HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3509
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 4 May 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 MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, C.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. 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 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.
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.
3510 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
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 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 LEE WING-TAT
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.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3511
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
ABSENT
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR NATHANIEL WILLIAM HAMISH MACLEOD, K.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
IN ATTENDANCE
MR ALISTAIR PETER ASPREY, C.B.E., A.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MR RONALD JAMES BLAKE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR WORKS
3512 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
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 DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY
MR MICHAEL DAVID CARTLAND, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL 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 RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3513 Papers
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles)
(Amendment) Regulation 1994................................................................ 238/94 Bills of Sale (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1994 ....................................... 239/94
Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles (Amendment)
Regulation 1994 ...................................................................................... 240/94
Census and Statistics (Annual Survey of External
Investments in Non-Manufacturing Undertakings)
Order....................................................................................................... 241/94
Revised Edition of the Laws (Correction of Errors) Order
1994 ........................................................................................................ 242/94
Statutes of the Chinese University of Hong Kong
(Amendment) Statute 1994 ..................................................................... 243/94
Bank Notes Issue (Amendment) Ordinance 1993 (57 of
1993) (Commencement) Notice 1994 ..................................................... 244/94
Exchange Fund (Amendment) Ordinance 1993 (58 of
1993) (Commencement) Notice 1994 ..................................................... 245/94
Sessional Paper 1993-94
No. 81 ― Report of Changes to the Approved Estimates of Expenditure Approved during the Third Quarter of 1993-94 Public Finance
Ordinance : Section 8
Miscellaneous
Report of the Boundary and Election Commission on the Delineation of Geographical Constituencies in Respect of the Ordinary Elections of the Urban Council and Regional Council to be held in March 1995
3514 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 Oral Answers to Questions
Driving tests
1. MR LAU CHIN-SHEK asked (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council of the following:
(a) the basis for the policy and the objective of adopting different appointment systems for driving test applications from driving school learners and private instructors’ learners;
(b) the respective average waiting time for driving tests for these two types of learners in the past 24 months; and
(c) whether the Government is aware that the above practice is unfair to private instructors’ learners; and if so, whether consideration will be given to other alternative arrangements?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, it is the Administration’s policy and practice to encourage the establishment of off-street driving schools since these provide learner drivers with the opportunity to acquire basic driving skills in a safe and controlled environment. This also reduces the inconvenience to other motorists that would otherwise result by a larger number of learner drivers using public roads. Nevertheless, private driving instructors are free to operate and offer their services to those who wish to learn to drive.
The answers to the specific questions asked by the Honourable LAU Chin-shek are as follows:
(a) First, the main purpose of adopting different driving test appointment systems for students of driving schools and those of private driving instructors is to promote off-road driving training;
(b) Second, in the past 24 months, the average waiting time for private car driving tests was 174 days for students of off-road driving schools, compared with 218 days for those using private instructors; and
(c) Third, we do not consider that the present practice is unfair to those learners using private instructors, since potential learners are free to choose between off-road driving schools and private instructors and they should know what the arrangements for tests are. We consider that promoting off-street driver training is in the wider interests of all road users.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3515
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration says that the establishment of driving schools aims at promoting off-road driving training and safeguarding the safety of pedestrians. Will the Secretary inform this Council how the Administration is going to ensure that learner drivers have had adequate on-the-street driving experience if they lack on-the-street driving training? Since they do not have enough on-the-street driving training and experience, will they pose any risks to the safety of road users? In addition, judging from past traffic accident statistics, what is the ratio of accidents between students of driving schools and those of private instructors, and which of them have a higher accident rate? If the Administration .....
PRESIDENT: Mr LAU, we had better take it step by step please. First question first. Just the first question, Secretary.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Thank you, Mr President. I think, as regards adequate training, most learner drivers would seek the advice of their instructors or from the motoring school before they actually take the test. The average package for the Hong Kong School of Motoring is a package of 35 hours whereas those who learn from private instructors take between 20 and 30 hours of lessons. If they are not ready they can ask the Transport Department to postpone their test because by so doing they will save the application fee and waiting time for another test slot. The average cost for a test is $510, so if an applicant or learner driver is not ready, it will mean that he has to incur additional expenditure. I think, therefore, it is in his personal interest to make sure that he has the adequate training before he sits the test.
PRESIDENT: Mr LAU, your second question.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, judging from past traffic accident statistics, what is the ratio of accidents between students of driving schools and those of private instructors, and which of them have a higher accident rate? If the Administration does not have the figures, will it conduct a survey on this?
PRESIDENT: Do you have the answer to that, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I am afraid that the records of driving licence holders do not indicate where they have taken their basic driving instruction. Therefore, there is no means for us to correlate the different accident statistics. Since in any event, traffic accidents are caused by a number of factors which may or may not be pertinent to driving skills, I do not really think it is helpful to collate such statistics.
3516 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
MR ROGER LUK (in Cantonese): Mr President, in part (a) of his reply, the Secretary says that the arrangement “is to promote off-road driving training”. Will the Secretary elaborate on the specific aim of the arrangement and whether it has achieved its aim?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the main aim of the Government to support private motoring schools, as I have said, is that the learner drivers can learn in a safe and controlled environment where initially they could acquire their basic training such as parking, three point turns and so forth in a confined area and not on public roads. For this reason, we believe that this does help towards enhancing the overall skills.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration’s adoption of different driving test appointment systems in favour of students of driving schools which reduces the competitiveness of other members of the trade is in violation of the spirit of free competition?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, we do not believe that the arrangements for private motoring schools undermine the opportunities for private instructors. Potential learners have a choice. They can either go to the private schools, as I have said, or to private instructors. The advantage offered by private instructors are mainly twofold. First, the average cost for driving lessons is cheaper. It is $120 per hour compared to between $170 to $185 per hour at the motoring school. Second, the private instructors can arrange better pick-up points and make other arrangements which suit their potential clients.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, as far as I know, students of driving schools will be designated a particular route for driving tests in their districts. For instance, if a student learns driving in Shatin, he will be arranged to attend a driving test on a designated route in Shatin. Likewise, a student in Yuen Long will be given a specified route for his driving test in Yuen Long. However, it is very different for students of private instructors who are allocated different routes in the urban area. Will this practice provides students of driving schools with more opportunities to familiarize themselves with a certain route in their districts, thereby giving them a competitives edge which is unfair to students of private instructors?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I do not think there is anything wrong with the present system. There are about 14-15 different routes which students or learners who are taking their final test may be required to take. It is entirely up to the driving examiners to decide the course or route. In the case of the private instructors, I think many of them realize what the normal
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3517
test routes are and they therefore in fact give dummy runs to their learners. Likewise driver students of the School of Motoring, as part of the package, have about 13 hours on road training and also can have a dummy run. The routes are basically the same and the standards which the examiners apply are common, so there should be no preferential treatment.
PRESIDENT: Actually, I was calling on you for your supplementary, Mr Howard YOUNG. I normally preface “next question” before I go to the next question.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: No, I did not raise my hand for a supplementary.
PRESIDENT: I see. Well, yours was going to be the last one anyway. (Laughter) Alright then, Secretary for Transport to Mr Howard YOUNG’s substantive question.
Land transport services at the airport
2. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked (in Cantonese): Can the Government inform this Council, of the following, that is, is there any plan to review airport bus services and other land transport services at the airport with a view to shortening the queuing time of arriving passengers using these services?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the queuing time of arriving passengers using airport bus and taxi services are monitored and reviewed by the Transport Department every six months to see if service improvements should be made. In between, spot checks are also held, for example, during busy holiday weekends.
On airport bus services, there are currently four bus routes operated by Kowloon Motor Bus which run at frequencies of between 12 to 15 minutes. On average, about 5 000 passengers board these buses at the airport each day. This meets existing passenger demand and there is no problem of queuing. Three new routes are being planned for introduction later this year and will provide a better network of bus services to and from the airport.
As regards the taxi service, the two airport taxi stands were extended in October 1992 and, as a result, the average hourly taxi throughput has been increased to 467. The average passenger waiting time during peak hours is about five minutes. Should queues build up, the Civil Aviation Department will directly contact taxi associations and taxi radio service centres to request additional taxis.
3518 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
In addition to the bus and taxi services, the hotels and travel agencies also arrange for coaches, minibuses and limousines to pick up tourists and other passengers arriving at the airport. Although that section of the road immediately outside the arrivals hall is a restricted zone, which only allows vehicles issued with permits to pick up or set down passengers, many coach operators have tended to congregate there to await arriving tour groups thus causing both confusion and congestion. In March this year, the Travel Industry Council has taken the initiative to implement a special scheme using radio telephone to call coach operators to come and pick up waiting passengers who have just arrived. This has significantly enhanced traffic throughput and traffic flow.
Mr President, although there are indeed occasions, for example, during adverse weather conditions, when arriving passengers may experience longer waiting periods for land transport, the present arrangements for, and the availability of, land transport services at the airport are generally satisfactory.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: I refer to the last part of the answer where it is stated that the Travel Industry Council has taken the initiative to call coach operators. Is the Government aware of an effort made by the Travel Industry Council, a few months ago, to seek some sort of holding area for these coaches? It approached, I believe, the Highways Department, Civil Aviation and even the Kowloon City District Board, for such a holding area apparently to no avail. Can the Secretary confirm that he would give his support to such efforts so that the scheme to call forward coach operators will not be impaired due to a lack of a holding area for these coaches?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I think Mr YOUNG is right to the extent that there is no specific exclusive holding area for coaches from the Travel Industry Council, but there is a waiting area which all coaches, limousines or minibuses, with permits from the Civil Aviation Department, can wait. But I will certainly follow up with the Civil Aviation Department to see if these arrangements can be improved. (Annex I)
MR VINCENT CHENG: Thank you, Mr President. Can the Secretary inform this Council of the average waiting time during adverse weather conditions, particularly when Hong Kong is hit by a typhoon and there are not many taxis on the street?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I think the waiting time during adverse weather conditions, for example, in typhoons, can vary from half an hour to perhaps even an hour. When such conditions arise, as I have said, the Civil Aviation Department does try to contact the taxi operators. But,
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3519
as it is entirely up to the taxi drivers to respond or not, I am afraid this is a fact of life. We will certainly try harder to liaise with the taxi operators.
I think as Members will be aware, the Administration intends to seek tenders for an additional number of taxi licences later this year and hopefully with a greater taxi supply the situation at the airport can also be improved.
DR PHILIP WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration inform this Council whether it would consider moving the existing bus stops closer to the airport for passengers’ convenience?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: I think, Mr President, the Transport Department of course does give careful consideration as to where bus stops can be located. The roads outside the airport are fairly fast flowing roads with quite a heavy volume of traffic and there may be difficulty in doing what the Honourable Member suggests. But certainly this point will be followed up. (Annex II)
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, although the “express exit” I used could always help me get a taxi within five minutes without queuing, I have doubts as to what the Secretary has said in the third paragraph of his reply that “the average waiting time is about five minutes”. According to my own experience, the waiting time is 30 minutes to an hour during peak hours from seven to nine. Can the Secretary inform this Council what he means by five minutes?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, the last survey undertaken by the Transport Department at the taxi stands located at the airport was in December and this was conducted between 4.00 pm and 10.00 pm in the afternoon and evening. During this time staff from the department themselves did in fact try to board taxis at various times and this survey showed that the average time was in fact about five minutes. As I have said, there may well be occasions when the waiting time would be longer. But from the information I have, I think half an hour would be an exceptionally long period under normal circumstances.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Administration propose to KMB to run a service between Mongkok and the airport and will it consider inviting the CMB and Citybus to run airport bus services as well so as to foster competition for the benefit of service improvement?
3520 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, of the three new routes that I mentioned, one has been proposed by CMB and the destination is in fact to somewhere in Prince Edward Road and Mongkok, so I think that will be taken care of. Certainly if CMB and Citybus wish to run airport bus services, their request will be considered. I believe CMB has proposed to run a service between the airport and Pacific Place.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is mentioned in the second paragraph of the Secretary’s reply that the bus services operated by KMB run at frequencies between 12 to 15 minutes and there is no problem of queuing at the moment. I have to say this is contrary to my own experience and observation. Does the Secretary have any statistics on the longest waiting time and how long will this situation continue? Has consideration been given to discussing with KMB or other bus companies the possibility of co-ordinating bus services with aircraft arrivals with a view to relieving passenger demand during peak hours?
PRESIDENT: Have you got both aspects of the question, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, I am afraid I do not have statistics for the longest time in between buses but I will obtain this and provide it to the Honourable Member. (Annex III)
As regards the second question, airport bus services are provided throughout the working day at an interval of between 12 to 15 minutes. Besides, since aircraft arrive at Kai Tak throughout the day and individual fights are sometimes late, I do not think it would be a practical proposition to pursue this.
Compulsory free education system
3. DR CONRAD LAM asked (in Cantonese): Will the Administration inform this Council whether any assessment has been made on the merits and demerits of the nine-year compulsory free education system and whether there are any specific measures to remedy the defects of the system?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, in late 1989, the Education Commission conducted an in-depth study on the issues brought about by the implementation of the nine-year free and compulsory education policy.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3521
The Commission firmly believed that the policy should be maintained. The Government agrees entirely with this conclusion. Nine years of free and compulsory education provides the basic education required for all our children to prepare them either for further academic pursuits or for employment.
Nevertheless, the study also identified a number of problem areas requiring attention and improvement. These problem areas and the proposed solutions were set out in detail in Education Commission Report No. 4 which was published that year. The major problems identified were related first to the use of common core curriculum for students of different abilities and deposition; secondly the assessment of student’s performance, whether they are appropriate; and thirdly the delivery of the curriculum through a mix of languages and the problems arising from such views. The Education Commission also puts forward some proposals to address the problems.
