-discipline. Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the reasons for making such a decision;
2302 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
(b) which professional bodies and community organizations have been consulted prior to making the decision; and
(c) while encouraging the medical professions to formulate a code of self discipline, why legislation will not be instituted at the same time to ensure the effective implementation of the requirement for the labelling of dispensed medicines?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the benefits of labelling dispensed medicines are well recognized. In this context, we have progressively introduced drug labelling in government clinics and public hospitals. We have also consistently encouraged health care professionals in the private sector to adopt the practice.
So far, all public out-patient and specialist clinics already have their dispensed medicines labelled. Extension of drug labelling in all medical institutions under the management of the Hospital Authority will be completed by 1994-95. Within the private sector, 12 of the 13 private hospitals in Hong Kong have their dispensed medicines labelled, either as a routine or on the request of doctors or patients. The remaining one hospital will follow suit, in a couple of months' time, this April. According to a recent survey conducted by the Estate Doctors' Association, some 15% of its members label their medicines for patients on a voluntary basis.
As a further step to encourage wider compliance, we have last year consulted all 49 medical, dental and pharmaceutical associations on the feasibility of legislation for mandatory labelling of drugs. It was clear from the consultation that there was overwhelming support by the health care professionals for mandatory labelling. Although many who were consulted preferred mandatory labelling via the vehicle of Codes of Practice. Furthermore, the Medical Council has responded positively by stipulating, on its own initiative, the requirement for labelling of drugs in its code of practice for doctors. This will come into effect on 1 January 1995. It is understood that any medical practitioner found in breach of the requirement will be subject to disciplinary action by the Medical Council under the law. The penalties under which can be very severe indeed. We welcome this initiative and will closely monitor the effectiveness of this approach before considering, if necessary, further legislation. In effect, this approach ensures earlier implementation of drug labelling in the private sector with full co-operation of the medical profession than would have been the case otherwise. Hence, I would like to appeal to all health care professionals to introduce, where relevant, mandatory drug labelling via a vehicle of Code of Practice in the first instance.
Mr President, our aim is to safeguard patient interests. This aim is best served by the joint efforts of the public and private health sectors alike. In my view, legislation should be considered either to give legislative effect to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2303
reinforce good professional practices and/or as a vehicle to enforce measures in the public interest. We have certainly not abandoned this measure.
I believe the subject was discussed at length at this morning's Legislative Council Health Panel meeting and I am grateful for Honourable Member's support to this reasoned and progressive approach that we have adopted.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, may I refer to the last paragraph of the Secretary's reply in which she said that the subject had been discussed at length at this morning's Legislative Council Health Panel meeting. Government officials attending the meeting said that they would leave the question until this afternoon when a formal reply would be given. Mr President, if eventually we have mandatory codes of practice on drug labelling, but if the patients and professionals have different views and the former cannot get the latter to amend their codes of practice, then what can the Administration do to ensure that they will respect the patients' right and safeguard their interests?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, in deference to the question itself, I think it is a hypothetical situation. The question of labelling dispensed medicines is not only to benefit the patients themselves but also to benefit the professionals in the way that it provides the correct information to professional people when they examine the type of drugs being taken by the patients. We certainly hope that, with the introduction of a code of practice and subsequent legislative measures, the interests of the people are protected through correct professional practices.
DR LAM KUI-CHUN (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all I declare my interest as a private medical practitioner and drug labelling is what I have to comply with. Although the medical profession has decided to introduce a code of practice in this respect, there are pressure groups who doubt the effectiveness of this form of control. Can the Administration inform this Council how the departments concerned will explain to the public the effectiveness of control by way of codes of practice, so as to clear the misunderstanding and allay the concerns of the public?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I believe as from 1 January 1995, all medicines dispensed to patients directly or indirectly by medical practitioners should be properly labelled with the following essential information and as I mentioned in my main reply, that is a monitoring mechanism: name of patient, date of dispensing, trade name or pharmacological name of the drug, dosage per unit, method and dosage of administration and precaution where applicable. There are of course exemptions. For example, medicines for clinical trials would be exempted, with informed consent from
2304 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
patients. I think the patient and doctor relationship must be a very important one. And here I would like to appeal to every member of our society in his or her own interests to ask as many questions as a patient is entitled to ask, particularly when it concerns his or her health.
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, we certainly welcome mandatory labelling of medicines. Unfortunately, that is only confined to the practice in clinics. Though drugs with considerable side-effects can only be sold on prescription, one can buy them easily over the counters without being told their side-effects, and they may be harmful to the health of patients. As far as the control of dispensaries is concerned, are there any requirements for dispensaries to label the medicines properly before they sell them? If so, how will the Administration enforce the measure?
PRESIDENT: Yes, this goes slightly beyond the main question and answer, but do you have an answer for this, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Yes, Mr President, I think it is a very important question indeed. I think the requirement for labelling dispensed drugs applies equally to pharmacists. And in this context we have asked the Pharmacy and Poisons Board to consider stipulating the same requirement for pharmacists and the matter, I believe, will be discussed by the Board at its next meeting in April. And from our discussion with representatives from pharmacists' associations and related bodies, we have been assured of the same sort of support that we have expected from the Medical Council.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Thank you, Mr President. I also have to declare my interest as a private medical practitioner. I agree with the Secretary that professional self-discipline for the betterment of the public is in many ways better than to have everything enshrined in law. In her reply, the Secretary indicated that the Medical Council will set its own code of practice for mandatory drug labelling by doctors. But besides medical doctors there are other professions who are also dispensing drugs, namely dentists, pharmacists and veterinary surgeons. Now, though she has said that she will appeal to the different professions to do likewise as the Medical Council, will the Secretary ensure that a code of practice in these professions in the direction of drug labelling is introduced also in January 1995, to take effect at the same time so that the public could be well protected and perhaps even animals could be protected, especially dogs because this is the Year of the Dog?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2305
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I think the simple answer to that is I will do my best. And I did say in my main reply that I would appeal to all health care professionals to introduce, where they are amenable, as soon as possible relevant drug labelling mandatory codes of practice. I shy away from answering the question in relation to the veterinarians because I believe the Agriculture and Fisheries Department, under another Secretary, will be responsible for that matter.
MR TIK CHI-YUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, at the Health Panel meeting this morning, a Member said the implementation of such measure through self-discipline and legislative work could in fact go hand in hand. But the present position of the Administration is to leave that to professional bodies who may stipulate, on their own initiative, the requirement for labelling of drugs in their codes of practice, before considering further legislation. May I refer to the third paragraph of the main reply in which it is mentioned that "if necessary, further legislation will be considered." Will the Administration explain in detail what it meant by "if necessary"?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, it is not that long ago that I replied in this Council to a similar question. I was then only talking about advisory labelling of dispensed medicine. I refer to Hansard dated 7 February 1990. I have taken advice not only locally but from practices overseas. Not many overseas countries have statutory requirements, so we are in fact in a totally new game. For example, in the United Kingdom, there are no statutory requirements governing the labelling of dispensed medicines. In Canada, by-laws are enacted in each province. In the United States, there are no statutory regulations, as far as we know. Labelling of dispensed medicine is also widely practised in Australia although there are no statutory provisions. I think, to be fair to Hong Kong people, we need everybody to work together, including the co-operation of professionals in Hong Kong. So it is really not a question of before or after, it is a question of what is the correct and more reasoned, measured way in order to attain our objective. And what is our ultimate objective? Our objective is to protect the interests of the patient.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, in some advanced countries, in order to better protect the interests of patients, doctors usually only treat patients while the dispensing duties are left to pharmacists and dispensaries. Some of my friends who are private medical practitioners told me that as doctors, they hated doing the extra dispensing work. Will the Secretary advise whether the Administration has any long-term plan in this respect so that doctors only have to look after patients without having to do the dispensing work?
2306 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, this is commonly described as "醫藥分家". This is a matter of much debate amongst the health care professionals. The arguments on both sides are balanced. Theoretically the idea has its attractions. It recognizes the professional independence of pharmacists and helps safeguard patient interests by providing a cross-check on prescription of medicines for patients. On the other hand, the present one-stop arrangement has worked very well for Hong Kong for many, many years. It is convenient for the patients and it really helps to ensure clear accountability for proper care and safety of patients. Furthermore, the Medical Council's requirement for mandatory labelling of medicine will facilitate, I think, cross-checking of prescriptions and provide the necessary added safeguard. There are also practical considerations. Hong Kong now has some 875 registered pharmacists and only a small proportion of them are working in the retail outlets. That is according to the information available to me. A much larger number of pharmacists will have to be required if we were to "divorce" the dispensing function from the medical function of a clinic. Therefore, Mr President, no firm conclusion can be drawn today. And I think this matter must be given careful all-round considerations before conclusion, if any, could be reached.
Written answers to questions
Lifts in public housing estates and HOS estates
7. REV FUNG CHI-WOOD asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the total number of lifts that has been installed in public housing estates and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) estates (including estates under the Private Sector Participation Scheme (PSPS));
(b) the names of all authorized lift contractors of the Housing Department; and (c) the following information in respect of the past three years:
(i) the number of lift repair services (excluding regular inspections and maintenance) carried out each year, the average age of the lifts, the total costs of maintenance and repairs of all lifts;
(ii) the costs involved in the maintenance and repairs of these lifts as a percentage of the annual management fees of HOS estates (including PSPS estates) and of the annual "cost rent" of public housing estates;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2307
(iii) the number of cases in which the lift contractors were in breach of the relevant regulations each year and the details of the penalties imposed; and
(iv) the number of lifts in public housing estates and HOS estates (including PSPS estates) assigned to each authorized contractor for the provision of maintenance and repair services each year?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) There are 4 370 lifts in public rental estates (including 56 in flatted factories) and 968 lifts in HOS courts under the Housing Authority's direct management. The Housing Department does not keep information on lifts in Private Sector Participation Scheme (PSPS) developments since they are developed and managed by the private sector.
(b) There are a total of 10 approved contractors for lift installation in public housing estates and HOS courts. They are:
1. Chevalier (Hong Kong) Limited
2. Fujitec (Hong Kong) Company Limited
3. Goldstar Industrial Systems (Hong Kong) Limited
4. Hitachi Elevator Engineering Company (Hong Kong) Limited
5. Kone Elevator (Hong Kong) Limited
6. Otis Elevator Company (Hong Kong) Limited
7. Ryoden Lift and Escalator Company Limited
8. Schindler Lifts (Hong Kong) Limited
9. Shan On Engineering Company Limited
10. The General Electric Company of Hong Kong Limited
As regards lift maintenance, there are 13 approved contractors, namely:
1. Chevalier (Hong Kong) Limited
2. Fujitec (Hong Kong) Company Limited
3. Goldstar Industrial Systems (Hong Kong) Limited
4. Hitachi Elevator Engineering Company (Hong Kong) Limited
5. Kone Elevator (Hong Kong) Limited
6. Otis Elevator Company (Hong Kong) Limited
7. Ryoden Lift and Escalator Company Limited
8. Schindler Lifts (Hong Kong) Limited
9. Shan On Engineering Company Limited
10. The General Electric Company of Hong Kong Limited
11. CKP Building Services Systems Limited
2308 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
12. Brightness Building Services Limited
13. Holake (Hong Kong) Limited
(c) (i) In 1990-91, a total of 31 654 repair orders on lifts in public housing estates and HOS courts were executed at a total cost of $11 million, and the average maintenance and repair cost per lift was $24,712. In 1991-92 and 1992-93, a total of 26 233 and 24 309 repair orders respectively were carried out at a cost of $24.8 million and $23.8 million; and the average maintenance and repair cost per lift was $39,730 and $47,460 respectively.
As a matter of policy, the Housing Authority replaces all lifts which are more than 20 years old. About 30% of lifts in public housing estates and HOS courts are less than five years old, about 27% are between five and 10 years old; and the rest are between 10 and 20 years old. A figure for the average age of all these lifts is not readily available.
(ii) The cost of maintenance and repair to lifts as a percentage of the management fees of HOS courts varies from court to court. On average, it accounts for 15-20% of total management fees. In general, the total cost of maintenance and repair to lifts represents 3-4% of total rents collected.
(iii) Lifts in public housing estates and HOS courts under the Housing Authority's direct management are exempt from control under the Building (Lifts) Regulations. Nonetheless, contractors responsible for maintaining lifts in public housing estates and HOS courts have not been found to be in breach of such regulations in carrying out their work.
(iv) There are 5 338 lifts serving buildings in public rental estates (including flatted factories) and HOS courts under the Authority's direct management. Their maintenance and repair are shared among 12 approved contractors, with the following distribution:
Chevalier 369
Fujitec 441
Goldstar 14
Hitachi 487
Kone 660
Otis 484
Ryoden 395
Schindler 633
Shan On 419
GEC 857
CKP 38
Otis (Falconi lifts) 541
Total: 5 338
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2309 Immigration clearance arrangements
8. MR MOSES CHENG asked: Drawing the experience from the Chinese New Year holidays, will the Administration inform this Council whether there are plans in hand to make special arrangements for China-bound passengers to clear the immigration procedures at Kowloon Tong or Hung Hom during festival times in order to relieve the pressure at Lo Wu border?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, during the recent Chinese New Year holidays, improvements we had initiated to cope with the volume of passengers through Lo Wu went well. Even though the flow was the busiest ever, with 14% more passengers than in 1993, it was also the smoothest in recent years. We achieved this by:
(a) opening the border one hour earlier on 7, 8 and 9 February;
(b) manning all of the 44 counters in the Lo Wu departure hall, by redeploying staff from elsewhere; and
(c) introducing a contra-flow system, whereby as necessary arrival counters were used to process departure passengers and vice versa on the return journey, in order to match the peak flows in each direction.
These arrangements will now be considered for use at other busy holiday periods.
There are no plans to provide immigration clearance for China-bound passengers at Kowloon Tong; we wish to reduce Kowloon Tong's role in cross border passenger movement.
Hung Hom is the proper terminal for through train cross border travellers and we are planning improvements, in co-operation with the KCRC. We already have immigration clearance arrangements at the through train terminal to handle passengers proceeding to Guangzhou or Foshan. This year the KCRC made extra use of this facility by operating one additional charter express train to Lo Wu on a daily basis between 7 and 13 February. Although the patronage was not great, the KCRC intends to continue to operate these charter express trains during festival periods and to give them greater publicity. Beyond this, a new station at Hung Hom is being built, and it will include a bigger immigration hall with additional counters. This is expected to be completed in 1995-96.
We are also making improvements to relieve the pressure at Lo Wu. An additional 70 staff are to be provided in 1994-95 to man the extension to Lo Wu Terminal, which is due to be completed then. This will increase the number of immigration counters at Lo Wu from 88 to 160. An Immigration Task Force
2310 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
of 46 staff, will also be established this year to deal with special investigations, and to reinforce Lo Wu and other control points during busy periods.
Differential Global Positioning System
9. MR PETER WONG asked: Will the Administration inform this Council whether there are plans to install a land-based reference station and broadcast transmitter for Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) to enable the DGPS equipment to be used by the civilian vessels for positioning which enhances safety of mariners?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, Differential Global Positioning Systems (DGPS) are widely used as an electronic navigational aid. The system relies on a land-based reference station broadcasting radio signals which enable a vessel to locate more accurately its position by cross-reference to satellites. DGPS is also extensively used in many other areas such as land surveying and vehicle tracking.
The Administration recognizes the value of DGPS in navigation, survey, and related functions, and is considering the installation of a land-based reference station and transmitting equipment under the auspices of the Hong Kong Hydrographic Office when this is established later this year. The Director of Civil Engineering, Director of Marine, together with the Telecommunications Authority (TA), are currently examining the technical and operational implications of establishing and operating the system.
Four licensed DGPS systems for private use by shipping or dredging companies are already operational in Hong Kong. There is also the potential for DGPS to be offered on a commercial basis as a public telecommunications service. The TA is prepared to license operators should they come forward.
Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance
10. MR JAMES TO asked (in Chinese): In respect of the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (Cap. 238), will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how many arms and ammunition dealers were prosecuted over the past three years for failing to keep an accurate record of the transactions of arms and ammunition and the quantity in their possession; how many of them were convicted and what were the penalties imposed;
(b) how many times did the police inspect the registers of arms and ammunition of shooting clubs over the same period; what measures did the police take during their inspection to ensure that the records
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2311
kept were accurate (including information on the quantity of cartridges spent); and
(c) what criteria are adopted by the police in vetting the types of arms and ammunition included in a dealer's application for a licence; whether the police will review the safety standards of powerful arms and ammunition and lay down more stringent licensing conditions in this respect?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) Over the past three years, no arms and ammunition dealers have been prosecuted for failing to keep an accurate record of transactions in arms and ammunition or the quantity in their possession.
(b) The police inspect the registers of arms and ammunition of shooting clubs which keep their own armouries at least once a year. Where necessary, police divisional commanders increase the frequency of inspections to quarterly or monthly, depending on the circumstances.
During inspections, the police count the arms and ammunition and verify the particulars recorded in the registers against the items stored in the armoury.
(c) The police issue an arms and ammunition dealer's licence under the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance only if the dealer can demonstrate that there is a legitimate need for the firearm in Hong Kong; for example, for pursuing shooting of a particular type of firearm as a sport. At present, dealers may deal only in harpoon guns, crossbows, air guns, pistols, revolvers, rifles (but not fully ― or semi-automatic rifles) and shotguns, for which the police issue licences of possession. An exception is that an arms dealer may be permitted to take possession of a wider selection of arms (including automatic weapons) for them to be modified for film shooting; these weapons can be used only for film shooting after examination by the Police Ballistic and Firearms Identification Bureau.
Each application for possession of a particular type of firearm, or for dealing in such a firearm, will be considered on its own merits. If a licence for possession is subsequently issued, it is issued subject to terms and conditions as the Commissioner of Police thinks fit. Conditions are imposed primarily with the public interest in mind and invariably relate to safety and security.
2312 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 New coins
11. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Regarding the issue of the new coins bearing the bauhinia emblem, will the Government inform this Council whether consideration had been given to:
(a) the percentage of iron content in the alloy of the coins and the adaptability of these coins to current vending machines when they were minted; if so, why are the new coins not suitable for use with some of such machines; and
(b) the inconvenience that might be caused to the public in carrying the coins around when making the decision to replace the existing $10 notes by the new coins?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,
(a) As with any new coin, existing vending machines will need to be adapted to accept the new $10 coin, regardless of the metal content of the coin. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority is working closely with representatives of both the operators and the suppliers of vending machines with a view to ensuring that the $10 coin will be accepted by vending machines from its introduction. There is no iron content in the new $10 coin.
(b) The new $10 coin is lighter in weight than the existing $5 coin. (The former weighs 11 grammes and the latter weighs 13.5 grammes.) The inconvenience that might be caused to the public in carrying the $10 coin should, therefore, be minimal. Furthermore, the circulation of $20 notes will be increased so members of the public will have a choice of the convenience of carrying bank notes in a higher denomination instead of coins if they so wish.
China's Most Favoured Nation status
12. MR JAMES TIEN asked (in Chinese): In view of the United States' forthcoming review of whether to renew China's Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status unconditionally, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has, after the renewal of China's MFN status last year, reassessed in the light of the latest economic and commercial developments in Hong Kong, what substantial impact will be caused to Hong Kong's economy should China fail to secure the unconditional renewal of its MFN status this year;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2313
(b) given that the Governor in his policy address and the Financial Secretary at various public occasions have both pointed out that as compared with last year, it will be more difficult for China to secure the renewal of its MFN status this year, what work and lobbying the Government has actually done to ensure that our economy will not be seriously affected should China fail to secure the renewal of its MFN status this year;
(c) whether it has provided a detailed analysis for the industrial and commercial sectors, giving a forecast of our overall economic development in the event of the successful renewal of China's MFN status and analysing which sectors of our economy will be the hardest hit should the renewal bid fail, so that the industrial and commercial sectors, with more information available, can map out their long-term development plans; and
(d) what it will do to assist the affected factory operators should China fail to secure the renewal of its MFN status this year?
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY: Mr President, the information sought by the Honourable Member is set out below:
(a) An updated assessment of the impact on Hong Kong's economy should China lose its Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status in the United States, based on 1993 trade statistics, is being prepared and will be available in March 1994.
(b) The Hong Kong Government continues to support the unconditional renewal of China's MFN status. Lobbying for such renewal has by now become a regular part of the work of our Economic and Trade Office in Washington. In this connection, the main task of my colleagues in Washington is to ensure that the damaging impact of MFN revocation on Hong Kong's economy is conveyed to relevant members of the United States Administration and as many members of the United States Congress as possible. In carrying out this task, my Washington colleagues co-operate closely with a coalition of United States businesses which have an interest in trading with or investing in China. Such efforts are supplemented each year by visits to Washington by Hong Kong Government officials. In addition, the Government also co-ordinates the visits to Washington of prominent Hong Kong personalities as well as lobbying missions comprising representatives of Hong Kong's trade and industrial organizations; and assistance is provided to them on the spot by my Washington colleagues. The programme of visits in connection with MFN renewal in 1994 is under consideration.
2314 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
(c) The degree to which individual sectors of Hong Kong's economy may be hurt would depend on the extent of their involvement in the re-export trade between China and the United States and in the production in China of goods for consumption in the United States. In view of the close inter-relationship between the sectors involved, the possible damage to individual sectors would be difficult to estimate separately and the economic impact assessment carried out by the Government does not go beyond an estimate of the overall economic impact.
(d) In line with our economic philosophy of minimum interference in the operation of market forces, we believe that decisions on how best to adjust to changes in the business environment should be left to businessmen themselves. In any case, given the degree of economic inter-dependence between Hong Kong and China, it is not possible to envisage any action on the part of the Hong Kong Government which would have the effect of insulating any Hong Kong businesses involved from the impact of China's loss of MFN.
Outline Zoning Plans
13. MR EDWARD HO asked: With regard to the revised density controls in Kowloon introduced recently through amendments to the relevant Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), will the Government inform this Council of the reasons for:
(a) the disparity in length of time allowed for raising objections to the different OZPs; and
(b) the imposition of controls through amendments to the OZPs rather than the Buildings (Planning) Regulations?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) The period for raising objections to Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs) is governed by the Town Planning Ordinance and depends on the status of the particular OZP. If an OZP is a new one or has been referred back to the Town Planning Board for amendment by the Governor in Council under sections 9(1)(c) or 12(1)(b)(ii), amendments to it need to be gazetted under section 5 of the Ordinance and exhibited for public inspection for a period of two months. However, if it is an amendment plan to amend one already exhibited under section 5 but not yet submitted to the Governor in Council under section 8, amendments will be gazetted under section 7 with a three-week public inspection period.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2315
(b) OZPs deal with the overall layout, land-use and planning of an area and may set development limits in the form of plot ratio restrictions for different land uses and for different areas having regard to such matters as the provision of infrastructure, planning considerations and environmental factors. It is therefore appropriate to impose revised density controls on Kowloon and New Kowloon through amendments to OZPs. The Buildings (Planning) Regulations serve a different purpose in that they govern the integrity of a particular structure, the safety of the building, the standard of fire fighting equipment and so on. The Administration made clear and the Legislative Council acknowledged on 7 November 1991 that density control in Kowloon and New Kowloon would be imposed by amending OZPs when the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands moved a motion seeking an extension of the Temporary Control of Density of Building Development (Kowloon and New Kowloon) Ordinance until 31 December 1993.
Housing sites in Junk Bay
14. MR LEE WING-TAT asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the respective manner, terms and price of granting the sites in Junk Bay to the Housing Society for the construction of housing estates for rental/sale purposes (excluding sandwich class housing scheme)? Please state the market value of the sites concerned.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the site in Area 19B of Tseung Kwan O will be granted to the Hong Kong Housing Society by private treaty for the purposes of constructing rental flats and flats for sale together with a proportionate amount of supporting commercial floor space. The site has an area of about two hectares and the proposed domestic gross floor area is about 144 000m2 and the supporting commercial floor space about 1 400m2.
The premium for the site will be calculated on the basis of one-third of the full market value for rental flats, one-half of the full market value for flats for sale, and the full market value for commercial floor space in accordance with established policy. Because the site will be granted at a concessionary premium in respect of the residential portions, the Society will be required under the conditions of grant to offer the flats for sale on terms similar to the Housing Authority's Home Ownership Scheme.
The premium and market value of the site have not yet been assessed and the housing mix between rental and sales has not yet been decided upon.
2316 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 Immigration offences
15. MS ANNA WU asked: Will the Government inform this Council of cases of immigration offences which failed to be brought to court or failed in court on account of an inability to secure the attendance of witnesses from China or on account of attacks on the credibility of evidence by reason of lengthy detention of witnesses under the Immigration Ordinance?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, we do not have records of the number of cases which have not been brought to court because of a decision not to seek the detention of a witness. Nor do we have figures of cases which have failed in court for lack of such a witness.
We are aware of a case in 1993, when a magistrate ruled that the evidence of an illegal immigrant (II) found working on a construction site was essential to prove his status and hence for the prosecution of the site controller. The site controller was therefore acquitted because the II was not available, having been repatriated. This particular problem has now been resolved; section 63A of the Immigration Ordinance was amended by the Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 1993, which allows for the proof of an II's status by means of a certificate.
We are not aware of any problems caused by attacks on the credibility of the evidence of a witness by reason of his or her detention under the Immigration Ordinance.
Security measures in police stations and police staff quarters
16. MRS SELINA CHOW asked: In relation to the recent burglaries that broke out in a police station and in a police staff quarter where a police uniform and revolver(s) have been stolen, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the security measures in police stations and police staff quarters; and
(b) whether improvements have been made to these measures in the light of these burglaries?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) (i) Police formation commanders issue instructions and orders governing the general security of police stations. These instructions and orders include procedures to be followed by police officers and other staff in police stations to ensure the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2317
security of offices, equipment, firearms, ammunition, documents and valuables; they are reviewed regularly.
(ii) There are specific Police General Orders for police officers to follow in police station armouries and, in particular, for the security of personal issue weapons.
(iii) Access to police stations is, in many cases, controlled by police officers on gate guard duty. Disciplined staff in police report rooms are also responsible for overseeing the security of the police station.
(iv) At the design stage of new police stations, security is one of the major factors taken into consideration when preparing the layout and accommodation plan.
(v) Security measures for police quarters differ, depending on where they are situated. Some purpose-built police quarters are located adjacent to police stations. Where access to these quarters is via the adjacent police station, then entry and exit is controlled by the station gate guards. For police quarters in public housing estates, private housing estates, or isolated residential blocks, the estate management or the property management agency appointed by the Government will be responsible for security. Police Regional Crime Prevention Officers can give advice to property or estate management staff to improve and maintain appropriate security for police quarters, and, where necessary, require them to make improvements.
(b) The police investigate thoroughly all cases of theft or loss of police arms, ammunition or equipment, irrespective of where the theft or loss has occurred. The investigations into the two recent cases involving the theft of a police uniform and a personal issue revolver do not indicate any inadequacy in police orders for security or security measures. Therefore, no immediate changes have been made. However, the Force keeps under regular review security measures and orders to ensure that they are adequate and properly administered.
Film Standards Survey
17. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): At the Eastern District Board meeting on 22 July 1993, an official of the Recreation and Culture Branch stated that a survey would be completed by the end of 1993 to find out the extent to which people would accept objectionable and indecent elements in films and posters. Will the Government inform this Council:
2318 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 (a) of the findings of the survey;
(b) whether the survey covers pornographic computer software; if not, whether a separate survey on this particular article will be conducted;
(c) whether the existing Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (Cap. 390) will be amended in the light of the findings of the survey; if so, when the relevant Bill will be introduced to this Council; and
(d) if the Government has not yet conducted or completed such a survey, what the reasons are?
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, the purpose of the Film Standards Survey referred to by the Honourable Eric LI is to collect public opinion on the present film censorship system and standards. The Administration took the opportunity to also solicit public views on film posters.
The field work for this Survey was completed at the end of 1993 as scheduled. The independent research firm commissioned to conduct the survey is now tabulating, analysing and interpreting the data collected. The final report should be ready by the end of March. The Administration will brief the Recreation and Culture Panel of this Council on the findings once they are available.
The Film Standards Survey is conducted every two years mainly for the purpose of ascertaining whether the censorship standards adopted by the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority (TELA) reflect standards of morality and decency prevailing in the community at the time.
This survey does not cover pornographic computer software or any other obscene or indecent articles as these are subject to regulation under the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance (COIAO) and are not governed by the Film Censorship Ordinance (FCO). The Honourable Eric LI may wish to note that the authority under the COIAO is the Obscene Articles Tribunal (OAT), a judicial body consisting of a Presiding Magistrate and at least two lay adjudicators, and not the Television and Entertainment Licensing Authority. The standards for determining obscene and indecent articles are set, not by TELA, but by the OAT having regard to the criteria laid down in the COIAO.
The Administration has no plans to conduct any survey to gauge public opinion on pornographic computer software or other similar articles as the initiative for such an exercise should come from the OAT. However, the Administration will continue to take strong enforcement action and the police and TELA have, in the past nine months, seized 2 500 pieces of pornographic
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2319
computer software and charged four persons as a result. These cases are pending hearing by the court.
As the Film Standards Survey deals mainly with films, any resulting amendment will be made principally to the Film Censorship Ordinance and not to the COIAO. Even there, it is too early to say whether any amendment is necessary to the FCO until we have the survey findings to hand.
Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme
18. MR VINCENT CHENG asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of applications received under Phase I of the Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme;
(b) of the number of applications approved and, of these, the number of applicants who have bought a flat under the Scheme; and
(c) when the second phase of the Scheme will begin and whether there will be modifications as to the eligibility criteria and other details of the Scheme?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) Under Phase I of the Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme, 3 545 applications were received.