First of all, the question of school curriculum. A more flexible curriculum needs to be further developed even though the common core curriculum was found to be suitable for the majority of students, it was considered for students at either end of the ability spectrum. In line with this proposal, the Curriculum Development Institute was established in 1992, in accordance with the Education Commission’s recommendation. In this connection, too, a range of remedial and support services has also been developed to help unmotivated students and low achievers. So that they will learn at school curriculum which are suited to their needs. These include the establishment of practical schools and skills opportunities schools. At the same time a dedicated centre for the gifted children is being planned.
Regarding the assessment of student’s performance, hitherto, students have been assessed in relation to their counterparts in the same class rather than on the basis of objective criteria which will show their genuine weaknesses and strengths. The Commission recommended a change in assessment using objective criteria and the development of suitable curriculum materials to address the weaknesses so identified. That is being tackled by the planned introduction of Target-Oriented Curriculum in 1995. And also because of the consultation and related problems, the planned introduction date has been deferred until 1995.
To tackle the problem of using mixed languages in teaching and to facilitate the use of mother tongue in education, various measures have also been implemented. They include the provision of extra language teachers to schools and the provision to parents of information on their children’s language proficiency to enable them to choose secondary schools best suited to their children. In addition, we also encourage mother tongue teaching.
The implementation of these and other measures will in time further enhance the quality of our school education.
3522 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, what does the Government expect the students to accomplish through the nine-year free education, in other words, what kind of students does the Government want to bring up under our education system, particularly in terms of the sense of righteousness, social responsibility and commitment and what is the yardstick used to measure whether the target has been achieved?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, based on the draft “Statement of Aims” issued by the Education Commission in 1992, the Government published the “School Education in Hong Kong: A Statement of Aims” in 1993 after wide consultation. I believe the people and educators who are concerned about education in Hong Kong have already read this widely circulated booklet. I do not want to spell out the various aims here, but would like to point out that one of the primary aims is that the “school education service should develop the potential of every individual child, so that our students become independent-minded and socially-aware adults, equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes which help them to lead a full life as individuals and play a positive role in the life of the community”. This is a general but fundamental aim under which there are other objectives, all of which are set out in detail in the booklet.
With regard to Dr LAM’s question about civic awareness, Aim (12) as set or in the booklet states that “schools should help students to become aware of Hong Kong as a society, to develop a sense of civic duty, responsibility to the family and service to the community, and to exercise tolerance in interacting with others”. The aim has been set out clearly in the booklet.
To assess whether the aim has been achieved will be a rather complicated task. At least, there are short term and long term approaches. In the short term, we can assess, to a certain extent, on the basis of examination results and employers’ feedback on school leavers’ working ability and level of skills. In the longer term, it is more difficult to assess whether the students will become responsible and socially-aware citizens. I believe this evaluation should be done by experts from a historical point of view, that is, it should be assessed over a long period of time and from a wider perspective.
MR EDWARD HO: Mr President, I would like to ask the Secretary on a very general question referring to paragraph 7 of his main reply that “the implementation of these and other measures will in time further enhance the quality of our school children”. I would like to ask him, what is the time frame that he is referring to? When will these measures be implemented?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, the improvement measures that the Government is now implementing are largely based on the recommendations in the various Education Commission Reports.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3523
Some of them have been implemented; some of them, though implemented, have got to take some time for the effect to come out. I deliberately use the words, “in time”, rather than giving a specific time frame, because it is not easy to give a specific timetable for each and every one of these recommendations. For example, one of the more tangible improvements, we think, is the setting up of the Hong Kong Institute of Education to enhance the quality of education for our teachers. In this case, we have a very specific timetable. We are now at the planning stage in building a new campus and in designing new curriculum for the teaching of our teachers. We aim to set up the new campus by 1997-98. But how much longer we have to wait until this new campus has an impact on the actual quality of teaching is something which has to be assessed in due course. And it is not easy to give a very specific timetable. But we are very confident that, using the example that I have just quoted, the setting up of this new institute plus other improvement measures will greatly enhance the quality of our teachers in the next generation.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr President, the nine-year compulsory free education system has now been in operation for nearly 16 years and any school principal or teacher knows the need for alternative education for the academically unmotivated children. Why has the department been so slow to move on something that everybody knows and why is it that the first practical school has not yet even been set up?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, I do not agree that the Government has been slow in implementing measures to help unmotivated children. As I have explained in great detail in the last motion debate on practical schools, the Government is actually on time and in accordance with our programme in setting up the four practical schools that we have promised. The fact that we have only got one school now is because we need the time to fully assess the effect on the new idea before we move on to the next school. But, having ascertained that the idea of a practical school is practicable and beneficial to the students, we have actually taken a very fast planning process and by September this year we shall have our second practical school in place. The third and fourth are now in the active planning process.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration says in its reply that mother-tongue teaching should start as soon as possible in secondary schools and I welcome this policy. Will the Government set an example by taking the initiative in implementing mother-tongue teaching in government secondary schools? If it does not do so, then it is merely saying one thing and doing another; how can it expect other subsidized secondary schools to respond to the Government’s call and implement mother-tongue teaching?
3524 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, there have been unending debates on the subject by educationalists and members of the public over the years. I believe Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong knows very well that this is not a question of whether or not the Government should implement it. The Government has, in fact, been advocating mother-tongue teaching for a long time. But we have to acknowledge that the objectives of mother-tongue teaching cannot be achieved through forceful means. Even if we do so, the effect may not necessarily be the best. The Administration now adopts the medium of instruction groupings approach in language teaching and encourage schools and parents to choose the appropriate medium of instruction in the light of the language proficiency of their children or students. As regards how long it will take to achieve this, given that Hong Kong is an evolving society, and having regard to economic and other factors, we believe that more and more people will find that there are more opportunities these days to use the mother tongue, and that mother tongue will be essential for seeking employment. Through this process, through the encouragement of the Government and through the advocacy of educators, we are confident that mother-tongue teaching will become a major trend in the foreseeable future.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Administration has said just now that the aim of our education is to teach students to become good citizens who care for the society. As the majority of Secondary III students will continue to study in Secondary IV and V, has the Government considered extending the nine-year free education to 11 years, providing free but not compulsory education for Secondary IV and V students? If not, why not? Has the Government worked out how much funding will be needed for this purpose?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have assessed the costs of fully subsidizing Secondary IV and V places. At present the provision of places in grammar and technical schools represents 95% of places for all school-age students. About $36 million is needed every year in terms of additional resources whereas the capital expenditure needed for construction of new schools is around $72 million. However, the availability of resources is not our main consideration. The most important factors we have to consider are: Firstly, is there such a need; and secondly, whether there is such a demand in the community? At present, we are not aware of any Secondary IV and V students of the appropriate age who cannot continue their studies though they have the ability, the aspirations and the need to do so. The subsidized school places provided by the Government for 95% of all school-age students are already more than adequate, according to opinions gathered through various channels. I believe that in fact, no matter how good our intentions are, there are inevitably some youngsters who want to go out to work after the age of 15.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3525
I noted from Mr Henry TANG’s question that what he seeks is a five-year subsidized secondary education, one that is voluntary but not compulsory. However, according to the views expressed on subsidized school places, no students have been unable to continue their studies in Secondary IV and V because of financial difficulties. Therefore, the Government does not have any plans to provide subsidized school places in Secondary IV and V for the time being.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the fourth paragraph of the main reply, the Administration mentioned the “establishment of practical schools and skills opportunities schools” to provide places for unmotivated students and low achievers. May I ask how many school places will be provided in the next three years and what is the supply and demand position? Secondly, I would like to follow up with Mr Henry TANG’s question, and that is, what is the supply and demand of Secondary IV places this year; how many of Secondary III students cannot continue their studies in Secondary IV because of a lack of
school places; and how is the Government going to deal with these Secondary III students who are aged 15 but who have not reached the working age?
PRESIDENT: I think we had better keep it to one question, Dr TANG. I have had to exclude other Members because of the time. Which question do you want to be answered please?
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in that case, I would like to follow up with Mr Henry TANG’s question, and that is, what is the position regarding the supply and demand of Secondary IV places; how many students cannot move up to Secondary IV; and how is the Government going to deal with these students?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, basically at present we do not have any students who are willing but unable to continue their studies in Secondary IV. The number of subsidized school places above Secondary III level in grammar and technical schools represents 95% of all places for school-age students. What we have to take into account is the fact that there are certain students, as many as several thousands, who are unwilling to opt for subsidized school places. They would rather continue their studies in private schools. We are not aware of any shortage at the moment. Our nine-year compulsory free education only provides that students are required to go to school up to and until 15, after which they are free to choose either to continue with their studies or seek employment.
3526 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 Taiwanese officials’ entry to Hong Kong
4. MR FREDERICK FUNG asked (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective numbers of applications for entry visas by Taiwanese officials in their official or personal capacities during the past three years; the number of applications rejected and the reasons for rejecting these applications; and
(b) whether consideration will be given to relaxing the restrictions on entry of Taiwanese officials to Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, all visitors from Taiwan, including Taiwanese officials, visit Hong Kong in their private capacity. The number of applications for visit permits from Taiwanese officials was 723 in 1991, 580 in 1992, 802 in 1993 and 177 in the first three months of this year. None were refused.
All Taiwanese visitors can enter Hong Kong on multiple visit permits valid for one or two years. The processing time for first applications is normally no more than seven working days, and for applications for renewal two working days. The present procedures, which allow for the issue of multiple visit permits, were introduced in 1990. They have been well received and are working well. We keep them under regular review, but have no plan to change them at present.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am unhappy with the second part of the Secretary’s reply because it did not answer my question. I hope the Secretary can give me an answer after hearing the background to the case. At the end of last year, I went to Taiwan to meet Madam YEH Chin-fong, Vice-chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council, and Mr James CHU, Director General of the Department of Cultural Affairs. They told me that they had applied to come to Hong Kong in their private capacity but their applications were rejected. Only if they travelled with a tour group or a business group, that is, for business purposes, would they be allowed entry. In reply to Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong’s question on 12 January 1994, the Secretary pointed out that one of the considerations was whether the applicants were genuine visitors, that is, they would not be allowed entry if they did not come here as tourists. In this connection, are Taiwanese officials not allowed, for political reasons, to enter Hong Kong in their “private capacity” unless they come here as tourists? If political factor is not the reason, will the relevant departments clearly inform the Taiwan authorities the actual reasons for refusal?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3527
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I cannot comment on individual cases. People from Taiwan do not visit Hong Kong in their official capacity. We do not have official relations with Taiwan. So, as I have said in my main reply, all Taiwanese officials are considered, if they apply for visas, to be visiting in their private capacity.
But in so far as the question is concerned, I stick with the figures I have given in my answer. We have not refused any Taiwan officials visas to visit Hong Kong in the past three and a quarter years.
MR MARTIN BARROW: Mr President, the Secretary seems to have revealed another “post box like” activity. Could the Secretary firstly explain the overall rationale for the visa process and secondly, given the lack of refusals, would he not agree that immigration staff could be better deployed at the arrival counters, rather than processing visas in yet another “post box” style activity which seems to be a complete waste of resources?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, if we were to consider granting visa-free access to people from Taiwan, we would certainly expect some reciprocity. We do not have any reciprocity at the moment. The requirements that the Taiwanese put on Hong Kong visitors are far more stringent than we put on visitors from Taiwan.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, Taiwanese officials do not need visas to visit Macau, our neighbour. However, if they visit Hong Kong, they have to sign an undertaking to the effect that they will not engage in any political activities. Since the situation and circumstances in Hong Kong and Macau are quite similar, will the Secretary inform this Council why Hong Kong has to impose such a restriction and will the Administration consider waiving such undertaking?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I cannot possibly comment on what Macau’s requirements are or why they have such requirements. So far as we are concerned, as we have said before, we do not wish to see Hong Kong turned into a place where people engage in political activities which have no relevance to Hong Kong at all and that is why we put this requirement on visitors from Taiwan.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, Chinese passport holders from the mainland coming on one-way permit did require visas. However, under the advocacy of people from different quarters and from the tourist industry, the Hong Kong Government granted, from 1 August last year, Chinese nationals in transit 7 days visa-free access. Will the Secretary consider giving at
3528 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
least the same treatment to Taiwanese passport holders in transit, as they do to Chinese nationals, by waiving their visa requirements and granting them 7 days visa-free access?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, no, we have no intention of instituting any such arrangement. Our relationship with Taiwan is very different from our relations with China. And as I have said in answer to a previous question, we do not ourselves receive any reciprocity from the Taiwanese in this respect.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to follow up with Mr LAU Chin shek’s question. Actually, the Secretary has not answered whether Taiwanese officials entering Hong Kong as visitors are required to sign an undertaking that they will not engage in political activities. If yes, are officials from other countries, for example, Mr LU Ping, also required to sign such an undertaking upon entering Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, as I have said previously, we do not have any official relations with Taiwan. With most, or practically all, other countries in the world, we do have official relations.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, during the meeting with the two persons I have mentioned, they told me that it was easier to apply for entry to mainland China than to Hong Kong. Will this discourage potential Taiwanese visitors from applying? Will the Administration consider relaxing the immigration rules so that they at least are not more stringent than those imposed on Taiwanese nationals visiting mainland China?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not think I can comment on that, which is strictly a matter of opinion and I do not think it is borne out by the facts.
PRESIDENT: Mr BARROW, you have another question?
MR MARTIN BARROW: Could the Secretary confirm whether or not he is asking for visa-free reciprocity with Taiwan?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, no.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3529 Immigrant children from China
5. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Cantonese): In view of the continued increase in the number of children entering Hong Kong from mainland China as immigrants, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) what measures will be adopted to help such children who are of school age to enter local schools early and to adjust to the local way of life after their arrival in Hong Kong; and
(b) whether the authorities concerned will render any assistance to these children in case they have difficulties in learning and adjustment?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President,
(a) The Education Department provides personal assistance to parents in the early placement of all school-age immigrant children from China. District Education Officers help those parents who need such assistance to choose schools for their children, including arranging school interviews. Schools then assess the children’s academic standard before placing them to classes at suitable levels.
In view of the increasing number of Chinese immigrant children joining local schools, the Education Department will soon issue an advisory circular to advise school heads and teachers. Schools will be advised, among other things, to encourage teachers to liaise closely with the parents of immigrant children, and to assign senior pupils to help look after them, and to encourage them to integrate socially through extra-curricular activities. Outside the school, their adjustment and integration with the wider community is facilitated by the services of the Social Welfare Department and various voluntary organizations including the International Social Service Hong Kong Branch, a subvented welfare agency which provides post-migration services to all immigrants from China.
(b) According to the feedbacks obtained by the District Education Offices, apart from their standard of English, most of these immigrant children do not encounter serious learning or adjustment difficulties. In fact, they usually work very hard. To help them to tackle the language problem, schools are encouraged to organize remedial classes. To supplement the school effort, the Education Department organize intensive English remedial classes for these children. The Department also provides other specialist services such as speech therapy to those children who need special assistance. For those immigrant children who have special adjustment
3530 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
problems, they are given counselling and guidance by student guidance officers or school social workers.
The Education Department will continue to keep in close contact with schools to ensure that problems encountered by new immigrant children are promptly resolved. The Department is also monitoring the situation closely and will strengthen these services where necessary.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, as English is generally not taught in primary schools in China, many children coming from the mainland may not know English at all. In general English remedial classes provided by schools here are divided according to the forms of the pupils with each class having more than 10 pupils, so it will be difficult to cater to the needs of individuals who are beginners and have to start from learning the alphabets. If these children cannot afford private tutors, it will be difficult for them to catch up with the English standard. Will the Administration therefore consider organizing English remedial classes at community centres near the homes of these children where they can be grouped together and taught rudimentary English?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Education Department has already set up different kinds of centres providing remedial teaching services for schools. These centres provide students with learning difficulties special remedial services which include those in language learning. There are currently four remedial teaching centres for secondary students and six for primary students. We believe that the remedial services provided by these centres can already satisfy existing needs. However, I would like to stress that we have always considered that the best way to help these immigrant students to integrate into schools, whether it is in language learning or learning other subjects, is to assist them by way of “school-based” remedial programmes.
MR VINCENT CHENG: Thank you, Mr President. I am a bit concerned about the magnitude of this problem here. Can the Secretary inform this Council of the number of such students in Hong Kong and how many of these children have come forward and applied for the special services provided by the Education Department?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, this is of course not a new issue. For a long, long time we have been integrating immigrant children into our local schools. For example, over the last seven years, we have an average of about 5 500 students being integrated into the local school system every year. There are individual problems but on the whole most
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3531
of them have integrated very successfully into the school system. Despite some initial language difficulties, many of them have become accustomed to the local education system very quickly. And actually as I have said in my main answer, because they are generally better motivated, many of them manage to perform well.
I have no statistics on how many students actually come out and ask for specific assistance from the Education Department. I shall provide those figures in writing to the Honourable Member. (Annex IV)
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, official statistics show that there are many immigrant children in the Eastern District of Hong Kong Island who have found it difficult to find schools on their own because they are unfamiliar with the people and places here. Will the Administration inform this Council whether the authority concerned will register the contact information of the immigrant children at the point of entry and take the initiative in contacting them once they have settled down for the purpose of assisting them to enrol in nearby secondary schools; if so, when this will be implemented; if not, why not; and if consideration is required, when a decision can be reached?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, the parents of many of these immigrant children can easily find this out (please do not ask me how they have come to know this) and they can quickly get in touch with the District Education Officers. One of the easiest ways of course is to ask the district offices because new immigrants can obtain information on various government services from the district offices. Our understanding is that the great majority of the parents of immigrant children have absolutely no difficulty in contacting the District Education Officers. But certainly we welcome any views on this. In fact, we are considering the possibility of providing information on schools to immigrant children at the first opportunity, that is, upon their arrivals. This measure is still under consideration and we hope that we can determine in a matter of months whether this is feasible, and if so, when this should be implemented.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I understand that recently the Education Department has time and again given land originally earmarked for schools to the Housing Authority for building public housing. As a member of the Housing Authority, I certainly welcome this. However, the Basic Law provides that children of Hong Kong permanent residents with Chinese nationality who were born outside Hong Kong will automatically be entitled to right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997. According to estimates, there are 80 000 to 100 000 children waiting to come to Hong Kong from the mainland. If all of them come here, can the Administration provide sufficient school places for these children without affecting the existing quality of education?
3532 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
PRESIDENT: That rather broadens the scope of the main question. Do you have the answer, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, after consultation with the Chinese authorities towards the end of last year, the Administration has agreed to make special arrangements for one-way permit holders by increasing the daily quota by 30 persons and half of which are specifically for children of Hong Kong residents born in mainland China. The purpose is to arrange for these children to come to Hong Kong in an orderly manner in accordance with the provision of the Basic Law. Our existing schedule for building additional schools has taken into account the needs of these children who will gradually come to Hong Kong, and it is planned that three more schools will be built to cater for the need for additional school places arising from increased immigrant children during the run-up to 1997. We will also take this factor into consideration in our future plans of building schools. Our overriding principle is to provide additional schools places without affecting our quality of education and our commitment to further improve it.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary’s reply just now seems to focus on school-age children. But some immigrant children from China are overage. May I ask whether the Administration will assist these children until they are enrolled in school and how it will help them adjust to life in Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think that by “overage” Dr YEUNG was referring to those whose ages are over the statutory age of schooling. If that is so, then these children and their parents have the right to choose whether or not to attend schools in Hong Kong. If they need the assistance of the Education Department, we will be happy to assist these overage children to enrol in suitable classes.
PRESIDENT: There has been a partial breakdown in the air conditioning which is unlikely to be remedied today. I am going to suspend the sitting for a few minutes so that Members who wish to remove their jackets can do so. I intend to do so.
Sitting suspended from 3.30 pm to 3.36 pm
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3533 Pavement damage due to burrowing by rats
6. DR LAM KUI-CHUN asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has information that rats are found burrowing into the underlying sand layer of pedestrian pavements, particularly those in the vicinity of restaurants and refuse dumps, thus causing damage to these pavements, and if so, the number of such reports in the past two years;
(b) whether the Highways Department and the Urban Services Department have adequately consulted each other prior to adopting the current method of surfacing pedestrian pavements with concrete bricks; and
(c) in view of the increasing number of complaints about the rat problem recently, what action will be taken to prevent further damage to pedestrian pavements by burrowing rats?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,
(a) Four cases of pedestrian pavement damage have been identified as alleged to be caused by the activities of rats, during the past two years. Only one of these cases relates to rats burrowing into the sand layer beneath the pavement blocks, the other three cases are believed to have been caused by rats undermining the deeper underlying strata.
In respect of (b) and (c)
Paving block construction is used in many countries, and from the available technical evidence nothing suggests that its use will lead to rat problems.
In Hong Kong, given the extensive use of block pavements and the few instances of possible damage due to the activities of burrowing by rats, it is clearly not a serious problem. Nor is there any reason to believe that any relationship exists between the activities of rats and the use of paving blocks. Since no such relationship was expected, USD and RSD were not consulted by the Highways Department when deciding to adopt block pavements on account of their other very important benefits.
For pavements that are properly laid, whether by using traditional in situ concrete or by using concrete blocks and with concrete edging strips, there should be very little chance for rats to burrow. There is however always the possibility that damage to the paved
3534 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
surface, which could be caused by the wheel loading of illegal parked vehicles for example, or any damage causing an opening in the vicinity of the pavement might result in rats reaching the underlying bedding layer and of course commencing burrowing activities.
The Highways Department will ensure that paving block pavements are laid with due regard to this potential problem, and that any defects in any type of paving will be repaired promptly to avoid rat infestation. USD and RSD have also instructed their beat sweepers and pest control staff to report defective pavements to the Highways Department.
DR LAM KUI-CHUN: Mr President, the low incidence of reports quoted in part (a) of the Secretary’s answer is at variance with the information I have received from site workers of the Highways Department. In fact my information is that the shortest time between initial surfacing and the need to resurface because of the activity of rats may be less than a week.
What mechanism exists for the Government to know the actual seriousness of this problem of burrowing rats, apart from haphazard voluntary reporting by some of its staff? And if such a mechanism does not exist, will the Government examine this problem more seriously?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the Highways Department apply themselves to making good any damage to any footpath or any road surface as quickly and as efficiently as possible. As I have said, they will pay particular attention and will, if there are reports, deal with these reports and these problems as quickly as resources allow. But it is not the Highways Department’s intention to leave any footway surface unrepaired for any longer time than absolutely necessary.
PRESIDENT: Another supplementary, Dr LAM?
DR LAM KUI-CHUN: Mr President, my follow-up question was on the mechanism of reporting of such damage.
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, the Highways Department of course do have their own staff and in fact there has recently been a substantial increase in the number of inspectorate staff at their disposal to deal with road and footpath arrangements. This will be one means of receiving improved reports. As I have said, the arrangements with the Urban Services Department and Regional Services Department to receive reports will also be further taken into account and, of course, any reports from the public which are received through
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3535
our complaints mechanism, both at department level and also at branch level, is a further avenue of communication. Though I believe that there are adequate channels of communication, I will certainly make sure that the Highways Department, in their normal maintenance procedures, take account of the potential problem which is being raised and that they will deal with any complaints quickly.
MR ALFRED TSO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the concrete paving blocks referred to just now are the so-called “Besser” blocks which I understand are made of PFA concrete which is a mixture of pulverized fuel ashes and concrete. Apart from having holes that can house rats, these blocks will also pose a danger to the pedestrians because of the development of cracks, and will accumulate dirt due to their rugged surface. Under what circumstances will the Administration consider surfacing footpaths with this type of blocks? Is the use of this type of paving blocks cost-effective and are these blocks an eyesore to the environment? Is this paving method necessarily better than the traditional one?
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, as I have mentioned, this type of paving block is used extensively now in Hong Kong. It has been adopted for excellent reasons. It has many advantages. First of all, if a pavement area has to be re-entered for any particular reason, for example, utilities, the blocks themselves can be lifted without damage and can be reused. This means that not only is there a saving in material, but also a significant reduction in the noise and the disruption that would otherwise be encountered in breaking up an in situ concrete paved surface. We are not talking about bricks, Mr President. We are talking about carefully designed and profiled blocks which have an interlocking nature. They are designed to maintain the smoothest possible surface, although, as I have said, if surfaces are run on illegally by vehicles then of course there is every chance that the surface will be deformed in just the same way as a surface covered by in situ concrete is likely to be cracked and damaged under the weight of such vehicles. They are cost effective. I can certainly assure Members that these factors have been taken into account and indeed it is the belief of the department that the use of blocks, in appropriate circumstances, is not only cost effective, but technically the best solution.
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): I would like to follow up with Mr Alfred TSO’s question. I understand that when funding was sought from the Legislative Council for resurfacing pavements with this type of blocks, the Administration undertook to conduct a review on this. District boards have received a lot of complaints in this regard, which invariably pointed to the many disadvantages of this method except the advantage of facilitating resurfacing of pavements for public utilities. May I know when such a review will be conducted and a report be submitted to the Legislative Council?
3536 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President, in the light of this question, I will certainly discuss with the Director of Highways and arrange for any review material to be circulated. Furthermore, if it is necessary, we will be delighted to give a particular briefing to the relevant panel on the successful implementation of this type of paving to date.
Written Answers to Questions
Accounting system of the Government
7. MR JIMMY McGREGOR asked: In view of the fact that some foreign Governments prepare their accounts on an accruals basis, will the Government inform this Council of the reasons for continuing to use the cash-basis accounting system?
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr President, in common with most other Governments, the published accounts of the Hong Kong Government are prepared on a cash basis. In addition, we have recognized for many years the relevance of accrual-based accounts for certain quasi-commercial government operations and have produced, for internal management use, accounts on this basis in addition to the cash-based accounts. These include Water Supplies, the Airport and the Post Office. Also, government services operated as trading funds, such as the recently established Land and Companies Registry Trading Funds are required, under the Trading Fund Ordinance, to prepare full accrual based accounts in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
In recent years, a number of Governments which have traditionally adopted the cash basis of accounting have introduced or are exploring the wider use of accrual-based accounts. In view of this, the Director of Accounting Services established, in 1993, a Working Group comprising representatives of the accounting profession both from within the Government and from the private sector to review our own financial reporting arrangements.
The Working Group’s conclusions are, inter alia, that:
- The Government is unique in its objectives, activities and financing and cannot be, in many respects, likened to private business enterprises. It is, therefore, not appropriate to assume that the private sector financial reporting model must be fully applicable to the Government.
- The payments which the Government is permitted to make in any financial year are limited under the Public Finance Ordinance and the Appropriation Ordinance. Given this form of cash appropriation system, it follows that the Government’s published accounts are
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3537
prepared essentially on a cash basis so as to demonstrate and discharge this statutory accountability.
- While the cash-based accounts should continue to be used, the Government should prepare on an experimental basis, supplementary accounts showing the full cost (on an accrual basis) of selected activities with a view to forming a judgement on the merits (and costs) of providing such financial information about government activities as a whole.