(b) So far, 388 applications have been approved and 79 applicants have purchased flats under the Scheme. The Phase I processing will be completed by the end of March.
(c) Applications for Phase II of the Scheme will be invited in April 1994. Based on the experience of Phase I, it is likely that the eligibility criteria and other aspects of the Scheme will be modified. Consultation on possible modifications is currently taking place. (The Legislative Council Housing Panel was consulted on 22 February 1994).
Re-employment of locally enlisted British military staff
19. MR JIMMY McGREGOR asked: Will the Government inform this Council of any measures taken, in co-operation with the British military authorities, to assist in re employment of locally enlisted staff of British military establishments which are being run down by 1997?
2320 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the British Forces in Hong Kong employ some 3 300 Hong Kong residents of whom about 1 300 are serving members of the Royal Navy and the army. The remainder are civilians who provide support services.
Headquarters British Forces, as the employer of these people, has established resettlement teams to assist in managing the rundown in their employment and in identifying employment opportunities for them when they leave. The Hong Kong Government does not have any special schemes for giving priority entrance to former employees of the British Forces for vacancies either in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force or elsewhere in the Civil Service. But they are very welcome to apply, and to compete with other applicants. And there are also many other opportunities for them in Hong Kong's buoyant labour market.
Motions
FIXED PENALTY (TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) ORDINANCE THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT moved the following motion:
"That, with effect from 1 June 1994, $320 is prescribed as a fixed penalty for a contravention of any of the provisions of section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 or 11(1) of the Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper which seeks to increase the fixed penalty fine for illegal parking and related offences.
The existing $200 fixed penalty for such offences was set in 1989. It no longer has a sufficient deterrent effect. This is illustrated by the substantial increase in illegal on street parking and stopping which result in obstruction.
The last adjustment was made nearly five years ago, we therefore propose to increase the fixed penalty from $200 to $320, in line with the rise in inflation, with the aim of restoring its real value and deterrent effect. Subject to this motion being carried, the increase would take effect from 1 June 1994.
Question on the motion proposed.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, the number of vehicles in Hong Kong has been increasing consistently in step with economic growth. But at the same time, the problem of illegal parking has been aggravating, too. It is, therefore, only reasonable of the Administration to propose an increase in penalty fines for illegal parking and related offences, because the existing rate has not been adjusted for five years. The deterrent effect of these fines has been
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2321
off set by inflation. But the 60% substantial increase proposed by the Administration will indeed exert heavy pressures on car owners or motorists, professional drivers in particular. No wonder some critics have accused the Administration of fleecing the public.
Although the proposed rate of increase is very high, the problem of illegal parking is so very serious that it frequently leads to traffic congestion and accidents. The Administration must address this problem squarely. The Liberal Party does not approve of or acquiesce in any illegal acts. And since penalty fines are directed at offenders, the Liberal Party does not object to the current increase. But I wish to make use of this opportunity to analyse some problems reflected by this increase proposal.
(1) The major factor contributing to illegal parking is the insufficient number of parking spaces. That the distribution of parking spaces has become a problem can be attributed to the increase of parking spaces having gone out of step with the continuous increase in the number of vehicles in Hong Kong. This is exemplified by the latest speculation in parking spaces and rocketing rentals for carpark spaces. Some car owners or motorists who park their cars illegally, open to receiving "tickets", will treat the eventual penalty fines, if any, as fees for renting a parking space. Moreover, some car owners simply have no choice but to park their cars in the streets for they practically cannot find any proper parking spaces. So unless supplemented by measures that can solve the problem of insufficient parking spaces, the increase in penalty fines will achieve a short-term effect only. Will the Administration increase the fines again when the difference between the fines and parking charges diminishes again or when the problem of illegal parking remains not solved? The result could be a vicious circle in which the fines keep increasing while the problem still remains, thus forming an ever increasing burden on car owners financially.
(2) Since an increase in penalty fines cannot effectively solve the problem of illegal parking, while the insufficient number of parking spaces is an important factor contributing to illegal parking, increasing the number of parking spaces is therefore the only solution that can eliminate the problem for good. All very often the Administration says it can hardly provide more parking spaces given the serious shortage in land resources. But I think it is merely shirking its responsibility. An excellent communications network is conducive to Hong Kong's economic development. While it is the Administration's responsibility to promote economic development, it is also its responsibility to formulate policies to solve problems of transport, including parking spaces, brought about by economic development.
2322 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
(3) Solving the parking space problem is not something that can be done overnight. Therefore, to solve the problem effectively, I think the Administration has to formulate some short-term measures supplemented by a long-term strategy. In the short term, the Administration should find as much land as possible to provide some additional temporary carparks so as to meet the demands for parking spaces. But in the long term, having increased its revenue, the Administration should take the lead in actively investing in the provision of parking spaces. At the same time, it should also encourage private developers to develop more multi-storey carparks, in order to reduce the financial pressure faced by the Administration in this respect. In remote places where transport infrastructure support is in the lacking, many residents have to buy their own private cars as a means of transport. Therefore, the Administration should speed up the development of mass transport systems to cover such areas, thus meeting the residents' demands for transport as well as reducing their need to drive. This is the long-term solution.
With these remarks, Mr President, the Liberal Party accepts the penalty increase proposals with reluctance and in a critical manner.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I thank the Honourable Miriam LAU for supporting the motion even though the support given is somewhat reluctant.
She has mentioned that the proposed increase in fixed penalty fines is perhaps too high. Yes, this is so in percentage terms alone. But it has got to be remembered that no adjustment has been made for five years. May I reiterate that all that is being proposed is to apply the inflation factor so as to restore the deterrent effect and to bring the fine back to current day dollar terms. I reassure Members that this is not a revenue-raising proposal but is designed to deal with the illegal parking problem.
As regards car parking, the Administration is now addressing this problem. The Transport Department is considering short-term measures. For example, sites are identified and let on short-term tenancies to provide for more parking space. The Government also has plans to provide more multi-storey carparks which will provide some 6 000 additional places in the coming years. But in the meantime, I submit that the illegal parking problem has to be dealt with and I encourage Members to vote for the motion.
Thank you, Mr President.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2323 FIXED PENALTY (CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS) ORDINANCE THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT moved the following motion:
"That, with effect from 1 June 1994, the Schedule to the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance be amended -
(a) in items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 9A, 15, 18 to 22, 28, 30 to 34, 37, 38 and 40 to 52 by repealing "$200" and substituting "$320";
(b) in items 2, 2A, 2B, 6, 8, 10 to 14, 16, 17, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29, 35, 36, 56 and 57 by repealing "$280" and substituting "$450";
(c) in items 39, 53, 54 and 55 by repealing "$140" and substituting "$230"; (d) in item 45 by adding -
"45A. Regulation 36(1) Taxi driver of first or second taxi at a taxi stand not sitting
in or standing beside his taxi
$320"."
He said: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper. This seeks to increase the levels of fixed penalty fines for moving traffic offences and to include a new item in the schedule.
Over the past few years, there has been a vast increase in moving traffic offences, for example, driving in excess of speed limits and crossing double white lines. The police are very concerned and now spend a disproportionate amount of time in attempting to contain the situation. One reason is because the deterrent effect of the existing level of fixed penalty fines which were set in 1989 has been eroded. We therefore propose to restore their value in line with inflation by increasing the fixed penalty fines from $140 to $230, from $200 to $320 and from $280 to $450 respectively for the different categories of moving offences.
Under existing law, the drivers of the first or second taxis at a taxi stand are required to sit in or stand beside the taxi so as to be ready for immediate hire. Failure to comply is an offence and it is proposed that this should be the subject of a fixed penalty fine so as to reduce the burden of the police and the time of the courts. The Administration proposes that this offence should carry a fixed penalty fine of $320 which is pitched at the same level as fixed penalty fines for other taxi-related offences. The intention, Mr President, is that all these fines should take effect from 1 June this year.
Question on motion proposed, put and agreed to.
2324 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 First Reading of Bills
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BILL
TELECOMMUNICATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION BILL
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to make provision about the jurisdiction of courts in Hong Kong in relation to certain offences and for connected purposes."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Criminal Jurisdiction Bill be read a Second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to extend the ability of courts in Hong Kong to try persons for certain offences of fraud and dishonesty that have a connection both with Hong Kong and another place. At present, the law regards an offence as being committed where the last act or event necessary for its completion took place. As a result, it is often not possible to prosecute persons in Hong Kong for frauds committed outside Hong Kong, even though they have a real connection with Hong Kong. This is because the law often regards these offences as having been committed abroad. It is possible therefore, to plan and organize in Hong Kong the commission of offences elsewhere, safe from prosecution here.
Mr President, let me give an example: a person publishes an advertisement in Hong Kong, inviting people to invest in a non-existent property in Australia by paying money into an Australian bank account. There will be no offence committed in Hong Kong if the criminal withdraws the money in Australia and brings his ill-gotten gains back to Hong Kong. This is because the last act, that is, the obtaining of the proceeds, took place abroad. At present, our courts would have no jurisdiction to try the offence.
Similar jurisdictional problems may arise if a person in Hong Kong attempts to commit an offence elsewhere, or conspires or incites another to commit an offence abroad. At present, there is no power to try a person in Hong Kong on a charge of, say, conspiracy to defraud, where the fraud is to take effect in another place. Hong Kong is an international financial and commercial centre. The people of Hong Kong are proud of its standing and status. We cannot allow Hong Kong's reputation to be tarnished by allowing
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2325 fraudsters in Hong Kong to plan frauds in other places, safe from prosecution here.
Mr President, it is unacceptable that our courts should be unable to deal with the situations I have referred to. The rules relating to the jurisdiction of our courts would develop at a time when the global financial marketplace and modern, sophisticated means of transferring money did not exist. Those rules have not evolved to deal effectively with international fraud, which often involves complex operations designed to conceal dishonest conduct and to make detection and conviction as difficult as possible.
The Bill is designed to overcome these problems. It applies to two groups of offences. The offences that are listed in the Bill as Group A offences are broadly the offences of theft, obtaining by deception, false accounting, making certain false statements and blackmail under the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210), and forgery under Part IX of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). the Group B offences in the Bill are conspiracies, attempts and incitements to commit any of the Group A offences, and the offence of conspiracy to defraud. There is provision in the Bill for the list of offences to which it applies to be amended by an order that has to be approved by this Council. Additional offences may, therefore, be included in the legislation if experience shows that it is desirable and necessary to do so.
In relation to the Group A offences, that is the substantive offences involving fraud or dishonesty, the Bill will enable Hong Kong courts to try those offences if any event that must be proved in order to obtain a conviction in respect of them took place in Hong Kong.
In relation to the Group B offences, the Bill provides that our courts shall have jurisdiction if there is a conspiracy, attempt or incitement in Hong Kong to commit one of the specified offences elsewhere, and vice versa.
But, in giving Hong Kong courts jurisdiction in respect of conspiracies, attempts and incitements to commit offences elsewhere, the Bill provides important safeguards. The intended conduct abroad must be such that, if performed in Hong Kong, it would amount to an offence specified in the Bill and in addition, the conduct must be punishable under the law in the other place.
Mr President, the approach of the Bill is similar to that in the English Criminal Justice Act 1993, which implemented recommendations made by the English Law Commission. The Bill proposes to improve the administration of justice in Hong Kong by rendering fraudsters liable to prosecution where their activities, or the consequences of their activities, are connected with Hong Kong.
Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Council.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
2326 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 TELECOMMUNICATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES moved the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Telecommunication Ordinance."
He said: Mr President, I move that the Telecommunication (Amendment) Bill be read a Second time.
The propose of this Bill is to increase the maximum fines for various offences under the Telecommunication Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation. These offences relate mainly to the illegal establishment of means of telecommunication, the sale or demonstration for sale of any radio communication equipment without a licence, and the use of apparatus which causes interference to the workings of telecommunication equipment. The offences may not appear serious in themselves, but they can have very serious consequences in terms of affecting communication by emergency services or by ships or aeroplanes, or by damaging licensed commercial services.
Fines under the Ordinance were first set in 1963 and have not been revised since then. The proposed increases, broadly in line with inflation, are necessary to restore deterrent effect. Over the past six years the number of convictions under section 8 of the Ordinance rose from 141 to 641 per annum, an increase of nearly five times. For the most part this increase was accounted for by unlicensed use or unauthorized modification of radio equipment in taxis and goods vehicles. We believe that the proposed revision in fines will have a significant effect in deterring this category of offenders.
In addition, clause 15 of the Bill proposes to increase the maximum fines for offences under regulations made under the Telecommunication Ordinance from the current $2,000 to $20,000. This is to enable the fines for similar offences under the Telecommunication Regulation and Telecommunication (Control of Interference) Regulation to be increased in line with those being proposed for the principal Ordinance.
With these remarks, Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Council. Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
ELECTORAL PROVISIONS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) (NO. 2) BILL 1993
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 15 December 1993 Question on Second Reading proposed.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2327
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Bill before us cover five main proposals:
(1) adoption of the "single seat, single vote" voting method for all three tiers of geographical constituency elections;
(2) a lowering of the minimum voting age from 21 to 18;
(3) removal of the restriction on candidature and membership as applied to Hong Kong residents who are members of the central or local legislative organs of the People's Republic of China;
(4) abolition of all appointed seats in the municipal councils and the district boards, retention of district board representatives in the municipal councils, and retention of ex officio seats of the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of the Heung Yee Kuk in the Regional Council as well as those of the chairmen of rural committees in the New Territories district boards; and
(5) an increase in the number of elected members in the municipal councils. (The Urban Council would have 32 while the Regional Council would have 27 directly elected seats)
In scrutinzing the Bill, the Bills Committee had concentrated mainly on the technical aspects. It was reckoned that Members would hold different views on the principles covered in the Bill, and would no doubt take the opportunity today to express their views.
The Bills Committee had suggested to the Administration that some of the existing electoral provisions should be reviewed. One of these is the Governor's involvement in the cessation of office of elected Members of this Council. Most of these current functions and powers of the Governor are apparently attributable to his former position as President of this Council. The Administration has agreed to review and seek appropriate amendments to the existing legislation in due course.
Another issue is the disqualification provision relating to "salaried" functionaries (or salaried representatives). (Clauses 9, 31 and 44 of the Bill.) Some Members were concerned that in view of the special relationship between non-salaried functionaries (such as honorary consuls, foreign government representatives) and their respective governments, conflict of interest situation might arise if these functionaries were allowed to stand for elections. The Administration agreed to look at this aspect.
At Members' request, the Administration also agreed to consider closing the statutory voter registration as close as possible to the date of election, and to review the appropriateness of the quorum for the municipal councils at one-fourth of the total number of members of the council.
2328 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Members took the opportunity to seek clarification on the provision regarding the qualification for nomination as a candidate. Section 18 (2) of the Electoral Provisions Ordinance stipulates the residence requirement, that the person has to be "ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for the 10 years immediately preceding the date of his nomination". The Administration advised that the determination of whether a person has met such residence requirement will depend on the facts of the individual case. Under the existing electoral law, a formal decision on the validity of nomination of candidate cannot be taken until a vacancy is formally declared, a nomination paper and the candidate's consent have been put forward, and a returning officer for a particular election is appointed.
Members were concerned that a person's eligibility for candidature should be established before an election. On this, the Administration responded that if a prospective candidate wishes to seek clarification on his residence qualification, he may provide details to the Registration and Electoral Office, and the view given will be conveyed to him on a strictly without prejudice basis. Besides, the prospective candidate may apply to the court for a declaration of his residential status. Members were not fully satisfied with the response and had decided to refer the issue to the Constitutional Development Panel of this Council for further discussion. The issue is being discussed by the Panel now.
The Bills Committee had also suggested a few technical amendments to the Bill. The major amendments are as follows: to change the date of the Electoral Provisions (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Bill from "1993" to "1994"; to add a new part to the proposed Section 6A, which will spell out expressly the requirement for a poll to be counted when an election is contested and the voting at that poll should be by secret ballot; and the word "whether" will be added before "central or local" in the English text so that the meaning of the provision will be clearer.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MR ALLEN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, today's debate on the Electoral Provisions (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill 1993 has evoked many memories in me. I remember that on 26 September 1984 the Chinese and British Governments officially announced, "The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China have reviewed with satisfaction the friendly relations existing between the two Governments and peoples in recent years and agreed that a proper negotiated settlement of the question of Hong Kong, which is left over from the past, is conducive to the maintenance of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and to the further strengthening and development of the relations between the two countries on a new basis." These are the words in the beginning of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Chinese and British Governments did solve the important question of the future of Hong Kong by way of negotiations. From then on, Hong Kong has entered the transitional
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2329
period of the transfer of sovereignty and launched a series of unprecedented political reforms.
Officials of the British Government have long emphasized to us the importance of the convergence of political systems. Mrs Margaret THATCHER, Sir Geoffrey HOWE and Mr Douglas HURD have repeatedly made such an emphasis to the people of Hong Kong and have also stressed that the Chinese and British Governments have to co operate with a view to ensuring a smooth transition. Today, in the absence of an agreement after 17 rounds of talks between the Chinese and British Governments, this Council is debating on the first part of the political reform package. But will the arrangements of this part of the package as well as those of the second part, which will soon be discussed by this Council, be scrapped after 30 June 1997? It may now be too early to draw any conclusion, but there is every indication that China will remove the entire election system on 1 July 1997 and conduct another election.
The Liberal Party firmly believes that the people of Hong Kong have always expected that the Chinese and British Governments can resolve the dispute over the electoral system by way of negotiations in order to have a smooth transition. The findings of an independent survey were published in the South China Morning Post the day before yesterday, indicating that 69% of the respondents thought that China and Britain would re-open the talks. Like most of the public, we earnestly hope that the two Governments will perform their historical responsibilities for the people of Hong Kong and resume the co-operation and discussion between them. The Liberal Party wants to strive for Hong Kong a fair and democratic election system that can continue into the future. That we shall move an amendment today to the first part of the political reform package to defer the discussion of the "single seat, single vote" system for the Legislative Council election is because we consider that passing the electoral arrangements at this stage will lead to a complete breakdown of the Sino-British talks. We do not wish to see the electoral arrangements of this Council become the reason or excuse for the breakdown of the talks. We learn from the media that the Chinese and British sides have, after so many rounds of talks, narrowed down the difference between them and are not far from reaching an agreement on the political system. Therefore, the Liberal Party hopes that we can concentrate today on the electoral arrangements for the municipal councils and the district boards, deferring the discussion on the part of the Legislative Council elections, so as to give both sides room and leeway to re-open the negotiation and reach an agreement which is acceptable to the people of Hong Kong. It may also ensure a through train arrangement, continuity in the political system and a smooth transition.
The Liberal Party considers that the people of Hong Kong should urge the Chinese and British Governments to re-open the negotiations. Even though some people may say that this is only our wishful thinking, we should still try our best and exhaust all avenues to prevent the two Governments from evading their historical responsibilities. "To strive to do something even though one knows that it is unlikely to succeed" is the teaching of Mencius. Besides, how
2330 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
can we say that something is infeasible if we have not even given it a try? We do not want to give up any hope however small it is. What we need is the vision and courage to make history.
The Liberal Party attaches great importance to the continuity of the arrangements in the political reform package. We agree to certain parts of the package, namely, the lowering of the voting age, the removal of appointed seats in the district boards and the two municipal councils, and the adoption of the "single seat, single vote" system for the elections of the district boards and the two municipal councils. Although we have a different view as regards the election method of the Legislative Council, we can accept this Council's previous decision in this regard, that is, implementing the "single seat, single vote" arrangements. But we do not consider now an appropriate time for this Council to decide on the electoral arrangements of the Legislative Council. We should give a chance, however small, to the talks. Regardless of the result of today's debate, life will still go on in the next three years of the transitional period. We therefore call on the Chinese and British Governments to fully co-operate at various levels. The relationship between China and Hong Kong is close and symbiotic. A stable and prosperous Hong Kong will be equally beneficial and important to the people of Hong Kong and to China. I hope that Members will support our amendment.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, the row over the political reform proposals in respect of the 1994-95 elections for the three tiers of representative government has been rumbling on for nearly one and a half years with no signs of resolution. In my view, it is a tragedy to the people of Hong Kong. On the one hand, the people of Hong Kong are very indignant at the Chinese and British Governments' lack of sincerity and faith; on the other, they feel helpless and disheartened that the Hong Kong Government, though under the strong leadership of the Governor, seems to be at its wits' end when the people of Hong Kong are going to pay the heavy cost of a strained Sino British relationship. Another thing is that today this Council is merely going to deliberate and decide on the less contentious part of the Governor's political reform package, yet there are still several amendments to be moved. It is sad to see that Hong Kong people fail to show solidarity before the two sovereign powers over some less contentious issues. Who are we going to blame but ourselves?
My colleagues of the social service sector have taken an unequivocal and persistent stand on the broadening of democracy. This is an integral part of our professional ideal. Besides, our close relationship with the general public through the delivery of services certainly enables us to have a clear idea about what sort of democratic system our community wants.
That said, in the wake of the announcement made by the Chinese side of making arrangements for the transition without the through train following the breakdown of the Sino-British negotiation over the political reform in Hong
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2331
Kong, I sent out questionnaires to consult my social service colleagues about their views and attitudes towards, the political reform package. Although the response was poor as predicted, the outcome is still of some use to me and this Council.
Simply put, the three major issues to be put to a vote today in respect of the Electoral Provisions (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill 1993, that is, single vote, single seat for the three tiers of government, the lowering of the minimum voting age to 18 and the abolition of ex officio and appointed seats in the two municipal councils and district boards, received a high degree of support among the respondents. The overwhelming support is in contrast to the tug-of-war now we witness in this Council. As for the amendment put forward by Mr Allen LEE just now, if there are sufficient evidence and justifications to make one believe that the endorsement of the amendment will bring both the British and Chinese sides back to the negotiation table, we might as well give it our support. The majority of the people now still cherish a hope that both Governments may resolve the convergence problem in the run-up to 1997 through negotiations. However, I find the chances very slim.
One of the major arguments against the abolition of appointed and ex officio seats in the two municipal councils and district boards is that district affairs should not be politicized. I consider such an argument self-deceiving. In an open and democratic community, any boards and councils under a parliamentary system, be they at central or district level, will inevitably be involved in competing political interests. Actually, nowadays, any boards and councils that deal with public issues are "arenas of politics". It does not matter whether we have ex officio or appointed seats in the boards and councils. On the contrary, a parliamentary system with higher representativeness would facilitate direct representation of public opinion and the establishment of an equitable system to accommodate competing interests.
Moreover, all the seats in this Council are going to be returned by the people less than two years from now. There is indeed no reason for me to have any doubts about the electors' ability and not to support the councils and boards assuming the role of monitoring the Government and upholding public interest. From a different perspective, one would see that the penetration of politics into every sphere of the community is beneficial to Hong Kong, which has been a dearth of political talents, by providing long term and perpetual political training to the people, thus enhancing our ability to handle future situations.
Furthermore, on the issue whether or not Hong Kong deputies to China's National Peoples' Congress should be allowed to run in the three-tier elections, over 60% of the respondents had an open mind and were of the view that anyone who complies with the provisions under the electoral legislation should be eligible and entitled to run in the elections. However, there were still more than 20% of the respondents against this. Of the various reform package, this is the single item that attracts the most opposition. As I understand it, social workers often keep a wary eye on the appointment system and the nucleus of its
2332 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
power. Apart from that, social workers also look at this group of people with suspicion and reservations because they are not sure whether people of such background will fight for Hong Kong people's best interest. In other words, if they do not eradicate their public image as "loudspeakers" and "hand-raising machines" of the central authority, they will not be able to gain local people's trust and support.
Mr President, I have made it clear time and again in the past that the social service sector and I support the proposals put forth in the partial political reform package. I have no intention to change my position today.
These are my remarks.
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, although I will move an amendment at the Committee stage, all the 13 Members from the United Democrats of Hong Kong (UDHK) will support the principles of the Electoral Provisions (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Bill. However, the Government has been delaying the introduction of the political reform Bill to the Legislative Council. It has even gone back on its words by taking the initiative to divide the reform proposals package into two parts. The UDHK must again express our strong dissatisfaction over this.
The next district board elections will be held in six months' time, but the electoral arrangements are still unclear. We do not even know on which Sunday in September the elections will be held. The Government has the responsibility to work out as soon as possible the specific electoral arrangements, including the date and form of the elections and the voters' qualification, so that citizens can begin to prepare for the election in good time. As to the political parties, it is even more essential for them to grasp as early as possible the specifics of the electoral arrangements for the three tiers of representative government, in order to conduct overall planning, manpower deployment and allocation of resources. The present uncertainty has not only dampened the desire to stand for election, but also affected the voters' incentive to vote.
Mr President, the three tiers of representative government are interrelated. Therefore, the UDHK have been insisting that the 1994-95 electoral arrangements must be dealt with in their entirety. The so-called "less controversial" part has to wait until today to go through the Second and Third Readings, and that is already too late. The remaining part which deals with the constitution of the Legislative Council in 1995 has yet to be introduced despite repeated calls. According to what was said in the press recently, the Government would gazette the remainder of the political reform package this Friday. But even so, when will the Government introduce the Bill to the Legislative Council? Such perpetual uncertainty is unfair to those who intend to go into politics.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2333
The UDHK attempted to amend the Bill before us to incorporate the method of constituting the Legislative Council into today's debate. Yet it was vetoed by the President on procedural grounds. Although the UDHK supports the spirit of this Bill, we must solemnly call on the Government again to delay no more and gazette the remainder of the political reform package immediately and introduce the respective Bill to this Council for scrutiny. The UDHK also appeals to the Government to really respect Hong Kong people's wishes by holding a referendum to decide the future political system of Hong Kong.
With these remarks, Mr President, the UDHK supports the principles of the Bill. But I will move an amendment at the Committee stage to abolish the ex officio seats.
MR PANG CHUN-HOI (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all, I would like to state my position, that is, apart from the purely technical amendments to the wording of the Bill to be moved by the Honourable Andrew WONG at the Committee stage, I will not support any other amendments.
The principal contents of the Electoral Provisions (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No.2) Bill 1993, as presented to this Council by the Administration, were enthusiastically debated by this Council in 1992, and a consensus was reached by a majority of Members. I therefore feel that amendments are unnecessary.
The Sino-British talks, after the 17th round, have been bogged down as a result of both sides' unwillingness to concede ground. It has been reiterated by China that unless the Hong Kong Government withdraws the political reforms proposals, it is impossible for any further negotiations to be held. Therefore, the partial amendment proposed by some Members today may have been well intended but there are indeed no signs that China and Britain might possibly return to the negotiation table.
In the meantime, the majority of Hong Kong people are frustrated, and even tired of it because no agreement has been reached by China and Britain in respect of the political reforms. They are also very dissatisfied with this Council's incessant preoccupation with the political reforms, thus overlooking the people's livelihood.
Finally, I should like to reiterate that I will not support any other amendments expect those to be proposed by the Honourable Andrew WONG.
Mr President, I so submit.
2334 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, the 13 Members of the United Democrats of Hong Kong will oppose the amendments to be moved by the Liberal Party and Mr Eric LI during the Committee stage.
The amendment by the Liberal Party seeks to remove that part of the Bill which concerns the "single seat, single vote" system for direct election to the Legislative Council. The Liberal Party has openly indicated that it will not oppose using the "single seat, single vote" system in the elections of the district boards and the two municipal councils, and in the direct election of the Legislative Council. If so, then why do they move such an amendment? They say that it is useful for encouraging the Chinese and British sides to resume the talks on the political system. But is it the true reason?
In 1995, all the appointed seats of this Council will be abolished. Those who intend to run in the election, especially members of political parties, will have to face the pressure of the people's opinions. The people have clearly expressed their preference for the "single seat, single vote" system. Therefore, the Liberal Party cannot but change its formerly Co-operative Resources Centre position of supporting a multi-seat, single vote system. This is a welcomed change of position.
However, the Chinese Government has expressed its opposition to adopting the "single seat, single vote" system for the direct election of the Legislative Council. So to give full impetus to its strategy of procrastination, it has demanded to separate the district board and municipal council elections from that of the Legislative Council. In response to this expressed intent, the Liberal Party has come up with this amendment.
China's condition for resuming the talks on the political system is the withdrawal of Mr PATTEN's entire political reform package. In these circumstances, I am afraid that even the Liberal Party itself is not convinced that the passing of its amendment can lead to the resumption of the talks.
PRESIDENT: What is your point, Mr LEE?
MR ALLEN LEE: I want to seek clarification from Mr SZETO Wah. I have specifically said in my speech that we accept the voting method. What proof does he have, if any, to say that we are taking the Chinese line?
PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr SZETO Wah, you are well aware of the procedure. It is entirely up to you whether you elucidate or not.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): I do not intend to reply.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2335 PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Do you think you will be praiseworthy if you just fall on your knees when in fact you are told to kowtow on all fours? Any wishful thinking, any attempts at appeasing both parties at the same time, any acceptance with a half hearted resistance, or any suggestive eyes making to the authority will all be futile and will only end in the notoriety of fickleness. If you have one leg in one boat and the other in a second, you will surely fall into the water if either boat moves away.