As announced by the Financial Secretary in his Budget speech, we will start to compile the accrual-based supplementary accounts on a pilot basis in selected departments during 1994-95.
Cross-border bus and coach services
8. MR HOWARD YOUNG asked: Will the Government inform this Council whether any applications for operating cross-border bus and coach services have been turned down in the past three years and, if so, the reasons for the rejections?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, cross-border bus and coach services are subject to quotas jointly agreed and administered by the Hong Kong and Chinese Governments. There are at present 471 such quotas, each of which allows one round trip a day. These are sufficient to meet normal demand. Additional temporary quotas are allocated for periods of exceptional demand, for example, on certain public holidays and festival days.
In the past three years, 11 applications for quotas to operate cross border bus and coach services have been turned down. The reasons were as follows:
(a) seven applicants were existing operators who had not used up their present quotas for the routes in question;
(b) two applicants were unable to obtain approval from the Chinese authorities to operate bus services in China;
(c) one applicant was in the process of winding up his business; and (d) one applicant did not possess the necessary transport experience.
3538 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 Failure to supply unleaded petrol
9. MISS EMILY LAU asked: Will the Administration inform this Council whether it has investigated reports that some petrol stations failed to comply with requests to sell unleaded petrol in early March this year and, if so, whether prosecution action will be taken against such petrol retailers under Part IVA of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 311)?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) responded to the reported shortage of unleaded petrol in some petrol stations by carrying out an investigation which involved visits to a number of petrol stations on 2, 3 and 4 March 1994. On two occasions on 3 March, there was a failure to supply unleaded petrol on request. By 4 March, the situation seemed to have returned to normal and unleaded petrol was available on request at all stations visited.
EPD is currently gathering more information and consulting the Attorney General’s Chambers as to whether prosecution action under the relevant provisions of the Air Pollution Control Ordinance can and should proceed. I will provide further information in writing when a decision on this has been made. (Annex V)
General out-patient clinics
10. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the number of general out-patient clinics in each of the districts throughout the territory and the weekly operating hours of these clinics;
(b) the number of patients attending these clinics each year and the main causes of their attendance;
(c) the number of staff providing rehabilitation nursing care and physiotherapy services in these clinics; and
(d) the number of patients referred by these clinics to specialist clinics or hospitals for treatment each year?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President,
(a) The Department of Health operates 59 general out-patient clinics, including 54 full-time and five part-time clinics.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3539
Full time clinics operate 11 sessions a week with a total of 39 hours: that is from 9.00 am - 1.00 pm and 2.00 pm - 5.00 pm Monday to Friday and from 9.00 am - 1.00 pm on Saturdays. Part-time clinics run between three to five sessions per week and the total operating hours range from six to 12 hours per week. In addition, evening clinic and Sunday and public holiday clinic services operate from 18 and eight of the full-time clinics respectively. The operating hours are 6.00 pm - 10.00 pm Monday to Friday and 9.00 am - 1.00 pm on Sundays and public holidays. A breakdown of these clinics by regions is as follows:
Day clinics
Full time Part-time Total
Hong Kong 10 1 11 Kowloon 18 0 18 New Territories East 14 3 17
New Territories West 12 1 13 54 5 59
Evening, Sunday and
Public Holiday Clinics
Sunday and Public
Evening clinics
holiday clinics
Hong Kong 4 2 Kowloon 7 3 New Territories East 3 1
New Territories West 4 2 18 8
(b) In 1993, a total of 4 659 678 patients attended the 59 general out-patient clinics. Of these 3 942 437 were for medical consultation and the rest for nursing services, that is, injections and dressings. About 40% of the medical consultations comprised patients with chronic diseases requiring regular follow-up. The rest were patients with acute ailments seeking primary medical care.
3540 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
(c) The general out-patient clinics do not provide rehabilitation nursing care and physiotherapy services.
(d) In 1993, 93 971 patients attending general out-patient clinics were referred to specialist clinics and 29 209 to Accident and Emergency Service of hospitals under the Hospital Authority. This constitutes 2.38% and 0.74% of all medical consultations respectively.
Protection of children’s rights in judicial proceedings
11. MRS PEGGY LAM asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of cases in the past three years in which charges were withdrawn by the Legal Department on the grounds that the alleged victims were too young and did not understand the meaning of oath-taking; and
(b) what measures are in place to protect the rights of such alleged victims in judicial proceedings?
ATTORNEY GENERAL: Mr President,
(a) We do not keep statistics on the number of cases in which charges were withdrawn on the grounds that the alleged victims were too young and did not understand the meaning of oath-taking;
(b) Under section 4 of the Evidence Ordinance, a witness, and this includes the victim, who is too young and does not understand the nature of the oath, can give unsworn evidence if in the opinion of the court he or she understands the duty to speak the truth. This category generally embraces children between seven to 14 years of age. Corroboration of the evidence of such a witness is required. As for children under the age of seven years, they can, by virtue of section 3 of the Evidence Ordinance, give unsworn evidence if they appear capable of receiving just impressions of the facts.
In July 1993, I set up a committee to look at ways and means to improve the system regulating the giving of evidence by children in criminal proceedings.
The Committee was chaired by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions and comprised representatives of the Bar Association, the Law Society, the Director of Legal Aid, the Commissioner of Police, and the Director of Social Welfare. The Committee
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3541
submitted its report in January 1994. A summary of the recommendations made is as follows:
(i) Children ought, in certain defined circumstances, to be allowed to give evidence through a television video link, from a room, if not adjacent to the court, then in the court building. This would apply to child witnesses giving evidence in relation to offences involving the sexual abuse of a child, the physical abuse of a child, or cruelty to a child. This proposal would avoid the stress placed upon a child of giving evidence in the open, and sometimes intimidating court environment;
(ii) The primary evidence of the child witness, in relation to offences within the three classes mentioned, ought to be video recorded at an early stage by trained personnel of the Social Welfare Department and police;
(iii) The requirement in section 4 of the Evidence Ordinance as to corroboration of the evidence of the child should be abolished. It should, in addition, no longer be incumbent upon the courts to give warnings as to the dangers inherent in convicting an accused on the uncorroborated evidence of a child; and
(iv) All children should give their evidence unsworn, any presumption as to a child’s incompetence to testify should cease, and children should be treated in the same way as adults. If a child is available to give relevant understandable evidence, the child should be heard. The court will then evaluate that evidence and decide how much reliance to place upon it.
I have accepted these recommendations and legislative proposals and administrative measures are being formulated to give effect to them. I hope to be in a position to present the necessary legislative proposals to this Council in the 1994-1995 session.
Additional buildings in housing estates
12. DR TANG SIU-TONG asked (in Chinese): As the Housing Authority intends to construct additional buildings in some of the existing housing estates and this plan is being studied by the Government, will the Government inform this Council:
3542 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
(a) when the study report of the aforementioned plan will be completed; when the construction of the additional buildings is expected to start at the earliest;
(b) whether the Government would consult the residents of the affected housing estates and the relevant District Boards before making a decision on the matter; and
(c) how the authorities concerned would ensure that there will be no adverse effects on the infrastructural facilities, community facilities or transport service of the existing housing estates where additional buildings are to be constructed?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, as part of the measures to increase public housing production to meet housing demands in the next few years, the Housing Department has identified 31 possible “infill” sites in existing estates which have potential for the development of standard blocks or special blocks for small households. The feasibility of using these sites is dependent on the impact on infrastructural and community facilities being acceptable, environmental and traffic constraints being overcome and public consultation. If everything goes well, flats on the sites can be completed between 1996-97 and 1998-99.
(a) Preliminary study by the Housing Department of 12 of the 31 sites indicates that eight of them can be developed to provide some 5 200 flats. Construction work on some of them may start by the end of 1994 or early in 1995. Results of the current study by the Housing Department of the remaining 19 sites are expected in two months.
(b) The Housing Department will consult relevant district boards and mutual aid committees in the housing estates affected before finalizing the plans.
(c) The sites identified are in estates where the actual population is less than the original planned target. Even after building the additional housing blocks, the estate population will be within the planned capacity for which its infrastructure and facilities were designed and provided. In planning additional buildings on these sites, the Housing Department not only attempts to optimize development potential but also to upgrade and improve, where possible, facilities to meet the latest standards.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3543 Fire safety of holiday bungalows
13. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): In view of the complaints from residents of outlying islands about illegal occupation of areas or pavements outside holiday bungalows for barbecue by holiday-makers, and their worries about possible fire hazard posed to the nearby residents owing to the lack of proper fire fighting equipment in these bungalows, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) legislation will be introduced to require the provision of adequate fire fighting equipment in these holiday bungalows; and
(b) prosecutions against holiday-makers who barbecue on pavements will be stepped up to avoid accidents?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, my reply is as follows:
(a) the fire safety of holiday bungalows is regulated by the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance; and
(b) barbecue activities in open areas are not classified as “fire hazards” under the Fire Services Ordinance and are not, therefore, prosecuted under this Ordinance. However, where the arrangements for such activities cause obstruction, or endanger persons, in a public place, these may constitute an offence under the Summary Offences Ordinance. If the offence continues despite warnings, or is accompanied by other offences, the police may initiate prosecution action. Prosecution may also be initiated against barbecue activities on pavements pursuant to the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances (Regional Council) By-laws, if such activities lead to littering in public places.
Stamp duty revenue from stock transactions
14. MR ERIC LI asked (in Chinese): Given that the Government has, in its own budget as well as those of the Securities and Futures Commission and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, made separate assessments of the stock market turnover in order to forecast revenue from stamp duties and transaction levies on stock transfers, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the “average daily stock market turnovers” which are used as the basis for assessing revenue from stamp duties and transaction levies separately in each of the budgets of the above three public bodies in the 1994-95 financial year;
3544 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
(b) of the assumptions on which the separate forecasts are based; should “different assumptions” be used, what the reasons are;
(c) whether the different assessments will cause confusion to the public;
(d) whether the Government will consider adopting a consistent “average daily stock market turnover” as the basis for scrutinizing budgets that must have its approval; and
(e) if all three budgets adopt the same “average daily stock market turnover” as forecast in the Government’s budget, what effect this will have on the budgets of the Securities and Futures Commission and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, such as on their revenue and surplus/deficit position? Please provide actual figures to illustrate the case.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY: Mr President,
(a) In preparing the 1994-95 Budgets for the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK), the average daily turnover on the Stock Exchange was assumed to be $4.5 billion. For the purpose of estimating the stamp duty revenue from stock transactions for the Government’s 1994-95 Budget, we have assumed an average total daily value of stock transactions (including transfers on the Stock Exchange and private transfers) of about $5 billion.
(b) The different turnover figures represent the best judgment at the time of those involved in the preparation of the respective Budgets in the light of the latest market situation. The financial year for the SEHK starts from 1 July while that for the Government and SFC commences on 1 April. The difference in timing in preparing the Budgets means that the estimates on market turnover may be vastly different. In addition, in forecasting the average daily turnover figure for the purpose of the Government’s Budget the Administration has included in it the value of private transfers.
(c) These turnover figures are no more than estimates based on the best assessment at the time they were produced. Neither the Government, the SFC nor the SEHK has given the impression that the actual turnover would necessarily be the same as the projected figures. We are not, so far, aware of any public concern that the different estimated turnover figures are a source of confusion.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3545 (d) and (e)
For the reasons given in (b) and (c) above, we do not consider it appropriate or practical to require the same “average daily stock market turnover” figure to be used for the purpose of the budgets of the Government, the SFC and the SEHK.
Detention of illegal immigrant mothers and young children from China
15. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: Will the Government inform this Council, in respect of each of the past three years, of:
(a) the number of detention orders made in respect of illegal immigrant mothers and young children from China;
(b) the average period, as well as the longest and shortest durations, of their detention;
(c) the number of detainees who applied for bail; whether bail was automatically granted in such cases, if not, why not; and
(d) the number of applications by detainees to stay with family members resident in Hong Kong pending removal; of these, how many were refused and the reasons for the refusal?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, statistics on the number of detention orders in respect of illegal immigrant mothers and young children from China are available only for the fiscal year 1993-94.
(a) The number of detention orders issued in 1993-94 after the serving of removal orders was 257.
(b) The average period of detention was a few days. The shortest period of detention was one day, and the longest two weeks.
(c) We do not have records of the number of applications for recognizance from detainees. However, most illegal immigrant mothers and children are released on recognizance. In 1993-94, 239 were released on recognizance. The remaining 18 were not so released, either because there was a fear that they would abscond or because the date of their removal was imminent.
(d) All 239 who were released on recognizance were allowed to stay temporarily with family members in Hong Kong.
3546 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 Premium paid by private developers
16. MR LAU CHIN-SHEK asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the respective numbers of cases and the amounts of premium involved in the past three financial years in which private developers, in acquiring properties for redevelopment, were required to pay premium to the Government for the following reasons:
(a) renewal of land leases which are due to expire;
(b) a change in the use of the land in question; and
(b) an increase in the plot ratio of such land after redevelopment?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,
(a) Since the Joint Declaration came into force in 1985, extensions of lease term (both in the New Territories and the urban area) are granted without payment of a premium. The answer to the question is therefore that there are no cases where premium has been paid for renewal of leases due to expire since 27 May 1985.
(b) and (c)
Statistics available do not differentiate on whether modifications and exchanges are undertaken for a change in use, an increase in plot ratio or a combination of both. Statistics are available, however, in respect of all modifications and all exchange cases undertaken.
(i) During the period from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1994 a total of 335 modification cases (where a premium was paid) were executed and the total premium payable was $3,663,338,626.