The Oriental Daily News of 12 February this year reported that a Member of the Liberal Party had told its reporter, "Given that we sell coffee, we should try to expand the market of coffee. We just should not switch to selling tea on finding that people like tea and then to selling soft drinks when people like soft drinks." I think that the crux of the matter is neither coffee, tea nor soft drinks. It lies in the word "sell". A councillor's prime duty is to handle the affairs of the public. He should determine his stance in discharging his duty according to the principles applicable in the handling of public affairs. He should not be business-minded and regard this Council as a market place.
That particular Member had also said, "In the past, there were occasions on which the Liberal Party did change its stance in order to appease different people. It did for this reason vacillate between different positions. However, after the incidents concerning the political reform package and the two bus companies, I hope that the Liberal party will not vacillate nor change its stance anymore." But judging from the amendment it will move today, the Liberal Party has not learned its lesson from yesterday's faults. It is still trying to appease different people, still vacillating between different positions and still changing its stance.
Someone has in the meeting of this Council called me a "political animal". Dr SUN Yat-sen once said, "Politics means the affairs of the public." Man is an animal, a genus of the family of animals. So to be a political animal is not a shame. But one must not become a political "qinshou". A "qinshou" is also an animal, but it is not a human being. "Qin" means creatures that can fly. It belongs to the category of birds and is oviparous. "Shou" means beasts. It belongs to the category of mammals and is viviparous. A "qinshou" is neither a bird nor a beast. It may be a bird or a beast; it may also be a bird and at the same time a beast. It may sometimes pretend to be a bird and sometimes a beast, vacillating between both categories. Is there such an animal? From the scientific point of view, bat belongs to the category of beast, but it can also fly like a bird. So it resembles the kind of animal that is neither a bird nor a beast, perhaps a bird or a beast and perhaps a bird and a beast, pretending sometimes to be a bird and sometimes a beast, and vacillating between both categories. It is therefore excluded by both bird and beast. Bat has also some other features: It is afraid of light; it hides by day and comes out at night; and when it sleeps, it hangs itself upside down, with its head to the ground and its tail to the sky.
2336 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Due to the time limit, I will not speak on Mr Eric LI's amendment as other Members will surely do so.
Mr President, I so submit.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I originally did not intend to speak today because what has to be said about the subject has been said too much already. Yet, as a member of a responsible political group, I find it necessary to explain the current situation to the people of Hong Kong once again.
The 10th anniversary of the Sino-British Joint Declaration is just a few months away. Ten years ago, China and the United Kingdom, after nearly two years of talks, reached a settlement on questions left over from the past and established a relationship of mutual trust and co-operation. These were then written into the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Who could have speculated then that China and the United Kingdom were to argue later about the specific arrangements for the last elections in the transition period, with a little less than three and a half years in the run-up to 1997? Both countries have been arguing over the question since October 1992 for an unusually long period, with unfathomable damages to Sino-British relations.
People cannot but wonder what brought this all about. Is it because of the change in Governorship? Apparently not, since the Governor has repeatedly claimed to have the full backing of the British Cabinet.
People therefore cannot help wondering again what made the United Kingdom change its policy so abruptly. Is it that the British Government feels that it has let the people of Hong Kong down over the past 150 years of colonial rule? Is it that the British Government also feels that it was wrong to sign the Sino-British Joint Declaration, so much so that it has decided to go back on its words now and try to reverse what it has done?
One can keep on asking for reasons. History will give its verdict. But the reality, I believe every Member here today is discerning enough to see, is that despite the British side's insistence for over a year that it has been fighting for democracy in Hong Kong, we are suffering a loss before an uncertain gain. Even Sir Percy CRADOCK, the former foreign affairs adviser to the British Prime Minister, said that the unilaterally formulated political reform would not bring more democracy to Hong Kong, but on the contrary would do to the territory permanent damage.
Another reality is that we have this debate today because the British side unilaterally announced after the 17th round of talks that it would table the first part of the reform package at this Council. The significance of the Bill before us today is that if the Bill is passed, the British side will then have crossed the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2337
Rubicon on the question of political system. And the Chinese side will then give up any hope of reaching a settlement with its British counterpart.
Whether or not the Chinese and British sides could continue to co-operate in other areas such as people's livelihood and matters connected with the transition, with the relationship of mutual trust damaged by the British side, is not something that can be achieved simply by wishful thinking on the part of China or us.
The situation today is something that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DABHK) have never wished to see. DABHK's position has been steadfast from October 1992 to the present. We have met with the Governor several times to urge the British side to change course soon and to try to settle, by way of discussions, its argument with the Chinese side on the issue of Hong Kong's political system. Towards the end of 1992, DABHK gathered the opinions of the people of Hong Kong on this issue and took them directly to the Chinese Government during a special visit to Beijing. We explained the Hong Kong people's fears and concerns over the so-called "separate kitchen." We called on China and the United Kingdom to begin talks soon on the issue of Hong Kong's political system and to resume their co-operative relations at an early date.
By November last year, China and the United Kingdom were reported to have reached a consensus on some of the questions following 17 rounds of talks on the issue of Hong Kong's political system. Subsequently, however, words came out that the British side had breached the principle of solving the less complicated problems before the complicated ones by insisting that arrangements for the 1995 Legislative Council elections, specifically the proposed use of a "single seat, single vote" system in these elections, should be discussed simultaneously with the arrangements for the district board and municipal council elections; and that, the British side intended to suspend the talks unilaterally when its request was rejected by the Chinese side. On 1 December, a 20-member delegation of DABHK, including myself, made another trip to Beijing in a last-minute bid to enable an agreement to be reached between China and the United Kingdom. Regrettably, however, on 2 December, while we were in Beijing, the Governor, Mr Chris PATTEN, announced that he would table the first part of his reform package at this Council.
At a subsequent meeting with DABHK representatives, Director LU Ping of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office of the Chinese State Council expressed with a heavy heart his great disappointment at this. In fact, we, too, were disappointed and our hearts were heavy, too. All our hard work over the past year or so had gone down the drain.
DABHK knew very well at the time that the chance for the Sino-British talks to be resumed was infinitesimal. Nevertheless, we rushed back to Hong Kong as soon as we could. I then engaged in active discussions with colleagues of this Council as a last-ditch attempt to stop the Governor from tabling the Bill,
2338 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
with the hope that time could be bought to enable talks with the Chinese side to be resumed. Regrettably, things did not turn out as I had hoped.
We have now come to the point where we must admit that the chance for any further Sino-British co-operation on the issue of Hong Kong's political system no longer exist.
Mr President, in face of such a situation, we should not content ourselves with expressing regrets. We should do something positive about our future. We would not underestimate the difficulties ahead of us, but we should not be afraid of these difficulties. What we do today is for the good of Hong Kong tomorrow. DABHK will continue to do its best to urge China and the United Kingdom to co-operate in issues other than the issue of Hong Kong's political system and to solve problems of concern to the people of Hong Kong.
At the general meeting of the Preliminary Working Committee of the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in mid-December 1993, I urged the Chinese side to work with the people of Hong Kong to make Hong Kong's transition smooth and to overcome the difficulties created by the break-down of the talks. We are convinced that though the course of the struggle will be bitter, its fruit will be sweet. It is certain that, if we share the same purpose and work together for it, Hong Kong's future will surely be better.
Mr President, I will vote against the Bill before this Council today. Mr Eric LI's amendment seeks to keep the appointed seats in the district boards and in the two municipal councils, while Mr Allen LEE's amendment seeks to separate from the Bill the part concerning the single-seat, single vote system for the 1995 Legislative Council elections. Though these amendments agree with DABHK's basic position, I will abstain from voting on them because we do not think that the Bill should be tabled at this Council at all before an agreement is reached between China and the United Kingdom.
Mr President, I so submit.
MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Sino-British Joint Declaration signed many years ago can be called a milestone in Sino-British relations towards closer co-operation on the Hong Kong question. The Sino-British Joint Declaration was highly evaluated by the then Legislative Council. Today, many years later, the Council's consideration of the Bill on the 1994-95 elections signifies however a serious step backward in the co-operative Sino-British relations. But most unfortunately, this is happening just over three years from the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong ― a time when sincere Sino-British co-operation is much needed.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed jointly by China and the United Kingdom. The Chinese side also heeded many suggestions made by the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2339
British side during the drafting of the Basic Law. Such a relationship of pragmatic co operation was in the best interest of China, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong. But the Administration's unilateral introduction of the political reform package and tabling of the relevant Bill at the Legislative Council, before an agreement is reached with the Chinese side, is not in the best interest of Hong Kong. The most significant implication is that there will be no through train for Hong Kong's political system. The various councils and district boards constituted by the proposed electoral arrangements will not cross over and beyond 1997. The Chinese side has said time and again that, in the absence of an agreement, the three tiers of representative government must be dissolved and reorganized on 1 July 1997. Nothing can be clearer. It would only be self-deceiving if we should harbour any illusion and insist that the arrangements in question could continue after the specific date.
How can political arrangements that cannot cross over and beyond 1997 be good for Hong Kong? Should our attitude towards the question of Hong Kong's political system be one of "Never mind if you can have it for eternity; just be content with having had it once"? The truth is that an arrangement with a life span of only two or three years will not help the Administration achieve its intended purpose. Quite on the contrary, they will only undermine the foundation of Sino-British co-operation and bring about confusion and instability during the transition period.
From beginning to end, the Heung Yee Kuk always thinks that only political arrangements that can cross over and beyond 1997 are really in Hong Kong's interest. The Heung Yee Kuk hopes that China and the United Kingdom will resolve the issue of Hong Kong's political system through talks. The Heung Yee Kuk does not want to see unilateral action. I will set this point aside for the moment. I think that the many and varied amendments to the Bill, namely, Mr Allen LEE's separation of the Legislative Council's "single vote, single seat" system from the elections of the district boards and the municipal councils; Mr Eric LI's proposed retention of the appointed seats in the municipal councils and district boards and keeping the ratio of appointed and elected members at 1:3; and Mr Andrew WONG's technical amendments are all desirable. The amendments to be moved by Mr Allen LEE and Mr Eric LI have taken account of the realities and overall situation of Hong Kong. I support them because they are conducive to creating a favourable atmosphere for the resumption of Sino-British talks.
Mr Martin LEE seeks to abolish the rural organizations' ex officio seats in the Regional Council and in some district boards. I find that his proposed amendment has not only disregarded the realistic situation and the raison d'etre of the existing arrangements, but has also ignored the overall interests of Hong Kong. The grounds for his amendment are untenable.
Why did the Administration put in place ex officio seats in the New Territories councils and district boards? The 1980 Green Paper: A Pattern of District Administration in Hong Kong contains a fair and balanced comment on
2340 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
this matter, and I quote, "It is not proposed to change the part played by the Heung Yee Kuk, the Rural Committees or the Village Representatives. They will continue to play their traditional valuable role not only in the rural areas but also as representatives of the indigenous people of the New Territories living in the more developed areas, providing a means by which their particular interest in land, rural housing and rural tradition can be discussed with the Government. As ex officio members of the district boards, the chairmen of rural committees in new towns and New Territories districts will ensure that progress is tempered by tradition."
I find the above comment still carries some significant realistic meaning today because the major development of Hong Kong will continue to centre around the New Territories where there are 15 000 hectares of undeveloped private land. Matters of concern to the New Territories inhabitants, their traditional customs and habits of life will continue to be buffeted by the development of new towns, for example, land resumption and relocation of villages. Rural representatives have traditionally acted as bridges of communication and co-ordinators between the Administration and the people, thus enabling the smooth implementation of development plans. I am convinced that this difficult task should continue to be performed by the rural representatives in the future because they are irreplaceable. We cannot underestimate the unsettling effects on the New Territories and on the entire community, as well as on Hong Kong's development, if such a tried and proven institution is abolished regardless of the reality.
Mr President, many critics of the New Territories portion of representative government said the rural representatives are no longer necessary because Hong Kong is so well developed that the distinction between town and country has already disappeared. Actually, these critics do not understand the New Territories' unique historical and social backgrounds. The truth is that there are still nearly 700 villages in the New Territories where facilities in the rural areas are quite inadequate compared with the town proper. For instance, there is still no tap water in some villages.
Some say that since woman villagers have no franchise, the ex officio seats for rural communities should be abolished. But the truth is that women are not barred from voting in elections in the rural areas. The traditional practice has it that the principal of each household is a unit of franchise and acts as the household's representative in voting. The Heung Yee Kuk recently passed a resolution to adopt the "one man, one vote" system for elections in the rural areas. It also set up a working group and approached the Administration for help in expediting progress towards this goal. Such a course of action is in line with the Heung Yee Kuk's usual policy of pursuing liberalization and reform in a gradual and orderly manner. Clearly, the grounds used to justify attacks on rural organizations are untenable. Besides, when creating the ex officio seats in the first place, the Administration did not use any criterion related to the so-called called equal voting rights for men and women. That it now uses this as an excuse for abolishing the ex officio seats is legally indefensible.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2341
It must be pointed out that all rural representatives in the New Territories are elected by way of lawful electoral procedures. Villagers will first elect village representatives who will then elect members of rural committees. Members of these rural committees will then become members of the Heung Yee Kuk and elect the chairman and vice chairmen of the Kuk. Therefore, rural representatives are broadly based. Such an electoral system has operated for decades. In fact, the New Territories was the first to hold democratic elections among all parts of Hong Kong. At present, rural committee chairmen account for only 27 ex officio seats among the more than 200 seats on the five district boards in the New Territories. At the same time, the three ex officio seats in the Regional Council are held by the chairman and vice chairmen of the Heung Yee Kuk, representing the Regional Council's three New Territories constituencies. I find this arrangement totally appropriate to the actual circumstances and fully justified
Mr President, it is necessary to retain the ex officio seats in the New Territories. The northward movement of city population in large numbers has turned the indigenous residents of the New Territories into a minority. Keeping the existing institution will ensure that they can elect representatives who really understand the New Territories to reflect their opinions and to protect their interests. I believe colleagues in this Council will weigh this issue pragmatically and objectively and not be influenced by dangerously radical and misleading statements. I hereby express the hope that this Council will continue to support the existing system of rural representation.
Acting with some conspicuous political motives, some people have consistently singled out the New Territories inhabitants for attack. Today, they say that they want to abolish the traditions of the New Territories inhabitants. Tomorrow, they will say that they want to take away their rights. They are as cocky as the vanguards of the Cultural Revolution who toppled the so-called "four olds". We the indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories have always loved peace and harmony. Nor do we resist people from outside. But we will not sit idly by as unreasonable actions are taken against our lawful traditional rights and interests. We will do everything we can to protect our interests.
It is commendable of the Administration to have put in place, out of pragmatism, ex officio seats for the benefit of smooth administration in the New Territories. However, as far as the Bill as a whole is concerned, its passage will do nothing to help smooth Hong Kong's transition because the British side has failed to reach an agreement with its Chinese counterparts on the question of Hong Kong's political system and the electoral arrangements concerned will not as a result cross over and beyond 1997. Therefore, I do not intend to support it.
Mr President, I so submit.
2342 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Electoral Provisions (No.2) Bill 1993 casts on this Council the responsibility of deciding, one way or another, electoral arrangements for the 1994 and 1995 district board and municipal council elections and to a limited extent, to Legislative Council elections in 1995. All of us are aware that whatever decision we take may have consequences so far-reaching that we are unable to gauge its effect.
Without agreement with China over Hong Kong's constitutional development, we will be giving to the people of Hong Kong not just political uncertainty but also dramatic changes in our political structure when Hong Kong becomes a Special Administrative Region of China in 1997. Some of us must have a sense of foreboding today for whatever our political persuasion, I do not believe that any one of us can claim that we will be entirely happy with the outcome of either this debate or the Bill.
At a time, and on an issue so vital to all of us in Hong Kong, it is indeed a great pity that we are unable to reconcile our differences. This, Mr President, brings to mind what the Governor has said on quite a few occasions and that is, that the Legislative Council will have to determine what it believes to be in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong and what is in the best interests of the principle of Hong Kong people running Hong Kong. But will this Council today be truly deciding what it believes to be in the best interests of the people of Hong Kong? Will this Council today be embarking on the journey that enables Hong Kong people to be running Hong Kong? I fear that that may not come to pass for if the Bill before us is decided by three votes or less, one way or another, historians will long debate whether it was decided by the votes of the three Government Members.
Mr President, in these rather extraordinary circumstances I believe that the three ex officio Members could, and should, abstain from voting so that whatever happens history can say that today in the Legislative Council Hong Kong people are ruling Hong Kong.
Mr President, that would have been my speech but for the remarks made by one Honourable Member, the Honourable SZETO Wah. Mr SZETO in his speech accused the Liberal Party of not really supporting the "single seat, single vote" for the Legislative Council. The Chairman of the Liberal Party, the Honourable Allen LEE, clearly stated the purpose of his amendment and the fact that if his amendment is defeated, that the party will support that particular voting system. Mr LEE asked Mr SZETO for clarification, he refused to reply. Why? Because in truth there is no reply. His relentless attack on the Liberal Party tells me only one thing, that the United Democrats must fear the Liberal Party as real opponents.
Mr President, some of the remarks in this Council have brought laughter to the gallery. Mine has brought laughter to this Council. Today is indeed a very solemn and serious day for Hong Kong and no one is doing justice to this
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2343
Council or the proceedings of this Council by remarks, however humorous they may be. The particular Member that I refer to, Mr President, does his own party no justice.
MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, ever since the Governor put forward his political reform package in 1992, the Sino-British-Hong Kong relationship has been deteriorating. For those of us who call Hong Kong home, we feel quite helpless. We feel helpless not because our views cannot be conveyed to the Chinese Government or the Hong Kong British Government but that the mutual trust among the Chinese, British and Hong Kong Governments has already been destroyed following the gazetting and tabling of the Bill before this Council. The people of Hong Kong have a cause for concern as to whether the smooth transition would be undermined. The people of Hong Kong have certainly remembered clearly that the Chinese Government has repeatedly expressed that the constitutional arrangements are negotiable only if the British side could demonstrate sincerity. We also know too well the utmost importance of a smooth transition to Hong Kong. At a time when agreement was about to reach in the 17th round of talks, the Hong Kong Government, without warning, unilaterally put forth the political reform package with no regard to the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It was bent on unilaterally putting forth the controversial proposals on the 1995 elections for this Council's endorsement, though in full knowledge that it would make it impossible to resume the talks. The Hong Kong Government's move had compelled the Chinese side to make alternative arrangements. Hong Kong is to be returned to China and become a part of it after 1997. This is something which cannot be changed. Under these circumstances, I am sure that the Chinese Government is going to make necessary arrangements for the Special Administrative Region Government. Regrettably, the fact that there is an absence of sincere co-operation on the part of the Hong Kong British Government would certainly cast a dark shadow over the territory in the remaining transition years and the community would be caught in instablility and uncertainty. This has caused considerable concern to the people of Hong Kong and has made those who will remain in Hong Kong after 1997 feel helpless.
The former Foreign Affairs Adviser to the British Prime Minister Sir Percy CRADDOCK unveiled that in the past when he was instructed to hold talks with Beijing on several occasions, he was able to persuade China successfully on all occasions. Far from being as successful as Sir Percy, however, by unilaterally formulating the political reform package, the Hong Kong Government not only cannot bring democracy to Hong Kong but may even bring permanent damage. Sir Percy is an experienced diplomat. His experiences show that China is sincere and serious in its talks with Britain over Hong Kong affairs. The question is: Why Britain has suddenly abandoned its long-standing approach of having matters worked out through discussions and negotiations?
2344 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
A few months ago, the chairmen of 18 district boards and over 200 district board members (including both elected and appointed members) signed a joint letter urging the Hong Kong Government to go back to the negotiation table for the sake of the future of Hong Kong, a smooth transition, the future stability and prosperity of the territory as well as for the well-being of our future generations. It is hoped that smooth transition of the three tiers of government could be achieved and Hong Kong could return to the position in 1991 or 1992. The letter, in brief, said that district board members were concerned about the failure to secure a smooth transition of the three tiers of government, as a result of the breakdown of talks on constitutional arrangements between China and Britain. This would damage the smooth transition of Hong Kong as a whole. Therefore, to ensure the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and to enable the resumption of the Sino British talks, district board members requested the Governor to withdraw his political reform package.
As a matter of fact, basically, nothing is contentious in the Bill. But with a closer look, one would realize that the Bill does attempt to neglect the realities deliberately because if China and Britain really cease the talks on the territory's constitutional arrangements, the Bill, and the electoral arrangements for that matter, would not then be recognized by China. As such, the tenure of office of members of councils and boards would not extend beyond 1997, in contrary to what the Bill states. We need only to do a simple arithmetic to know that the tenure of office of Members of this Council can be in office only for one year and nine to 10 months. If the Bill before us is passed, the public would be misled.
I would also like to talk about the abolition of appointed seats. I am convinced that a progressive approach is the best approach. I think the abolition of appointed and ex officio seats in the two municipal councils and district boards in one go is not a sensible move. Everybody knows that the retention of appointed seats would maintain the existing composition of the membership of boards and councils and they can fully reflect and look after the interests of all walks of life. Therefore I think the spirit of the amendment moved by Mr Eric LI can be accepted basically. However if the current Bill is not withdrawn, the door to negotiations would be closed permanently and there would be slim chances for the resumption of the Sino-British talks. For this reason, I cannot possibly support the Bill whether in its original form or any of its amendments. I would abstain from voting on Mr Eric LI's and Mr Andrew WONG's amendments. I am not against what they intend to amend. It is just because the spirit and the underlying arguments of the whole issue go against my own principles. I believe that it is of paramount importance to seize any opportunity for the resumption of the talks.
I understand that Mrs Elsie TU would later move to ask the Hong Kong Government to shelve the Bill for the time being so that China and Britain may resume the talks. Mrs Elsie TU is a well-known veteran democracy fighter in Hong Kong. She is always fighting for the benefits of the people of Hong Kong.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2345
I am absolutely sure that her proposal is geared towards a brighter future for the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, here I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to all honourable colleagues to support Mrs Elsie TU's motion if they are really concerned about the future of Hong Kong.
Mr President, with these remarks, I would support the motion to be moved by Mrs Elsie TU a moment later.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, when the Joint Declaration was signed this was met with jubilation by many. To some to signify an end of decades of colonial governing, to others the implication is even wider ― that "Hong Kong people will be ruling Hong Kong". In other words, Hong Kong people will be electing their own people, their own representatives, people who will be accountable to them to run their daily lives in the future, for themselves and their families.
The move towards democracy was therefore in the air. The June 4 Incident in China in 1989 gave Hong Kong a fresh impetus for the need for a faster pace of democratization. Politicians jumped onto the bandwagon. This same very Council then in accord with the Executive Council developed the socalled "OMELCO Consensus" which had been widely supported by the people of Hong Kong. 1991 saw our first direct election into this Council. Since then, few would disagree that this Council has been discharging its expected duty, giving a new dimension at the same time to the monitoring of government policies and their implementations.
Are Hong Kong people uninterested in politics? Are Hong Kong people too childish to run their own elections? Are Hong Kong people immature to know who to choose to run their daily lives in the future for their family?
Unfortunately the whole movement has regrettably been hampered by at least two movements:
(a) The proposed 1988 direct election was suddenly withdrawn by the British Government, presumably in response to a comment by China then, and I quote, "certain people are not acting according to the principles of the Joint Declaration" (有㆟不按本子辦事), using this as a disguise of the result of public consultation.
(b) The promulgation of the Basic Law which specifies that there shall only be 20 seats for direct election into this Council in 1995.
But be that as it may, the stage for democratization is set for Hong Kong and there is no turning back.
2346 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Mr President, the Bill before us today may appear simple and to a certain extent superfluous on the surface; the process of democratization may appear mild by any standard; yet there are two deep-rooted connotations:
(1) It is a further step towards the process of democratization for Hong Kong. In other words, how Members vote today will determine their accountability to the progress of democracy for Hong Kong. It is indeed a heavy responsibility for all of us. On one hand, we will be committing the future of the people of Hong Kong and on the other, we must be sure that we are truly representing their sentiments.
(2) It is an opportunity, and I feel that it is high time too, for all of us as people's representatives to stand up and be counted. There is no doubt that voting in a certain direction may get us into China's bad books and may further upset the Sino-British relationship, yet voting the reverse may make a mockery out of the time-honoured democratic principles.
In accordance with democratic principles, two referenda were done on my constituents in relation to the constitutional reforms. The first one was a general one, based on the proposal of the Governor and his maiden policy address. The second one was a specific one on this current Bill. Analysis of the second referendum shows the following:
― 74% supporting lowering the voting age from 21 to 18;
― 66% support the abolition of appointed seats in the district boards, and ex officio Members of the New Territories rural committees;
― 68% support the abolition of appointed seats in the municipal councils, including ex officio Members of the Heung Yee Kuk in the Regional Council;
― 85% support the concept of "single seat, single vote" system in all the three tiers of elections; and
― 77% support the relaxation of restrictions on Hong Kong residents who are also members of the central or local legislative organs of the People's Republic of China to run in elections in Hong Kong.
These two referenda show an overwhelming support, by those who responded, to the principles of this Bill. Furthermore the two referenda show a fairly consistent response, in spite of 16 months of nerve-wracking war of words, indicating people's maturity towards political development and their willingness to stand up to what they consider would be theirs for their future.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2347
It is obvious from the survey that my constituents and myself would be supporting the Bill in principle. Let me, however, add in haste that we support the Bill in its principle of democracy, but this in no way implies our support for any person's ideology nor are we saying that the Government is doing enough for the promotion of democratization in Hong Kong.
For no degree of constitutional reform alone in any country, let alone in Hong Kong, will be enough to promote the complete democratic institutions. But, alas, most issues as suggested by this Council are brushed aside if not ignored by our current Government. At best I can categorically say the Government is purely providing a lip service. Take the incidence of the development of the independence of functions of this Council. After years of debate finally this was achieved, yet with only a shoestring budget to develop the necessary backing to support the ever-increasing and in-depth work of legislators.
The complete separation of executive administration and the legislature leave a lot to be desired. The absence of a linkage makes a mockery of the concept of the executive being accountable to legislature as is obvious from many examples where decisions of the executive administration are done without the least consulation to the legislature nor to people of Hong Kong.
Many times people that include past veteran legislators and Executive Councillors have criticized this Council for having the power to criticize and demand, but yet without the responsibility. But is this a fault of this Council? Has this Council ever been given the role in any way like a ministerial system to have any degree of responsibility?
Much therefore needs to be done. These and many others must be in place before a true democratic institution could materialize.
Finally, Mr President, my referenda to my constituents did show one other area which I can say the majority of Hong Kong would share. We are "suffocated" to say the least by these months and months of debates, wars of words, mudslinging, of even the most basic aspects of constitutional reforms. This degree of suffocation is not only undermining our patience, but eroding our confidence in our future. The result of the recent survey commissioned by the Sunday Morning Post says all. When interviewees are asked whether they are interested in the debate today, 75% say they are not. The message is thus to get on with it and determine the election package within the necessary scheduled timetable, come what may, so that we can still have some breathing space to consider many issues that affect not only the smooth transition, but also the social aspects of our daily life.
Mr President, the two sovereign governments have repeatedly stressed that they will strive to do their best to uphold the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. Let this be a reality and not another lip service.
2348 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
With these remarks and on behalf of the medical functional constituency, I support the Second Reading of the Bill and the amendment to be moved by the Honourable Martin LEE.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, I prepared this address on the basis that some Councillors might wish to delay consideration of the Bill now before us and Mrs LAM has now confirmed that Mrs Elsie TU will do just that. On that issue I have some views.
The Chinese Government has made it clear many times in recent months that if the Patten proposals are put to this Council for legislative consideration, China will take no further part in negotiations with the British Government on their proposals. That message has been driven home with vigour and clarity by Mr LU Ping, Mr ZHOU Nan, by a number of other senior Chinese officials and recently by Premier LI Peng. In case there was any misunderstanding about the Chinese position, the Xinhua News Agency issued a very clear statement last week that any legislation on electoral reform passed by this Council would not be recognized by China. The Sino-British talks on Hong Kong's political development have been to use the Xinhua News Agency phrase, "unilaterally ended" by the Governor.
That being the stated position of China, I find it astonishing that there would be any attempt to delay further consideration of Mr PATTEN's electoral reforms by this Council. Do we really imagine that by doing so, China will somehow change its public stance and agree to talk? Talk about what?
Two of the Patten proposals have already been put into effect. Three more are before us today. Time is now so pressing that delay for delay's sake would be a wanton disregard of our obligations to Hong Kong and Hong Kong people. Do we really think that China will consider us all good boys and girls if we hold up this legislation? Is it remotely possible that China would then be able to be ready to rush to the negotiating table in the belief that the British Government will concede even more than they have already done? Would the Chinese negotiators be willing to eat their words by reaching some form of compromise? Or is it that some Councillors agree with Sir Percy CRADDOCK that China is calling the shots and Hong Kong must therefore do what China wishes? That is not exactly what the Joint Declaration says. It is also not what the Basic Law promises ― Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy.
I think it is the obligation of this Council to do what is right for Hong Kong and what is permissible under the law and within the agreements reached with China. It is not our function to adjust what we know to be right and permissible simply because we are threatened by the Chinese Government that whatever we erect will be pulled down and replaced. To accept that general proposition is to give way to the worst kind of bullying and to concede that this
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2349
Council accepts that instruction replaces debate and that eventually executive authority will smother the democratic independence of this Legislative Council.
Even although some Councillors have a close alignment with China and may therefore support the Chinese view in these matters, they also have a major responsibility to Hong Kong people and should exercise their judgment on that basis. It should be remembered that China is also undergoing massive economic and social change of an irreversible nature and that these changes will certainly bring about liberalizing political changes. What may be impossible or difficult for China to accept today may be a good deal more acceptable three years from now.