(ii) During the period from 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1994 a total of 262 exchange cases (where a premium was paid) were executed and the total premium payable was $17,271,292,280.
These figures do not include village house cases. Cases where nil premium was payable are assumed to be non-redevelopment cases and have also been excluded.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3547 No conviction record as condition for employment application
17. MR MICHAEL HO asked (in Chinese): It has often been found in the recruitment notices for Government posts displayed in the offices of the Local Employment Service of the Labour Department that applicants should have no conviction records. Will the Government inform this Council of the Government posts to which this condition applies and the reasons for this condition?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, it is our general policy that the Government should take a lead in employing ex-prisoners and persons convicted of criminal offences and should do so where this is not inconsistent with the public interest. The aim is to reintegrate these people into the community. Applications for employment should be considered on the merits of individual cases, such as the general character and experience of the candidate, his record before and after the offence for which he was convicted and whether the offence is of a kind that would make him unsuitable for the duties of the post involved.
For operational or other reasons, some departments have however stated in their recruitment notices for some posts (for example, Watchman and Artisan) that applications from candidates with criminal conviction record will not be considered. Civil Service Branch has reviewed the matter and concluded that, to better implement the Government’s overall policy on employment of people with previous conviction records, this condition should be deleted from recruitment notices in future.
Detention for the purpose of giving evidence at trials or assisting in investigations
18. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: In view of the concern about persons being detained for substantial periods under section 32(4) of the Immigration Ordinance for the purpose of giving evidence at trials or assisting in investigations, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the following details in respect of each of the past three years:
(i) the number of such persons detained, with a breakdown of the number from China and the period of each detention;
(ii) the number of detainees who actually testified at trials, the number of trial cases in which a detainee was the only witness, and the number of trial cases in which a detainee was himself charged; and
3548 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
(iii) the number of bail applications by the detainees under section 36 of the Immigration Ordinance, and the number approved;
(b) whether the detainees are served with detention orders, and whether there are stringent requirements for explaining to them their legal position and informing them of the legal advice and assistance available; and
(c) of the steps taken to ascertain whether the detention of such persons is essential, whether their attendance can be secured by means other than detention, and whether arrangements can be made for witnesses to be returned to their places of origin pending trial?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, as regards persons detained under section 32(4) of the Immigration Ordinance, the details are as follows:
(a) (i) A total of 161 persons were detained in the past three years, of which 151 were from China. A breakdown is as follows:
less than 1
month 1-3 months
more than 3
months Total
1991 30 11 16 57 1992 18 8 8 34 1993 9 19 4 32 1994 12 11 5 28 -----
151
===
(ii) For cases involving immigration offences, a total of nine people were detained in order to give evidence in five cases. They were not the only witnesses at the five trials. Two eventually testified in court; six did not, as the defendants subsequently pleaded guilty; and one is now released on recognizance, pending the trial scheduled for October 1994. Of these nine persons, five were themselves charged with related offences while four were granted immunity.
We do not keep centrally details of the other persons detained as witnesses for other criminal cases. It would take considerable effort to obtain the information requested for these.
(iii) We do not have records of the number of applications for bail from detainees under section 36 of the Immigration Ordinance. But, as I have indicated in a reply to a separate
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3549
question, those with close relatives in Hong Kong, such as wives and children, are usually released on recognizance.
(b) Where a detainee is a prosecution witness in a criminal trial, or is believed to be able to help enquiries into an offence or suspected offence, and where he is about to be removed from Hong Kong, then the prosecuting authority will make an application, initially to the Secretary for Security, for a detention authorization for a period of not more than 28 days. This authorization is made under section 32(4)(a). The detainees are notified and told the reason(s) why they have to be detained.
If the enquiries have not been completed within the 28-day period, or if the witness has not yet given or completed his evidence and his presence is still required, then an application is made to court for a detention order under section 32(4)(b). The detainee is given advance notice of the application; he attends the hearing and is given the opportunity to be heard on each application. Occasionally, the detainee is legally represented. If, having heard both the Crown and the detainee, the magistrate or judge makes a further order for detention, a copy of the detention order is served on the witness.
There are no requirements to explain to a detainee his legal position and/or to inform him about the availability of legal advice and assistance, nor is he informed of this when applications for detention are made under sections 32(4)(a) or 32(4)(b).
(c) There are provisions under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221) for the admission of written statements in lieu of oral evidence; but objections can be made to these written statements by any of the parties concerned, including the defendant. In a criminal trial, where the conviction of the defendant may hinge on the oral evidence of the witnesses, it would not be realistic to expect the defendant to agree to a written statement against him, thereby giving up his right to cross examine the witness. Nevertheless, if the defendant agrees to the written statement, then the witness will no longer be detained and can be released and removed.
Recognizance is an alternative to detention, but this alternative is not appropriate in many cases. In deciding whether to grant recognizance or not, the most significant factor considered is the likelihood of the witness absconding; the consequences of aborting a criminal trial and losing track of a person required to be removed from Hong Kong would not be in the public interest. The alternative of allowing the witness to leave Hong Kong and return to China, on the understanding that he or she will return later to give evidence is also unrealistic. Not only may the witness change his mind, and cannot be compelled to return to Hong Kong to testify; but also
3550 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
illegal immigrants from China may well not be able to obtain permission to leave China.
Taxation and accounting services companies
19. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council
(a) how the operation of taxation and accounting services companies is monitored; and
(b) what measures have been taken in respect of taxation and accounting services companies which are not registered with the Hong Kong Society of Accountants in order to protect the interests of the public?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, there are no particular arrangements for monitoring taxation and accounting services companies unless they are firms of certified public accountants or public accountants, in which case they would need to be registered with the Hong Kong Society of Accountants (HKSA) and would be subject to the regulation, including disciplinary procedures, of the HKSA.
The Administration is not aware of any significant problem that might require the introduction of a new regulatory framework or of specific statutory measures in respect of accounting and taxation services. Over the past two years, the HKSA has recorded only three complaints from the public against accounting firms which were not firms of certified public accountants (including a complaint referred to it by the Honourable Albert CHAN). One of these complaints concerned the quality of services of an accounting services firm. As the proprietor had falsely held himself out to be a certified public accountant, the case was reported to the police and a prosecution instituted. The proprietor was convicted and fined. The other cases concerned inter alia disputes over fees and work that was allegedly paid for but not done. Apart from these, the Administration is not aware of any complaints of a similar nature.
A firm registered with the HKSA would usually have the designation “certified public accountants” or “public accountants” in its name or on its letterhead, whereas an individual would designate himself as a “certified public accountant” (or “CPA”), “public accountant” (or “PA”) or a “professional accountant”. If there is any doubt, members of the public may during office hours check the register of individuals and firms which, under the Professional Accountants Ordinance (Cap. 50) (“PAO”), the HKSA is required to maintain and make available for public inspection, without charge. The legislation also requires that a person or a firm registered with the HKSA be issued with a
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3551
certificate of registration. If a person or firm is claiming to be an HKSA member, therefore, a prospective client may ask to see the relevant certificate of registration.
While it is permissible for a firm to offer taxation or accounting (excluding auditing) services without being registered, under section 42 of the PAO, it is an offence punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to $20,000 and 12 months imprisonment for a person to practise as, or to claim to be qualified to practise as, a certified public accountant or a public accountant, or to claim to be qualified to be registered as a professional accountant, when he is not qualified to do so. If the HKSA suspects that an offence may be being committed, it will follow up with the person or firm concerned and if no satisfactory action is taken to explain or desist from the conduct in question, the matter will be referred to the police. While it may not be unlawful for a person to call himself simply “an accountant” or for a firm to advertise itself as providing advice and/or services relating to accounting, book-keeping or taxation matters without being a member of the HKSA, a member of the public, as explained above, can easily confirm whether or not an individual or a firm is registered with the HKSA.
If members of the public are in any doubt about the credentials of a taxation and accounting services firm or the integrity of persons concerned, they should consider dealing instead with an individual or firm registered with the HKSA, which will be subject to the professional standards and guidelines issued by the Society. If any member of the public has a complaint about the services provided by a taxation and accounting services company that is not registered with the HKSA, and which is not claiming to be registered or to offer services requiring it to be registered, and if the person concerned is unable to obtain satisfaction from the company direct, he or she should consider seeking the assistance of the Consumer Council, or in cases of possible fraud, of the police.
Protection for foreign seamen
20. MR MARTIN BARROW asked: Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) Is there an increasing number of foreign seamen being stranded in Hong Kong; and
(b) what steps will the Government take to persuade Flag states to press the owners of the vessels registered in their countries to afford protection for their crews as required by international conventions?
3552 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, during the past few years there has been an increasing number of cases of foreign seamen stranded in Hong Kong. These incidents arise from two sources. Firstly, when ships and their crews are abandoned in port by their principals ― usually due to financial difficulties. Secondly, when foreign seamen are rescued at sea in the course of search and rescue operations and the shipowner fails to arrange repatriation.
International Labour Conventions provide for the conditions of employment and welfare of seafarers and for their repatriation. When foreign seamen are stranded in Hong Kong the initial onus is on the shipowner or his agent in Hong Kong to take care of them. Where this proves not to be possible, then it falls to the Hong Kong Government to make a speedy approach, through diplomatic channels, to the flag state concerned to make any necessary arrangements for their welfare. Such approaches are usually speedily attended to. In the light of increasing prevalence of the standing of foreign seafarers in Hong Kong, however, the Hong Kong Government will:
(a) bring to the attention of those flag states concerned the need to ensure that owners of vessels registered with them are fully aware of their obligations and to institute clear guidelines for action by their local consulates; and
(b) determine how best to co-ordinate the provision of contingency relief for stranded seafarers pending their repatriation.
The aim is to speedily identify individual cases and deal expeditiously and sympathetically with welfare and repatriation matters.
Motion
COMPANIES ORDINANCE
THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES moved the following motion:
“That the Companies (Winding-up) (Amendment) Rules 1994, made by the Chief Justice on 18 April 1994, be approved.”
He said: Mr President, I move the resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Companies (Winding-up) (Amendment) Rules 1994 were made by the Chief Justice on 18 April to streamline existing procedures and do away with unnecessary administrative requirements concerning the submission of accounts by liquidators and the investment of funds of a company in liquidation.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3553
As regards the investment of the funds of a company in liquidation, the requirement for the committee of inspection to sign and submit through the liquidator, or for the liquidator to sign and forward, a certificate and request to the Official Receiver to invest or withdraw funds from the Companies Liquidation Account, is considered unnecessary. The prescribed form for this purpose is also superfluous. Instead, under the revised rules, a liquidator need only inform the Official Receiver in writing of the advice of a committee of inspection or, where there is no committee, make an appropriate request to the Official Receiver in writing.
The revised rules dispense with the requirement for a liquidator to submit a statutory declaration to verify certain accounts and statements. These are the regular accounts relating to the liquidation of a company being wound up by the court that a liquidator is required to submit to the Official Receiver for audit; the monthly trading account he is required to submit to the committee of inspection, if any, where he is continuing to carry on the business of the company; and the statement of no receipts or payments he needs to send to the Official Receiver if, at the time the accounts fall due, no money has been received or paid out of the account maintained by the liquidator in respect of the company. In future a liquidator will be required only to certify that the relevant accounts or statement are correct.
Where a voluntary winding-up is not concluded within one year after commencement, the revised rules also dispense with the requirement for an affidavit by a liquidator to verify the statements concerning the proceedings in and position of the liquidation. The requirements for the submission of duplicate copies of a liquidator’s statement and an affidavit of no receipts or payments are also removed.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
First Reading of Bills
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
3554 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 Second Reading of Bills
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Criminal Procedure Ordinance.”
He said: Mr President, I move that the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill be read a Second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a Standard Scale for fines not exceeding $100,000. This will enable the maximum amount of these fines to be increased from time to time by a single order of the Governor in Council in order to reflect the effect of inflation.
At present the process of increasing the fines in our legislation is complicated, time consuming and wasteful of resources, since the increases are done on a fine by fine basis. Each provision that needs to be revised has to be identified; the date of the last adjustment to the fine has to be ascertained; the extent of inflation since that date has to be determined; and an appropriate increase in the fine decided upon. A legislative instrument specifying the amendment to that particular fine then has to be prepared and formally approved.
The Standard Scale proposed will greatly simplify this process. It will consist of six levels, ranging from $2,000 at Level 1 to $100,000 at Level 6. All fines not exceeding $100,000 will be converted into the appropriate levels in accordance with the provisions in the Bill and the values of the levels will become the maximum amounts of these fines. These maximum amounts can be increased from time to time to reflect the effect of inflation simply by an order of the Governor in Council. I must emphasize, however, that adjustment by this method is only possible to cater for inflation. Other adjustments will continue to be done by means of specific amending legislation and will have to be justified on a case-by-case basis.
Fines exceeding $100,000 are comparatively rare. They will not be covered by the Standard Scale, but will continue to be reviewed individually.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994
THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance.”
He said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Employees’ Compensation (Amendment) Bill 1994.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3555
The Bill seeks to rectify a number of inadequacies in the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance and improve certain provisions relating to the entitlement of compensation of injured employees.
At present, an employee who sustains injury while travelling as a passenger to or from his place of work by any means of transport provided or arranged by his employer and not being a part of public transport service is entitled to compensation. As the scope of protection is rather limited, we propose to improve the existing provisions by providing for compensation to an employee who suffers injury by accident:
(a) while travelling between his home and his place of work when typhoon signal No. 8 or above, or a red or black rainstorm warning signal, is hoisted;
(b) while driving or operating any means of transport provided by his employer between his home and his place of work for the purpose of attending to or after attending to his duties; and
(c) while travelling between Hong Kong and his place of work abroad by any means of transport agreed by his employer.