The proposals now to be given the authority of law are modest indeed. In most developed countries of the world and in many other countries, a good deal less developed than Hong Kong, they would be considered with amusement. To suggest that they represent a giant leap forward in democratic terms is laughable. China and Britain start the voting age at 18. A few years ago in this Council, to my recollection, all Councillors except seven voted against lowering the voting age. How shameful. Are we now to argue about such a trivial matter? I hope not.
We have already debated the merits of "single seat, single vote" Legislative Council voting procedures. And there was a solid vote in favour in July 1992. That was before the PATTEN proposals were constructed and in response to determined effort by some Councillors to introduce the "multi-seat, single vote" concept. Are we so mesmerized by the need to allow unpopular parties and politicians to take seats in this Council that we now have to change our minds? Or are we calculating the best system for ourselves, a system that will perhaps allow each one of us the best chance to stay on this Council?
Once again, it is the interest of Hong Kong people which should be paramount. One seat, one vote system has been the one successfully used for both lower tiers of representative government for many years. It is understood by the public and I see no reason to seek some other system which is less simple and desired only for party political ends.
As for the district boards, I acknowledge that appointed members have done a very good job through the years and am proud of their contribution. The job is in any case hardly political in nature but it may well become so in one very important matter, the formation of the Election Committee. I therefore feel that the Election Committee should be composed of fully elected members, including all district board members. I will vote to eliminate the appointed members from district boards.
This minor legislation that we are now examining is simply the precursor to much more important legislation which should reach us next month. It is this further legislation which is at the heart of Mr PATTEN's proposals and which has caused such a serious rift between Britain and China. I feel we should not
2350 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
waste more time arguing over these rather petty electoral reforms but get them out of the way today so that the real battle can begin.
Thank you, Mr President.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr President, in accordance with Standing Order 30(1), I move the debate on the motion for the Second Reading of the Electoral Provisions (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill 1993 be adjourned.
Mr President, I would not be taking the step I have just taken in moving this motion if I were not convinced that this is our last chance to call for a resumption of the Sino British talks. I am sure that everyone in Hong Kong wants to see an agreement between the two sovereign states and a smooth transition in 1997. We need to remember that the vast majority of the Hong Kong people have little interest in political ideology, but they do hope for a peaceful transfer of power in 1997.
Let me make clear at the outset that I believe in democracy if that means finding ways to improve the livelihood of the people. But I do not believe in political power struggle that leads the community into a state of fear and anxiety about the future. I am not a political activist making unrealistic promises or irresponsible demands.
Today Hong Kong is in a political crisis in spite of our strong economy. Our chances of pulling Hong Kong through this political crisis may well rest upon how we vote today. The Sino-British talks have already ceased. If we vote through this partial Bill today, no matter how we amend it, I believe that there will be no chance of resuming the talks. China counts it a matter of honour that her constitution for Hong Kong, the Basic Law, will be implemented in 1997. A second stove is already being set up for that purpose, and we all know that a second stove signifies disharmony in the family, with both sides unhappy and unco-operative. When a family stays together, the members can work out a menu acceptable to all. If they set up a second stove, some members may not enjoy the new menu. In fact, we shall have no say in preparing the menu for 1997.
So the choice before us today is to vote, or not to vote, on this Bill. If we pass all of it, or any part of it, we shall have to live with the consequences, and we shall be responsible to the whole community that they too have to live with the consequences. If the Sino-British talks remain stalled, the years between now and 1997 will not be smooth for Hong Kong, because in a broken family there is inevitably a breakdown in communication and a lack of co-operation; there is ill-feeling and acrimony. And in a broken family it is the innocent children who suffer most. The innocent children in this case are the ordinary people of Hong Kong, the silent majority, who seek nothing more than to get on with their lives.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2351
Is it worthwhile, therefore, to pass this Bill today when we know that it will only create more disagreement, and there will be no more talks? If we support this Bill, what do we gain? We shall have a British-made Bill lasting from 1995 until 30 June 1997. After that we shall switch over to the new stove in which this Council has had no say.
Of course there are some who promise us that if the British system is set up in 1995, China would not dare to change it in 1997. To anyone who believes that, let me quote the words of the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas HURD, in the House of Commons on 16 February 1990, two and a half years before he performed his sudden U-turn to support Mr PATTEN. On that occasion, Mr Douglas HURD said and I quote:
"Those who suggest that whatever we do now, China would be obliged to accept in 1997, are out of touch with reality."
Yes, that was Douglas HURD speaking ― let me repeat his words:
"Those who suggest that whatever we do now, China would be obliged to accept in 1997, ARE OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY."
Let Mr HURD's own words judge whether he himself, and the Government he represents, are out of touch with reality. Indeed, is there anyone here in Hong Kong who would be unrealistic enough to believe that China will allow a British-made system to continue after 1997? China has made it abundantly clear that the issue is now one of national honour.
So the choice before us today is either to vote through this Bill, or any part of it, or to agree with my motion to adjourn it and urge the two sides to resume talks. I must make it clear that I am not asking Members to agree with any of my own political views, but just to adjourn the Bill so that China and Britain may resume talks, starting sincerely from where the two foreign ministers left off in early 1990. The two sides would have to put behind them all the bickerings and mistrust of the past 15 months. I am certain that no one in Hong Kong wants this family row to continue, because it is not good for the parents, and it makes the children feel unhappy and insecure.
Mr President, I shall summarize why I believe that an adjournment could lead to a quick and successful conclusion.
It is hardly necessary to remind Members that the proposal made by Mr HURD in 1990 for the Election Committee closely resembles that which China soon afterwards enshrined in the Basic Law. On the other hand, the proposal for the Election Committee made by Governor PATTEN in 1992 resembles neither Mr HURD's proposal nor that of the Basic Law.
2352 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
It is hardly necessary either to remind Members that the 1984 White Paper issued by the Hong Kong Government gave the following reason for setting up functional constituencies, and I now quote from that White Paper:
"Full weight should be given to representation of the economic and professional sectors of Hong Kong society, which is essential to future confidence and prosperity."
If the reason for setting up functional constituencies has changed, there would be no point in continuing to call them functional constituencies. The 1992 proposals double the votes for all workers.
Since these two unexpected proposals sent shock-waves through the Chinese Government, it would appear that the two sides need to begin again where they left off in 1990 to work out an agreement, but hopefully that would be done without the insults and acrimony that have so far marred all decision-making.
If my information is correct, it seems that the two sides did agree in the 15th round of talks that the district board elections could go ahead with consensus between Britain and China on the voting age, the voting method, the inclusion of Hong Kong candidates who are also members of Chinese congresses, and with the proviso that if the appointed seats on district boards were abolished in the 1994 elections, China would have the option of reinstating the appointed seats in 1997. Apparently this agreement was abandoned only because the Governor unilaterally decided to expand these agreements to all three tiers of the Government in the 1995 as well as the 1994 elections. This, I am told, is why the talks broke down.
I was glad to notice in the news on television on the first day of the Lunar New Year that Premier LI Peng referred to the breakdown in talks as if the talks had only been suspended. That gives us some hope and indicates that China wishes the talks to resume. In fact, I understand that is true. However, I am not so certain that the British side wishes to continue the talks.
It is a regrettable fact which others besides myself have noticed, that whenever our community's hopes are high that an agreement is near, the Governor has added conditions, or made some mocking remark that needles the Chinese into retaliating with bitter comments. Unfortunately, it is the Hong Kong people who have to suffer when agreements break down in acrimony. Mockery may be acceptable between political parties in Westminister, but they are totally unacceptable in international diplomacy, and might easily be interpreted as racism. Britain should show a more genuine desire to bring the talks to a harmonious conclusion. Both China and Britain should realize that Hong Kong people are helplessly in the middle in these squabbles. The Governor in particular should realize that in 1997 he will be in Britain, basking in the glory of his fight for what he calls democracy in Hong Kong, but we in Hong Kong do not know what is in store for us if these insults and quarrels
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2353
continue. We are the ones who have to face 1997, and if China has to resort to seeking advice from other advisers, we on this Council shall have to bear some responsibility for taking a step today that will put an end to all hope of the talks resuming.
Mr ARCULLI has mentioned the point which I intend to raise next about the three ex officio Members on this Council. I have nothing against the Members but I did write to the Governor personally in my personal capacity asking him if they might abstain on this particular issue but he said "No". It would scarcely be democratic if these compulsory votes for the Government were to decide the issue.
And that brings me back to my motion to adjourn the debate on this Bill. I do not ask Members to agree with my political views. I only ask that they will respect what I believe to be the wishes of almost all Hong Kong people that the talks should be resumed. The majority of district board and municipal council members, most of whom are elected, also wish to see this Bill delayed, so the talks may resume. Resumption of the talks should take place speedily and sincerely, with mutual respect on both sides, without the twisting of words or additional conditions sneaked in to cause a rift. The parent countries owe this to their children, who have no say, no right to make their own decisions.
Mr President, I now move the motion that the debate on the Electoral Provisions (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill 1993 be adjourned, so that China and Britain may speedily agree on arrangements for the 1994 elections and then sincerely discuss the remaining electoral provisions without breaching any former agreements, and without breaching the Basic Law.
I so move.
Question on Mrs Elsie TU's motion to adjourn proposed.
PRESIDENT: Standing Order 30 provides for a Member to propose without notice the adjournment of the debate. If the motion is negatived, the debate on the motion shall continue. If, however, the motion is carried, the debate on the question shall stand adjourned. I now propose the question to you, which is, that the debate on the motion be adjourned. I would remind Members that, under Standing Order 28(4), a Member who has already spoken may speak again on a motion that the debate be adjourned. I would therefore ask for a show of hands and will continue to ask for a show of hands until all Members who wish to speak have spoken. And I will take the show of hands on the convention of seniority which has prevailed up to this point. Mr Allen LEE.
MR ALLEN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have listened here today to Mrs Elsie TU's speech moving the adjournment of the debate on the entire reform package. After consideration, the Liberal Party agrees to the points of
2354 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Mrs Elsie TU and support her motion. For several decades, Mrs Elsie TU has fought for people's livelihood in Hong Kong and for the democratization of the territory's political system. In delivering her speech in this Council, Miss Emily LAU also pointed out that Mrs Elsie TU was the person she respected most. Mrs Elsie TU realizes only too well that the absence of an agreement, hence the lack of a through train, will be to the great disadvantage of Hong Kong.
All along the Liberal Party has thought that a smooth transition of the constitutional arrangement is the only best arrangement; and the position of the Party is not something as Mr SZETO Wah described. Despite the grimness of the current situation, we still strongly urge the people of Hong Kong to try their best in encouraging both the China and the British sides to continue with their talks, with a view to arriving at an agreement with continuity.
In her speech just now, Mrs Elsie TU reminded me of what Mr Douglas HURD has once said in Parliament. I have also quoted his words in this Council before. He thought that those who suggest that whatever we do now, China would be obliged to accept in 1997, are out of touch with reality. I think, time permitting, to adjourn the debate of the entire reform package for the time being is, after all, not a bad suggestion, while the idea of exerting pressure on the two sovereign states is worthy of our support. However, the people of Hong Kong also feel that time is running out. Therefore it is also unacceptable for this Bill to be postponed indefinitely. As a result, the Liberal Party hopes that with an honourable way out provided by this Council for talks to resume, both Britain and China must respond immediately. In any case, the talks should be resumed in not less than a month while the two countries should first indicate whether they are prepared to return to the negotiation table. If the talks still cannot be resumed within one month, the Legislative Council should then resume the legislative procedures which we should have continued with today.
Each and every Member of this Council should try his/her very best to promote the resumption of the Sino-British talks. This is what we must bear in mind today. If China and Britain find no room for a continuation of the talks, it is absolutely impossible for Sino-British co-operation to maintain. Then such a terrible crisis will be inevitable despite what the Governor or the Hong Kong Government says.
Mr President, we support Mrs Elsie TU's motion under the condition that a time constraint is imposed.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have said just now that we should consider whatever means available to bring China and Britain back to the negotiation table to discuss the question of Hong Kong's political system again. While the proposal made by Mrs Elsie TU is doubtless very good, little do we know if China and Britain would return to the negotiation table to continue
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2355
discussing the question of political reforms even if we were to pursue the proposed course.
Hard pressed for time, it is practically impossible for us to delay any longer. Therefore, I feel that unless there is a deadline by which China must return to the negotiation table to discus the question of political reforms, such procrastination will do no good to the future of Hong Kong. As such, I cannot accept this proposal.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, after listening to the reasons given by the Honourable HUI Yin-fat for not supporting the motion, I feel that perhaps he does not fully understand the whole issue. If the Legislative Council thinks that there is still a gleam of hope, we should then try our best to ensure that this hope is realized. No matter how the Chinese and British sides reject the idea, we should pressurize them because the people of Hong Kong would like to see both sides return to the negotiation table. Therefore, we should try our very best even if it is a last-ditch attempt.
I also agree with Mr HUI Yin-fat's point that a deadline is necessary because we are extremely fed up with the entire process of the talks. However, in setting a deadline, we should at the same time allow some leeway for both sides, for example, a month's time. In fact, it is possible for the Hong Kong Government to do so because from the constitutional point of view the initiative still lies with the Hong Kong Government. If the Government wishes to resume the debate on this Bill within one, two or three weeks, it has the power to do so. As Members of the Legislative Council, it is our responsibility to set a deadline, put pressure on both sides and demand that what should be done is done.
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, although Mrs Elsie TU had told only some Members about her motion but not us from the United Democrats of Hong Kong, I did make some preparation and so have a speech ready.
Mr President, I earlier expressed deep regret over the Government's delay on the political reform Bill. I find it almost impossible to believe that a colleague would actually move a motion to adjourn the debate of this Bill which has already been delayed for so long. I am greatly disappointed with this motion.
We should all understand that the most important duty of the Legislative Council and its Members is, by definition, to make laws for Hong Kong. If we, as legislators, shirk our responsibility and refuse to carry out our legislative duties, are we still qualified to sit in this Council? If Members of this Council are not satisfied with any bills proposed by the Government, they may move amendments, or cast a "no" or "abstain" vote. But shelving the Second Reading debate on any bill is an act of shirking responsibility.
2356 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
In fact, I fail to see how Hong Kong would benefit from adjourning this debate. The Chinese Government has reiterated that it will never resume negotiations with the British Government unless Mr PATTEN withdraws his political reform package. And since Beijing has all along refused to recognize the Legislative Council's status, how can legislators be so naive as to think that Sino-British talks can resume simply because this Council has shelved the Second Reading debate? The only conceivable possibility for a motion to adjourn is that the Chinese side has secretly promised some legislators (of course not those from the United Democrats of Hong Kong) that it is willing to return to the negotiation table if the Bill is shelved. Should that be the case, the Member who proposed this motion and those who support it must give this Council a clear explanation.