We also propose that the definition of “medical expenses” be expanded to enable the Commissioner for Labour to process a claim from an employee injured at work outside Hong Kong for medical expenses incurred outside Hong Kong.
Another area of improvement is that the Bill would enhance the interest of an injured employee who has been on prolonged sick leave. Under the existing provisions, the earnings of an employee for the month immediately preceding the date of his accident or his average monthly earnings during the previous 12 months are used as the basis for calculating periodical payments and compensation for death or permanent incapacity. This method of computation does not cater for any wage increase which the employee might have been entitled to receive had it not been for the accident. We propose that for the purpose of calculating the compensation payable to an employee at the end of a 12-month or 24-month period following his accident, his earnings should be suitably adjusted with reference to the average rate of wage increase of other persons employed by his employer in similar employment, or where no other persons are employed by his employer in similar employment, the rate of inflation, for the preceding 12 months or 24 months be used as appropriate.
We also propose that the Court be provided with a discretionary power to extend the maximum period of 24 months of temporary incapacity by up to 12 months in deserving cases. This extension allows more time for the condition of the injured employee to stabilize and be ready for assessment of permanent incapacity.
3556 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
At present, an employee who suffers permanent total incapacity and who requires the constant attention of another person is entitled to claim compensation for the cost of such arrangements. However, such requirement is considered unduly restrictive as an employee who suffers serious rather than total permanent incapacity may also require the care and attention of another person. We therefore propose to amend the existing provision to allow the Court to award compensation to meet the cost of attending to an employee who suffers serious permanent incapacity and to remove the requirement for such attention to be “constant”.
Other amendments proposed in the Bill are intended to clarify provisions and streamline procedures. These include provisions to make less restrictive the circumstances under which periodical payment are payable to recipients who intend to leave Hong Kong to live elsewhere, to provide a mechanism for the Prosthesis and Surgical Appliances Board to determine the necessity and cost of a prosthesis or surgical appliance supplied and fitted to an injured employee outside Hong Kong, and to repeal section 52 which has become obsolete.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 January 1994 Question on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed, put and agreed to. Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1993
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 21 April 1993 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MR LAU WAH-SUM: Mr President, the Bill before us aims at tightening up the existing provisions on disqualification of company directors. It introduces more effective and readily enforceable measures to deal with those directors who have abused their offices or disregarded their statutory obligations.
I shall highlight some of the main issues that the Bills Committee has discussed with the Administration.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3557
The first concerns the channel for ascertaining whether disqualification orders have been issued on any particular directors, and how the information can be passed to professional bodies.
The proposed section 168R in the Bill requires the Registrar of Companies to maintain a Register of disqualification orders. The Register will be open to the public for inspection upon payment of a specified fee. The Administration suggested that professional bodies can make a search of the Register to find out whether the person who is the subject of the order is its member.
As for access to information lying behind the Register, such as detailed information relating to the circumstances of a case, the Administration advised that the leave of the Court will be necessary to obtain anything other than a copy of the Writ and Order. Nevertheless, a copy of the Writ and Order may well be sufficient for a professional body to initiate an investigation against its members.
The next issue concerns the effective date of a disqualification order, particularly when an appeal is lodged on the case.
The Administration informed Members that the lodging of an appeal will not automatically halt the implementation of a disqualification order. But application can be made to the Court for a stay of such proceedings, judgement, determination or other decision.
Reference was made to the disqualification rules in the United Kingdom, which provide that a disqualification order will not take effect until 21 days after it is made unless the Court orders otherwise. The Administration confirmed that similar rules will be introduced in Hong Kong before the relevant provisions in the Bill come into operation. Hence a person against whom a disqualification order has been made will have the opportunity to oppose or postpone the implementation of the order. The order will in any case be entered into the Register of disqualification orders, but may be subsequently varied or deleted if so ordered by the Court.
Another issue considered by the Bills Committee involves the definition of the term “shadow director”. The existing provisions in the Companies Ordinance provide that disqualification orders may be made against persons in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors of a company have been accustomed to act. Such persons are defined in the Bill as shadow directors.
Members were concerned whether professional advisers, such as accountants and lawyers, would be caught by the definition of “shadow director” as proposed in the Bill. The Administration advised that the definition is not intended to cover these professional advisers, and will move Committee stage amendments to clarify the policy intent.
3558 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
The Bills Committee has also discussed with the Administration the provisions governing disqualifications against directors for persistent breaches of the relevant provisions in the Companies Ordinance requiring the filing of returns, accounts and other documents.
The Administration stressed that the requirement for filing of documents is a statutory obligation for the protection of the interests of shareholders and creditors. There are already existing provisions for the Financial Secretary to apply to the Court to disqualify a person persistently in breach of such obligation; the power is to be given to the Registrar of Companies under the Bill.
Members’ attention was drawn to the distinction between directors who are guilty of persistent breaches of the filing provisions, and directors who are guilty of fraud or involved with insolvent companies. The former offences are not as serious, as reflected in the maximum period of disqualification of five years compared with 15 years in the latter offences.
The Bills Committee has further sought clarification from the Administration on other provisions in the Bill and the concerns raised by the Hong Kong Society of Accountants. I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Administration and the Society for their time and effort.
With these remarks, Mr President, I support the Bill and the technical amendments to be moved by the Administration at the Committee stage.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, I am most grateful to Mr LAU Wah-sum and the Bills Committee for their careful scrutiny and support of the Bill and for their helpful suggestions for improvements.
The Bill strengthens the provisions on the disqualification of company directors, and as a result will, I hope, help to improve standards of corporate governance. With new and more effective provisions on disqualification will come a stronger commitment on the part of the authorities to take action against defaulters. I will be proposing later certain mainly technical amendments to the Bill, that will further facilitate the practical application of the new regime.
Let me emphasize that disqualification under the Bill will bar a person from being a director or liquidator of a company, or a receiver or manager of a company’s property, or in any way taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company, for one to 15 years, depending upon the grounds for his disqualification. It will be an imprisonable offence to act in contravention of a disqualification order. The Bill also renders anyone involved in the management of a company who acts or is willing to act on the instructions of a person whom he knows to be disqualified, personally liable, jointly and severally with the disqualified person, for any debts of the company incurred while he so acts or is willing to act.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3559
Under the scheme, disqualification is arranged around the events when misconduct is first likely to be noticed or established : conviction of offences; breaches coming to the attention of a liquidator; reports of company inspectors; persistent defaults in filing obligations. The principal enforcement agencies will be the Official Receiver, prosecutors, and the courts. Prosecutors and the courts will need to be vigilant, in relation, for example, to the provision which permits a court to disqualify a person who has been convicted of a specified indictable offence. It is important that they actually make sure that they do consider making a disqualification order against that person at the time of conviction.
Before implementing the Bill, three pieces of subsidiary legislation prescribing various procedures will need to be introduced. These are modelled on rules and regulations under the Company Directors Disqualification Act in the United Kingdom. I shall be moving Committee stage amendments to provide for the necessary rule-making power. It is intended that the subsidiary legislation will be laid before this Council during this legislative session. Among the procedures to be prescribed in relation to applications for disqualification orders will be a provision that an order will not take effect for 21 days until after it has been made, unless the court orders otherwise. This will give a person who may be appealing against a conviction on the basis of which a disqualification order has been made, the opportunity to appeal against and also request a stay of the order.
Separately from the disqualification provisions, the Bill transfers to the Financial Secretary the power to amend certain fees under the Ordinance. It also removes the unnecessary requirement for a liquidator’s accounts to be verified by statutory declaration. I have moved a resolution, under the Companies (Winding-up) (Amendment) Rules, to bring this latter change into effect, and at the same time to simplify and streamline certain other related procedures and administrative requirements.
With these remarks, Mr President, I recommend the Bill to Members. Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order 43(1).
Committee Stage of Bills
Council went into Committee.
3560 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994 Clauses 1 to 8 were agreed to.
COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1993
Clauses 1, 2, 4 and 8
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members. The changes are mainly technical and I will therefore highlight only the principal ones.
Clause 4(b) expands the grounds for disqualification to include any indictable offence a conviction for which necessarily involves a finding that the person in question acted fraudulently or dishonestly. This is an existing ground for disqualification and as the intention of the Bill is not to narrow but rather to reinforce the sanctions, it is an element of the current provisions that should be retained.
Clause 4(d) provides that, in the case of a company being wound up, in addition to the Financial Secretary, the Official Receiver may also apply for a disqualification order where it appears that the conduct of a person who is or has been a director of the company makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of any company. Liquidators and receivers of companies will be required in the first instance to report to the Official Receiver concerning the conduct of persons in relation to whom the relevant section may apply. For cases not involving winding-up, the Official Receiver will in turn pass on any information to the Financial Secretary. These proposed changes recognize the fact that it is the Official Receiver, rather than the Financial Secretary, who is the usual authority for dealing with cases concerning the winding-up of companies and who will therefore be in the most appropriate position to take the necessary follow-up action.
Clause 4(f) provides for rule-making powers to assist in the implementation of the new disqualification provisions. It is envisaged that there will be three sets of rules. These rules are required to prescribe, firstly, procedures for applications for disqualification orders, secondly, details of reports to be made to the Official Receiver by a liquidator or a receiver and, thirdly, particulars of information to be provided by the Courts to the Registrar of Companies about disqualification orders that have been made. These last-mentioned rules are to enable the Registrar of Companies to maintain a register of disqualification orders for public inspection.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3561 Proposed amendments
Clause 1
That clause 1(1) be amended, by deleting “(No. 3) Ordinance 1993” and substituting “Ordinance 1994”.
Clause 2
That clause 2 be amended, by deleting “of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32)”.
Clause 4
That clause 4 be amended ―
(a) in the proposed section 168C(1) -
(i) by adding -
““Official Receiver” means the Official Receiver appointed under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6);”;
(ii) in the definition of “shadow director” by adding after “act” -
“but a person shall not be considered to be a shadow director by reason only that the directors act on advice given by him in a professional
capacity”.
(b) by deleting the proposed section 168E(1) and substituting -
“(1) The court may make a disqualification order against a person where he is convicted of an indictable offence (whether on indictment or summarily) -
(a) in connection with the promotion, formation, management or
liquidation of a company; or
(b) in connection with the receivership or management of a
company’s property,
or any other indictable offence his conviction for which necessarily involves a finding that he acted fraudulently or dishonestly.”.
3562 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 (c) in the proposed section 168G, by adding -
“(3) In this section, “officer” includes a shadow director.”.
(d) in the proposed section 168I -
(i) by deleting subsection (1) and substituting -
“(1) If it appears to -
(a) the Financial Secretary in any case; or
(b) the Official Receiver in the case of a person who is or has
been a director of a company that is being wound up,
that it is in the public interest that a disqualification order under section 168H should be made, an application for the making of such an order may be made by the Financial Secretary or the Official Receiver.”;
(ii) by deleting subsection (3) and substituting -
“(3) If it appears to -
(a) the liquidator of a company that is being wound up by him; or
(b) the receiver in respect of a company for which he has been so
appointed,
that the matters listed in section 168H(1)(a) and (b) may apply to a person who is or has been a director of that company, he shall forthwith report the matter to the Official Receiver who may, or in cases not involving the winding-up of the company shall, report the matter to the Financial Secretary.”.
(e) in the proposed section 168P -
(i) in subsection (2)(b), by adding “the Financial Secretary” after “Official Receiver,”;
(ii) in subsection (3), by adding “, the Financial Secretary” after “Official Receiver”.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3563 (f) by adding -
“168RA. Regulations
(1) The Chief Justice may make regulations respecting proceedings in the High Court for a disqualification order under this Part.
(2) The Financial Secretary may make regulations respecting the reporting to the Official Receiver of the conduct of persons as directors under section 168I(3).”.
Clause 8
That clause 8 be amended, in the proposed section 360(3A), by adding “and the Fourteenth Schedule” after “Schedule”.
Question on the amendments proposed, put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 1, 2, 4 and 8, as amended, proposed, put and agreed to. Clauses 3, 5 to 7 and 9 to 12 were agreed to.
New clause 1A Inspector’s report
to be evidence
Clause read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 1A as set out in the paper circulated to Members be read the Second time. The new clause 1A provides for a report made by an inspector appointed under the Ordinance to be admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein in proceedings on a disqualification application under the relevant section. This is in line with the position in the United Kingdom.
Mr Chairman, I beg to move.
Question on the Second Reading of the clause proposed, put and agreed to. Clause read the Second time.
3564 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr Chairman, I move that new clause 1A be added to the Bill.
Proposed addition
New clause 1A
That the Bill be amended, by adding ―
“1A. Inspector’s report
to be evidence
Section 149 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) is amended by adding “and, in proceedings on an application under section 168J, as evidence of any fact stated therein” after “the report”.”.
Question on the addition of the new clause proposed, put and agreed to. Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL reported that the
SECURITIES (INSIDER DEALING) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994 had passed through Committee without amendment and the
COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1993
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading of the Bills. Question on the Third Reading of the Bills proposed, put and agreed to. Bills read the Third time and passed.
Members’ Motions
HONG KONG ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS 1917 TO 1993
MRS MIRIAM LAU moved the following motion:
“That with effect from 4 May 1994 the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong be amended -
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3565 (1) in Standing Order No. 64A -
(a) by repealing paragraph (1) and substituting -
“(1) Except for the purpose of making an initial registration of interests under paragraph (2), every Member shall, not later than seven days before the first sitting of each session, furnish to the Clerk, in such form as may be approved by the President, particulars of his registrable interests.”;
(b) by adding -
“(1A) Every new Member of the Council shall, within fourteen days from the date of his election or appointment to the Council, furnish to the Clerk, in such form as may be approved by the President, particulars of his registrable interests.”;
(c) by repealing paragraph (4)(b) and (c) and substituting -
“(b) remunerated employments, offices, trades, professions or vocations;”;
(d) in paragraph (4)(e)(i), by adding “$10,000 or” after “exceeds”;
(e) in paragraph (4)(e)(ii), by repealing “includes any payment to the Member or any material benefit or advantage, direct or indirect” and substituting “include any payment or any material benefit or advantage to the Member or his spouse, whether direct or indirect”;
(f) in paragraph (4)(f), by adding “made by the Member or his spouse” after “visits”;
(g) in paragraph (4)(g), by adding “by the Member or his spouse” after “received”;
(h) in paragraph (4)(h), by repealing “of substantial value or from which a substantial income is derived”;
(2) in Standing Order No. 65 -
(a) by repealing paragraph (1) and substituting -
3566 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
“(1) A Member shall not vote upon any question, whether in
the Council or in any committee, in which he has a direct pecuniary interest.
(1A) A Member shall not move any motion or amendment
relating to a matter in which he has a pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect, or speak on any such matter, whether in the Council or in any committee, without disclosing the nature of that interest.
(1B) In any debate or proceedings of the Council or any
committee at which a Member is present he shall declare any direct pecuniary interests which he has in the matter.”;
(b) in paragraph (2) by repealing “non-disclosure of his personal pecuniary interest” and substituting “his direct pecuniary interest under paragraph (1)”;
(3) in Standing Order No. 65A, by adding “, (1A) or (1B)” after “65(1)”.
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Members may recall that in July 1992, the Committee on Members’ Interests introduced a set of “Guidelines on Registration of Interests” to facilitate Members of the Council in making their returns on “registrable interests” as required under Standing Order 64A. In the 1992-93 Legislative Council Session, the committee embarked on an overall review of Standing Order 64A regarding registration of interests, and the opportunity was also taken to review Standing Order 65 regarding disclosure of pecuniary interests and voting in the Council. During the deliberations of our committee, reference was made to the practice and procedures in other legislatures, and in particular, to the recommendations of the United Kingdom House of Commons Select Committee on Members’ Interests on the registration and declaration of financial interests as contained in their first report published in March 1992. Our committee completed the review in July 1993, having held a total of 10 meetings.
As some of the recommendations of the committee arising from the review entail amendments to the Standing Orders, Members of the Council were consulted on the proposed amendments in July 1993.
Having subsequently deliberated on the comments received from Members of the Council, our committee agreed that we should go ahead with the amendments to the Standing Orders which I am proposing today.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3567 I would like to highlight the following main features of the amendments:
(a) Proposed amendment to Standing Order 64A(1) regarding Registration of Interests before the first sitting of each session
We recommend that a Member needs only be required to file his return on registration of interests seven days (as opposed to 14 days under existing Standing Order 64A(1)) before the first sitting of each session.
(b) Proposed new Standing Order 64A(1A) regarding Registration of Interests for new Members of the Council
We consider that the Standing Orders should be expanded to provide for the initial registration of interests by new Members. And we recommend that a new Member should file his return within 14 days of his election or appointment to the Council.
(c) Amalgamation of Standing Order 64A(4)(b) and (c)
Amalgamation of the two categories of registrable interests is recommended because we consider that the distinction between “remunerated employments or offices” and “remunerated trades, professions and vocations” is somewhat blurred and artificial.
(d) Proposed amendment to Standing Order 64A(4)(e)(i) regarding Financial Sponsorships towards a Member’s election expenses
Under existing Standing Orders, a financial sponsorship received by a Member as a candidate for election to the Council is a “registrable interest” only when it exceeds 25% of his election expenses. This means that a Member who has incurred the maximum amount of $200,000 as election expenses in a direct election to the Council is not obliged to register financial sponsorship not exceeding $50,000. We consider that a stricter rule is called for and recommend that any financial sponsorship exceeding 25% of a Member’s election expenses, or any amount exceeding $10,000 shall be registrable.
(e) Proposed amendments to Standing Order 64A(4)(e)(ii), (f) and (g) regarding Spouses’ Interests
We recommend that apart from “shareholdings” which is already a registrable interest under Standing Order 64A(4)(i), other interests received by a Member’s spouse relating to “financial sponsorships”, “overseas visits”, “payments, and other material benefits or advantages” which arise out of a Member’s membership of the Council shall also be registrable.
3568 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
We further recommend that a Member should be required to make the necessary enquiries of his spouse in order to make a return on the registration of “spouses’ interests”. This will be made clear on the revised guidelines on registration of interests.
(f) Proposed amendment to Standing Order 64A(4)(h) regarding Land and Property
We consider that since Members are already required to make a full declaration on “Land and Property” regardless of whether the land or property is “of substantial value” and whether the Member is deriving “a substantial income” from the property, this Standing Orders should be amended to reflect the current arrangements so as to avoid possible confusion on the interpretation of the word “substantial”.
(g) Proposed amendments to Standing Order 65(1) regarding voting in the Council and declaration of interests during the proceedings of the Council and Committees
Members have been consulted earlier on our committee’s proposal to adopt the practice of the United Kingdom House of Commons on “voting”, that is, that in any debate or proceeding of the Council or its committees, a Member shall not be allowed to vote on a matter in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. Feedback obtained from Members indicates that Members do not have any objection to this recommendation of the committee.
We recommend that in the interest of the transparency of the Council, our rules on the disclosure of pecuniary interests should be tightened up. The following rules on disclosure of pecuniary interests are recommended:
(i) in any debate or proceeding of the Council or its committees, a Member shall declare all “direct pecuniary interests” which he has in the matter; and
(ii) a Member shall disclose all pecuniary interests, whether direct or indirect, before he speaks in the Council or in a committee. This is in fact the practice in the United Kingdom House of Commons.
Whilst on the subject of declaration of interests, let me reiterate that it would be up to Members to disclose interests beyond the minimum requirements and indeed I can see that quite a number of my colleagues are already doing this. I would encourage my colleagues to continue to practise this in the future.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3569
(h) Proposed amendment to Standing Order 65(A) regarding sanctions relating to non disclosure of interests
The proposed amendment to Standing Order 65(A) is merely a consequential amendment in light of the proposed new Standing Order 65(1)(A) and 65(1)(B).
Mr President, we believe that the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders will mean another step forward in our attempt to enhance the transparency of this Council since the introduction of Standing Order 64(A) on registration of interests and the establishment of the Committee on Members’ Interests in 1991.
Mr President, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.
PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to time limits on speeches for the next two motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 30 April. The movers of the motions will have 15 minutes each for their speeches including their replies; other Members will have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech.
URBAN RENEWAL
MR JAMES TO moved the following motion:
“That, in view of the hardship caused to residents affected by the urban renewal process, and the fact that, despite a lapse of over 22 months since the passage of a motion by this Council on 1 July 1992 urging the Government to carry out a review of the urban renewal process, the Government has yet to complete the review or come up with concrete proposals on the matter, this Council reproves the Government and requests it to complete expeditiously (within three months) a review of the policy and the legislation on the redevelopment of urban private buildings and the related issues of rehousing and compensation, and to put into practice at an early date the new policy and legislation, so as to ensure that residents affected by the urban renewal process will be reasonably compensated and rehoused in their original districts.”
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper.
3570 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
In moving the motion, my purposes are two: First, to ensure that residents affected by urban renewal will receive reasonable compensation and be rehoused in their original districts; and, second, to reprove the Government for ignoring the hardships of the affected residents and for failing to come up with any substantive findings from the review of urban renewal which has been under way for so long.
My heart is heavy every time we discuss the urban renewal process. I am very unhappy because, as a Legislative Council Member, I bear, in a manner of speaking, the hardships of members of the public. Two years ago, when I entered the Legislative Council Building to move a motion, I received a sleeping mat. Today, I received a floor mop and a model time bomb. On 1 July 1992, this Council passed a motion urging the Government to review the urban renewal process. That was two years ago. What has the Government actually done to implement that motion?
Over the past two years, I have been meeting with officials of the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch nearly once every three months to ask about progress in their review of the urban renewal process. Their answer was invariably that they were “dealing with it and it would take another three months.” Last July, the Housing Panel of this Council followed up on this matter. But officials continued to drag their feet. Then, in January this year, in response to a written question from me, the Government said frankly that the redevelopment of private buildings was a very complex issue, that one must take one’s time and study it carefully and that the time required would at least be six months.
The Government has been dragging its feet for 22 months. Over 1 000 buildings have meanwhile been demolished for redevelopment. In other words, demolition has been going on at the rate of more than a hundred buildings per quarter. How many residents have been affected? Why does the Government have a heart of stone? Why is it showing no concern when dispossessed residents fail to receive reasonable compensation and be rehoused? Why is it so unresponsive? Why is it dragging its feet again and again? Why is it behaving like a rascal and ignoring the dispossessed residents’ hardships and complaints? This is why I must move a motion of reproof.
It has been 22 months since 1 July 1992 when the motion was passed. Things have not improved at all; rather, they have gotten worse. The affected residents complained, protested, paraded in the streets, petitioned and demonstrated. Finally, there was ugly confrontation, as in the recent incident of the six streets in To Kwa Wan. Things have remained basically the same as they were two years ago. Buildings were demolished and rent controls became unavailable to the dispossessed residents. They received meagre compensation but had to pay higher rent for their new dwellings because rent had gone up sharply along with property prices. Their new living environment was even more obnoxious. Those who had occupied a whole flat before had to be content with one room. Those who had occupied a big room before had to be content
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3571
with a small one. Those who had occupied a small room before had to be content with a bed space. Some even became homeless and were forced to sleep out in the streets.
Dispossessed residents in redevelopment projects sponsored by the Land Development Corporation (LDC) or the Housing Society are provided with rehousing. However, the law does not require private developers to rehouse dispossessed tenants. This is unreasonable, because:
(1) Residents can only react to events. They cannot choose. They have no say over who is going to demolish their dwellings, be it the Government, a private developer, LDC or the Housing Society. The Government should ensure that, no matter who the sponsor of a redevelopment project may be, the dispossessed residents will not be victimized and made to suffer a deterioration in their living environment.
(2) It is unreasonable for the community as a whole to bear the social costs created by a private developer’s redevelopment project.
(3) In many cases, after buildings have been repossessed, and sites resumed, by a private developer, it will be necessary for the developer to apply for modification of land use, for land exchange or for waiver of restrictions relating to land use. The application will need to be examined and approved by the Government. Therefore, the Government cannot wash its hands and say that it is totally uninvolved.
(4) I believe that, if the law continues to allow developers to run away from their responsibility for rehousing dispossessed residents, public opinion will gravitate towards an increasingly clear consensus and that is that the public does not want to let developers make money. They will want all redevelopment projects to be sponsored by LDC, the Housing Society or the Government itself. While we do not want matters to come to a head like this, I believe that, if developers’ attitude remains unchanged and if the Government continues to leave things alone, the mood of members of the public will get uglier and uglier.
In the final analysis, why do we want urban renewal? We want urban renewal because we want a better living environment, meaning better living conditions, better sanitary conditions, better traffic conditions and better community facilities. What is being done now is to get a better overall living environment by sacrificing the interests of a minority. A redeveloped community may be as attractive as a paradise. Yet this paradise will just be an impossible dream to the present resident of old areas, who will have been dispossessed of their homes. They will be living in small rooms or bed spaces in nearby old buildings that are not yet redeveloped. They will be watching the
3572 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
paradise from across the street. They will be waiting for another round of eviction and repossession orders. Eventually, they will move to far-away districts, to unfamiliar communities with unfamiliar services and facilities. Do we want to see this happen as a result of the so-called urban renewal? Is this reasonable and humane? Since the victims of urban renewal will not partake of the fruits thereof, who then will reap the benefits? The answer is that private developers and the Government will. We must not pretend that there are no huge profits to be made from urban renewal. If the main or sole purpose of redevelopment is to improve the living environment and not to reap vast fortunes from the redevelopment potentials of the land, then the Government should make law to require fair compensation and lay down a policy on the rehousing of dispossessed residents in their original districts. It should have done so long before now.
What we have now is a veritable case of “collusion between the Government and business interests”. LDC tells the Government to resume sites. The sites are then redeveloped jointly with developers. LDC earns a profit from the developers even before redevelopment begins. Then, when developers pay the land premium, the Government, too, stands to make a profit. If this is not collusion between the Government and business interests, what is it? The Government always asks the rhetorical question: How do you motivate developers except with the prospect of a good profit; how else do you induce them to speed up urban renewal? But it is possible to offer some profit ― a smaller profit ― to property owners in the old areas and thereby induce them to surrender their property in favour of faster urban renewal; it is also possible to offer rehousing in the original district to dispossessed residents and thereby induce them to support urban renewal. Is it not? In the final analysis, the Government is too kind to the developers. It worries for them, fearing that they may not have a chance to develop! As for me, my worry is that the Government may try to restrict the role of LDC. The Government is now even offering to help developers to repossess buildings. The Government is indeed attentive to the last detail!