Mr President, a further point is that even if the Sino-British talks resume, it would not necessarily mean that the Sino-British stand-off can be resolved, or that the two sides could reach an agreement which is in the interest of Hong Kong people. Members of the Legislative Council should not engage in such self-deception. Under the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the political development of Hong Kong should be decided by Hong Kong people rather than by the two sovereign powers, for elections have nothing to do with defence or foreign affairs. Can we expect a miracle to come out of the resumed talks, if any, when China and Britain failed to come to an agreement after 17 rounds of talks last year? Are colleagues so eager to have an agreement that they will by all means urge the British Government to kowtow to the Chinese Government again, and even sacrifice Hong Kong people's high degree of autonomy?
Mr President, a number of colleagues referred to Sir Percy CRADOCK's philosophy. The fundamental difference between Sir Percy's views and mine is very simple. I am of the view that the Joint Declaration is a binding international agreement. The Chinese and British Governments are therefore responsible for its implementation so as to honour their commitment to the people of Hong Kong. But Sir Percy is of the view that the Joint Declaration was only the beginning of Britain kowtowing to China, so much so that whatever China asks is given for the sake of reaching agreements one after another, thus undermining Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy step by step. In fact, what use is an agreement, if any, if we follow the path guided by Sir Percy?
Today, the Chinese Government does not like the old agreement and wants it changed. The British Government therefore enters into a new one with it. Come tomorrow, the Chinese Government wants another change, then another agreement is reached. What use are then these agreements?
If my colleagues in the Legislative Council are not clear about how urgent the legislative process for the electoral arrangements is, we can look at the legislative calendar together. We cannot debate the Bill next Wednesday, 2 March for it is the day for the Financial Secretary to announce the Budget for
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2357
the coming year. Theoretically, the Legislative Council could resume the debate on 9 March, but it would surely not be possible for the Chinese and British Governments to resume the talks and reach an agreement in two weeks. The Legislative Council will be occupied with the Budget in the rest of March, then the Easter holidays follow. If the Legislative Council adjourns the Second Reading debate today while the Chinese and British sides cannot resume the talks before 9 March and reach an agreement, the earliest date we can possibly resume the debate is 20 April. It is nothing as simple as adjourning the debate for a month. We cannot make it. Therefore if colleagues from the Liberal Party support this motion just because they think that the debate could be adjourned for a month, then I urge them to take a closer look at the calender and oppose the motion here and now! Mr President, it will definitely be too late if we pass at the end of April arrangements for the district board elections to be held in September. There would not be enough time even to register voters and Legislative Councillors would let down all those members of the public who are interested in running for office, and those who are over 18 and intend to register as voters. Finally, if the Legislative Council defers passing the first part of the political reform Bill, how much longer would we have to wait for the second part to be gazetted? The scrutiny of the Bill will also have to be set back.
Mr President, the future political development of Hong Kong should be decided by Hong Kong people and the Hong Kong Legislative Council. But the two sovereign powers have shown very good co-operation only in ignoring the wishes of the people of Hong Kong and excluding the Legislative Council from the discussions. I cannot understand why colleagues of this Council should want to downgrade themselves further. Many Members have not fought with us as a united force for an early scrutiny of the Bill so that Hong Kong people's opinions can be reflected fully. But even when the partial Bill is now finally placed in front of us, some Members still dare not touch it.
Whether colleagues of this Council are willing to accept the reality or not, it remains that our term ends in July 1995 and there will be fresh elections. The situation for the municipal councils and district boards is the same ― their terms will end earlier than ours and elections must be held accordingly. We as legislators must therefore make the necessary laws for these elections as soon as possible.
I urge all colleagues of this Council not to evade our responsibility and carry out our most fundamental duty of passing laws for Hong Kong. I urged in my Motion of Thanks speech last October that we as Legislative Councillors should straighten our backs and uphold the Joint Declaration. Hong Kong is at a historical crossroads and our future history is written by us stroke by stroke now. If any of our colleagues do not have the courage to shoulder this historical mission, he should evaluate carefully whether it is still suitable for him to sit in this Chamber.
2358 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Mr President, Mrs Elsie TU is a veteran fighter for democracy. She commands enormous respect from all who also fight for democracy. As less senior democrats, we find it hard to criticize her. But if we keep our mouths shut on this extremely serious matter, we will be letting down all supporters of democracy in Hong Kong. Mrs TU, let me say this in my most sincere manner: Sorry, your motion to adjourn the Bill is a big mistake.
With these remarks, Mr President, the United Democrats of Hong Kong strongly oppose this motion.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, ever since the press disclosed that Mrs Elsie TU had intended to move a motion to adjourn the debate on the Electoral Provision Bill, she has been under pressure from various quarters including the press, this Council and the public. Yet, she is still determined to surmount every difficulty and shoulder the immense pressure on her own. She is prepared to fulfill this difficult task with the morality and courage that one would expect from a Legislative Council Member. Now it is still open to question as to whether the motion will be eventually endorsed. Whatever the outcome, I feel great admiration for Mrs Elsie TU's courage and I will also give her my full support.
Yet, there is one point I regret very much. I believe everyone present in this chamber realizes that at this stage, we have already missed the golden opportunity since no one can say with any certainty that talks on the political arrangements would be resumed even if Mrs TU's motion is to be endorsed today with an overwhelming majority.
In fact, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong and I did propose to adjourn the examination of the Bill in this Council in early December. If I had then gained the unwavering support of most Members of this Council, especially those from the Liberal Party, I believe China and the United Kingdom would have held the 18th or the 19th round of talks on the political arrangements or even would have come to an agreement on the electoral arrangements, and this Council would have had ample time to go through the necessary legislative procedures.
Mr President, I entirely agree with what Mrs Elsie TU said in her speech: "If we support this Bill, what do we gain? We shall have a British-made Bill lasting from 1995 until 30 June 1997." I support her views because I believe that everyone in this chamber, and indeed all Hong Kong people, will not be so naive as to believe that the Chinese Government will allow the political package as proposed in the Bill to remain in force after 1997. As what the British Foreign Secretary, Douglas HURD, said in early 1990, such thinking is out of touch with realities.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2359
Even though today's motion is to be endorsed, I think it will be an uphill task for this Council to change the present situation completely on its own. Yet, I would like to reiterate that I admire very much Mrs Elsie TU's courage to propose an adjournment of the debate against all odds today. She has set an example to this Council which, I think, colleagues should follow.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I do not want to speak too much on whether I support the Bill or not. As Chairman of the Bills Committee, I would like to point out that it is already too late now. In fact, when the Bill was scrutinized, I had already given Members many opportunities to debate on the principles. However, Members were reluctant to give their views. If such arguments were put forward during the deliberation of the Bill, we still had enough time (to deal with them). Even if Members prefer to give their views in the Legislative Council sitting instead of the Bills Committee, we could have resumed the debate of the Bill on 2 February. However, some Members did not want to have the debate held on 2 February and preferred to postpone it to this date, that is 23 February. Hence, the matter is further delayed. If Members consider that there was not enough time for discussion, we could hold extra meetings. The main reason is that the part of the Bill which deals with the number of constituencies of the municipal councils has to be passed before March. If we cannot determine the number of constituencies, the Boundary and Election Committee will not be able to draw the boundaries on time and consult the public. The whole thing must be ready and submitted to the Governor in Council before 30 April. As time is running out, the adjournment of debate is definitely not a practical solution. If Members are not satisfied with the Bill, they should vote against it or amend it. I think this will be a more positive step.
Thank you, Mr President.
PRESIDENT: Mr CHIM, you have to leave, I understand, and want to speak out of turn. Is that right?
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, ever since the Governor first came to Hong Kong on 9 July 1992, Mrs Elsie TU and I have been the two boldest critics of everything that his administration does, particularly of his political reform package. To be sure, many have commented derogatorily that we are heedless of consequences and do not know what is good for us. The truth is that our criticism has been made mostly in consideration of the realities facing the people of Hong Kong. So, it is not surprising that we have been sneered at and hit back by some self-styled democracy fighters. Some even dismiss Mrs TU as a one-time democracy fighter.
2360 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
Be this as it may, Mrs TU does not fall into a frame of mind similar to theirs when she works for the people of Hong Kong. Now 81, she has always slogged away quietly at her work. I hope very much that Members will fully appreciate this. As for myself, I have been accused of being "pro-China" because of my heaping reproaches on the Governor. I have even been once called "a Chinese running dog" in a radio programme. I admit that I would rather be "a Chinese running dog" than a "running dog" to the United Kingdom. Of course, I can at most be an "accomplice" where China is concerned, and it is improper to call me a "running dog" to China. However, I can technically be called a "running dog" to the United Kingdom. In any case, I will be able to serve as a "running dog" for just over three more years. The Governor's political reform package, put forth on 7 December 1993, sent a shock wave through the community in Hong Kong. It has been divisive to our community in many ways and has led to many sharp debates in this Council. Government officials, especially the Policy Secretaries ― the more senior they are, the more likely it is the case ― have had to wear "helmets" and indeed "bullet proof vests" to protect themselves during the debates. This is unfair to everybody concerned.
The Governor came to Hong Kong as a self-styled democracy fighter. We must not lose sight of the fact that, where Hong Kong is concerned, the United Kingdom is an aggressor and a colonial power, not a defender of democracy. We must also realize that the United Kingdom has its own problems: the problem of Northern Ireland and the problem of the royal family. How just can the United Kingdom be? Is the fighter recruited by the United Kingdom able to promote full democracy? As politicians, we must keep our eyes open. We must not follow him blindly, thinking that he is a democracy fighter. If we do, we may, in the words of Mr Martin LEE, as quoted in the press, "get on the wrong bus, the bus of bandits". Mr LEE has now got off that bus; he is no longer "on the wrong bus, the bus of bandits".
We must understand that, if our present political system fails to converge smoothly with the arrangements as stipulated in the Basic Law in 1997, and if there is consequently to be no "through train", it will seriously undermine the basic spirit of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Everybody appreciates that it is jointly agreed between the two Governments that the British Hong Kong Government is responsible for the administration of Hong Kong until 30 June 1997. We are now just over three years away from that date. Anything that is done now must be able to remain valid beyond 1997 in the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
Arriving in Hong Kong on 9 July 1992, the Governor, Mr Chris PATTEN, pledged that there would be peaceful transition for Hong Kong and that there would be convergence in 1997. Of course, he does not have to deliver absolute convergence. But what he has been doing is virtually to create political division in Hong Kong. While, luckily, our economic development has not been undermined, the political division has already brought on mental strains on us. This is why many uninformed members of the public are susceptible to some media reports. I dare say that the media have a very large
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994 2361
share of the blame. Why? Because the media pander to the tastes of their readers or their audience. They advance their own theories and these theories cause members of the public to form a not-quite-fair perception of the so-called democracy and freedom.
Hong Kong is a very unique place. During its rule of Hong Kong for more than a century, when did the British Government ever talk about democracy? When did they ever allow members of the public to be informed about things that closely affected them and make political decisions? But now so much pressure is being brought to bear on the people of Hong Kong and so much homework is being given to them to do. What the people of Hong Kong have gained are just those liberal democrats and the promise of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" which they are used to chanting. I want to tell you all from the bottom of my heart that Hong Kong, after all, will not become "an independent state". Because Hong Kong will not be "independent", it will always have to deal with the Central Government of China. True, the Central Government has made a commitment to Hong Kong people that they will be allowed to rule Hong Kong. But I am convinced that it will not allow Hong Kong to be governed by those people of Hong Kong who are opposed to the Central Government's policies. This is the ultimate truth that we all must appreciate.
About Hong Kong's district boards, the Governor, as everybody knows, promised at one time that he would give an ear to the views of all sectors of the community. Now, over 60% of all district board members have jointly signed an official letter asking the Governor to put a hold on the Bill before us today. Of course, everybody can read in the press what exactly happened.
We must appreciate that over 60% is not a small percentage. Most of those district board members were elected, though some, to be sure, were appointed. Whether elected or appointed, they form the majority in the district boards. The Governor must not turn a blind eye to their request. In a different part of his political reform package, the Governor proposed that the Election Committee should draw all its members from these same district board members. From this, one may assume that the Governor must consider them to be quite broadly based representatives. They have now put forth a strong demand. Why has Mr Governor, who promised full democracy, fairness and openness, failed to give an open response to their demand? He is ignoring the majority view of the grassroots, is he not? After all, district board members represent different social sectors and are, according to some, in the most direct contact with the electorate. The Governor agrees with such a view. This being so, their opinions should have been respected.
Of course, I am personally convinced that Mrs TU's purpose in seeking to adjourn today's debate on the Bill is to provide a chance to China and the United Kingdom to resume the 18th round of talks. Admittedly, there is little chance of that happening. Still, as we say, success stands a chance until the moment of final defeat.
2362 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 February 1994
I was once the leader of a soccer team. In every match, until it was finally over, I would never allow the players to give up. In one game, after losing 0 to four at first, we eventually reversed the situation and won five to four. This is a good reason why we should have faith. We said earlier that we hoped that China and the United Kingdom would value the views of the people of Hong Kong. If we support Mrs TU's motion today and see it carried (though the chance for this is slim), both China and the United Kingdom will, I hope, become fully aware of the frame of mind and the wishes of the people of Hong Kong.
No matter what happens and which side wins, we as Hong Kong people must fully understand this: We must try our best to fight for things that we want, but this must not be done through confrontation. Confrontation will never get anywhere and is totally unacceptable.
We also must appreciate that, if the amendment motion is carried and if China and the United Kingdom then do the right thing to resume the talks, this will be good for Hong Kong in many ways. At least, all the democratic arrangements as stipulated in the Basic Law will not go down the drain. It will be easier for the people of the United Kingdom to continue to enjoy the long Sino-British friendship. The friendship between the peoples of China and the United Kingdom will not be totally destroyed by the uncertainty surrounding the talks. I am convinced that if the people of the United Kingdom realize that the consequences can be so serious, they will never support their ruling political party in having such an indefinite and interminable confrontation with the Chinese Government.
It cannot be denied that the whole world is against communism. The fall of the communist regimes in East Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union provide very good illustrations. This, however, does not mean that the people of the United Kingdom have a special duty to oppose communism. Still less should the British Government make use of Hong Kong's present circumstances for the furtherance of its international moral obligations. It may criticize the Communist Party in other forums and over other issues. Yet it is improper for the British Government to make use of the Hong Kong issue to point a finger at the Chinese Communist Party. Nor should it use Hong Kong as a chip in provoking confrontation with China. Confrontation will produce consequences or create uncertainties with which ultimately the people of Hong Kong must live.
I am convinced that Mrs TU's motion will not win the support of the professional politicians who call themselves democrats. Still, the people of Hong Kong should appreciate her honourable intentions. I share her wishes and her views, most of all on constitutional issues. On other issues, as she said earlier, I do not necessarily share her political views. I absolutely support the underlying message and the spirit of her motion and I will vote for it.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.