The right to resume sites belongs to the public. Resumption is a violation of private property rights. The law must lay down clear parameters. Otherwise, the spirit of the rule of law will be violated. The Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance provides that land may be resumed for “a public purpose”. But there is no definition of “public purpose”. If the Executive Council declares it to be “public purpose” then it is “public purpose” and that is that. At a meeting a few days ago, we asked the Government to define “public purpose”. The Government cited bridges, roads, schools and community facilities. The Government cited these orally. There is nothing in black and white, nothing laid down in internal guidelines. We do not even know if the Executive Council has approved any policy paper. The Legislative Council’s Lands and Works Panel has just called a meeting and we unanimously agreed that we should ask the Government to review the Ordinance and the definitions therein.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3573
LDC and the Housing Society are labelled non-profit making organizations. In the past, when they were resuming sites in the course of urban renewal, it could be said that this was in the interests of the majority. The same, however, can no longer be said now that LDC is actually co-operating with developers. If sites are resumed for the benefit of private developers and if there is no satisfactory rehousing and compensation for those affected, what can the Government say by way of moral justification? That will be downright moral bankruptcy! I asked the Government if the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance must be amended before it could resume land for developers. The Government answered that it had not yet consulted the Legal Department. We are supposed to have a responsible administration. Yet we found that the Governor had made a proposal in his policy address without first consulting the Legal Department. We found that the Government did not know whether the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance had to be amended! In any case, if, in today’s debate, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands fails to give a firm answer on whether the Ordinance need to be amended, the United Democrats of Hong Kong, including myself, will introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend it and lay down some definitions. Nevertheless, I will first consult the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands!
What we see before our eyes are inhuman conditions and hardships. UDHK think that the Government should complete within three months its review of the urban renewal process and its review of the policy and law affecting rehousing and compensation and put the revised laws and policy into effect soon, thus ensuring that residents affected in the course of urban renewal will receive reasonable compensation and be rehoused in their original districts.
In fact, it is not too much to ask that dispossessed residents should be rehoused in their original districts on a home-for-home and shop-for-shop basis. The taller buildings in a redeveloped district ought to provide more residential and shop units. The developer ought to be able to make and carry out a phased redevelopment plan that will take care of the rehousing of dispossessed residents. The Housing Society’s redevelopment of the site of the present Chun Fat Fa Yuen in the six streets of Yau Ma Tei provides an example of a highly successful phased redevelopment plan that takes care of the rehousing of dispossessed residents. Six-storey buildings are being demolished and replaced by 16-storey or even 60- storey buildings. Yet the Government says that the dispossessed resident will not be rehoused in their original districts on a home-for-home and shop-for-shop basis. What kind of a responsible administration is it? The real question is whether the Government and the developers are willing to reap a smaller windfall and discharge their due obligations to the dispossessed residents and to society in general. If the Government and the developers are unwilling to discharge these obligations, then the redevelopment of urban private buildings is nothing but a plan to grab money disguised as a plan to improve the living environment. It reveals ugly collusion between the Government and business interests. I hope that Governor Chris PATTEN will not let the redevelopment of urban private buildings become a major stain on
3574 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 his record as the last Governor of Hong Kong by the time he departs from Hong Kong. With these remarks, I move the motion.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR LAU WAH-SUM (in Cantonese): I want to declare an interest. I am a Director of the Land Development Corporation.
MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, in a recent campaign to curb property prices a social work organization accused the Government and the property developers of being in cohorts to fleece the public of their hard-earned money. Some may think that such an allegation is going too far and the way of expression too hard hitting. Yet, even if the Government has not colluded with the developers, I think it cannot escape the blame for arousing popular resentment by adopting a procrastinating policy and ambivalent attitude towards the problem.
Today’s motion debate on urban renewal again serves as incontrovertible evidence. It is because this Council did endorse a similar motion 22 months ago urging the Government to set up an ad hoc group to carry out a comprehensive review of private developers’ acquisition of property for redevelopment. However, the Government has all along paid no heed to this problem, thus wasting precious time and resources. For this reason, I think this Council should reprove the Government first.
It is undeniable that we should support urban renewal because it can, apart from improving the city’s looks and our people’s living conditions, enable land resources in the urban areas to be fully utilized. Given the acute land shortage in the urban areas today, it is even more obvious that we should urgently go ahead with the redevelopment projects. Yet, in order to speed up the pace of redevelopment, we should, first and foremost, address the rehousing and compensation issues.
In my opinion, no one should deprive the original tenants of their entitlements; such as rehousing in their original districts and removal compensation, under the pretext that redevelopment is carried out in the public interest. However, pursuant to the existing Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) (Amendment) Ordinance, an affected tenant is only entitled to compensation equivalent to six months’ rent for a similar flat in his/her original district and after the six-month period the tenant will have to suffer high rent. Those who cannot afford the rent can do nothing but move elsewhere with worse living conditions or they may be even reduced to being street sleepers. Eventually this will add to the burden of the Government.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3575
We can just examine existing policies and legislation, which include the limit on land supply each year to protect the so-called free market prices, the rent decontrol to keep the property market buoyant and the invocation of ordinances such as the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance where necessary, and we will find that all of them seek to put property developers’ investments in an absolutely favourable position. As compared with the huge profits reaped by developers, the tenant’s request for reasonable rehousing by way of compensation is nothing excessive.
Mr President, I did put forward the following three solutions in the debate last time. (1) Developers should be required to pay a fund proportional to the size of the redevelopment for the purpose of providing permanent homes for the affected residents. (2) An independent urban renewal authority should be set up to take charge of all urban renewal projects, details of compensation and rehousing. (3) The definition of “cage dwellers” should be expanded to include all bedspace dwellers. Up to now I still think that the aforesaid proposals are worth our consideration. Apart from these, in view of the fact that the housing co-operative scheme, which has become very popular in mainland China in recent year, has proved effective in helping medium income families solve their housing problems, I think it will be feasible to introduce the scheme, which only need to be slightly improved, to Hong Kong people.
In conclusion, there are quite a number of solutions but the question is whether the Government is determined and sincere in solving the problem. As the Government has recently indicated to the public its determination to curb property prices, I think it has no reason to turn a blind eye to the rehousing and compensation issues relating to urban renewal because these issues are inseparable from that of soaring property prices. For this reason, the Administration will have to consider in a comprehensive manner all the issues involved.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is difficult ― and has been for decades ― for the Government to find new land lots to grant in the urban areas. The sites for many new buildings became available only because of urban renewal. Private developers buy old property for redevelopment. The Land Development Corporation (LDC) was set up in 1988 to engage solely in urban renewal. LDC is a statutory body. Sometimes, when it needs to repossess property, it gets help from the Government, which invokes the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance. An urban renewal project can be sponsored by LDC, the Housing Society or a private developer. No matter who sponsors it, it invariably involves the relocation of homes and businesses and therefore it usually gives rise to many disputes about compensation and rehousing.
3576 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
In July 1992, this Council passed a motion urging the Government to review the urban renewal process. That was 22 months ago. But the Government has not yet completed the review. This is disappointing indeed. The Government must move quickly to lay down good policy and law governing urban renewal, dealing specifically with compensation and rehousing. Unless it does so, there are going to be many more social problems in the coming years. Therefore, I am very much in favour of the motion to reprove the Government and to urge it to complete the review of the urban renewal process expeditiously (that is, within three months), so that policy and law may be laid down soon and put into effect.
The review of the urban renewal process should cover three points: First, the relationship between urban renewal and a better living environment; second, urban renewal as an important source of sites for new buildings; and, third, due compensation for affected property owners and tenants.
I will now analyze these points one by one. The first point is the relationship between urban renewal and a better living environment. Several decades ago, when parts of Hong Kong and Kowloon were developed, it was not anticipated that the economy would do so well or that the population would grow so fast. These are now the old districts and they generally have the following problems: High building density; worsening sanitary conditions; narrow and congested streets; a shortage of open space, a shortage of recreational facilities, a shortage even of government offices. Generally speaking, the buildings there are 30 to 40 years old and in a state of disrepair. Chips of concrete are falling off. Walls are collapsing. There have even been cases of an entire building collapsing. The lives of occupants are endangered.
When the Government recently proclaimed the “restrictions on building density in Kowloon and New Kowloon”, the justification was the inadequacy of the infrastructure in those parts. The restrictions limit the development potentials of the old districts and thereby reduce the value ― and the likelihood ― of their redevelopment. As a result, the infrastructure in the old districts is less likely to see improvement. We have a vicious circle. In the end, the living environment will get worse instead of better. Another thing is that the dilapidated buildings in the old areas detract from the general good looks of urban Hong Kong. It is ironical that there should be such buildings in Hong Kong, which has a well developed economy and which is a reputed international city. Therefore, there is a pressing need for urban renewal.
The second point that we must consider is how urban renewal affects the supply of sites for new housing. Most of the buildings erected each year are now erected on sites becoming available because of urban renewal. An average of 30 000 flats are built in the private sector each year. 17 800 were built on redeveloped sites in 1991; 16 700 in 1992; and 20 100 in 1993, in all cases accounting for more than 50% of the total number of flats built. Clearly, the supply of sites for new private housing each year depends largely on urban renewal. LDC’s urban renewal work has slowed down for various causes. The
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3577
Government must make it more attractive for private developers to do urban renewal work. This will speed up urban renewal and ease the tightness of housing supply in Hong Kong, there being a heavy demand for housing by the people of Hong Kong.
Another important topic to be covered by the review of the urban renewal process is reasonable compensation for affected property owners and tenants. Private developers’ compensation to bought-out property owners are determined according to the free market values of the property in question. The buyer and the seller must agree on a mutually acceptable amount before a deal can be struck. In fact, those most affected by urban renewal are the old and poor tenants who have been paying low rents all the time and who are now to be dispossessed. The Government has statutory provisions for setting the amount of compensation for them. However, the amount is too low, not enough to make up for the higher rents that they will later have to pay. The Housing Authority will, to a certain extent, make arrangements for those affected tenants who have already applied for public housing, but there are restrictions. There will be no arrangements for those who have not applied for public housing. I hope that the Housing Authority will consider the plight of these two groups of people and treat them favourably. Their number will grow in the coming years.
I have great reservations about rehousing dispossessed residents in their original districts. True, it will be ideal if a dispossessed resident is rehoused in his original district, where he can keep all his social ties. But this is practically very difficult, the reason being that there may not be enough vacant flats or new flats in the original districts for rehousing the vast numbers of dispossessed residents. Besides, many residential buildings in the districts may have been redeveloped into commercial buildings or shopping arcades. Therefore, if law is made to require rigidly that all dispossessed residents be rehoused in their original districts, this will create all kinds of difficulties besetting urban renewal in Hong Kong or even bringing it to a halt.
To conclude, I have great sympathy for those who are affected by urban renewal. I hope that they will receive reasonable compensation and be rehoused. However, in view of the practical problems mentioned earlier, I have reservations about rehousing dispossessed residents in their original districts.
PRESIDENT: Dr YEUNG Sum. I believe you have another commitment.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, as I belong to the Island West constituency, I have the opportunity to have frequent contacts with residents living in the old buildings of Sheung Wan, Western and Sai Ying Pun. I would like to point out a few common problems faced by residents affected which I have come to understand in the course of my work. I would like the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands to pay special attention.
3578 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
As Mr Edward HO has just said, the area of our urban land is decreasing and hence urban renewal of these old areas is necessary in terms of land use and town planning. We therefore support urban renewal. However, as the Government has adopted a non interventionist policy, and has left the renewal of old areas entirely in the hands of private developers, urban renewal is hindered and cries of discontent from the affected residents are heard all round. Some common problems which arise in the process of resumption of land for redevelopment are:
(1) Developers seek to resume possession of premises and yet residents do not wish to move out. As a result, developers waste a lot of time and money and the process of clearance is seriously hindered.
(2) Public discontent aroused. As we all know, those people who live in old buildings are often old, weak and poor, have nobody to support them or belong to the low income group. They petition, they demonstrate, they sleep on the street and they clash with the police. As a result, urban renewal is adversely affected. Not only has a substantial measure of resources of society been wasted, the conflict between the Government and the people has also become more intense. In fact, this is totally unnecessary. Many problems can easily be resolved if the Government will co-operate with real estate developers and consult the opinion of the public.
The public basically supports redevelopment in old areas. They are not willing to move out for the following reasons:
First, the problem of livelihood. Take the example of the occupants in the commercial premises of Queen Street. They have been doing business there for years and yet, with the meagre compensation offered to them by the Land Development Corporation, they cannot even purchase business premises half the original size. Will these people ever agree to such terms of compulsory purchase? Will they ever support this plan of renewal? Compensation for loss of livelihood therefore is a big problem.
Second, the problem of rehousing. To date, the Government basically has not addressed itself to the question of rehousing. The Government will make arrangements for residents to move into Temporary Housing Area if and only if they can prove that they are homeless and have lived in Hong Kong for at least seven years. As for the old people who have nobody to look after them, the Government through the Social Welfare Department will arrange for them to move into public housing estates under the compassionate rehousing scheme. Nevertheless, these people will have to face other problems including adaptation.
Recently, an old woman in her seventies whom we had helped in obtaining compensation from the developer told us that she could not adapt to the life in Tuen Mun at all. She was born in Sheung Wan and lived there for more than 70 years. Now she has moved to Tuen Mun to live with her daughter.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3579
If the Government can act as an intermediary in the urban renewal process, assisting developers, on the one hand, to resume land and to redevelop so that the community will have renewed development while, on the other, providing reasonable care for affected residents, helping them to solve the problems of livelihood and rehousing, I believe the public will welcome urban renewal. I therefore support Mr James TO’s proposal of “flat for flat; house for house; shop for shop” and of rehousing residents in their original district.
MR STEVEN POON (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Financial Secretary suggested in paragraph 42 of this year’s Budget that one of the means by which the supply of new land may be increased is to consider the option of “allowing private developers to apply for land resumptions”. However, the Government has not yet come up with any concrete proposal as to how the plan is to be carried out.
In fact, urban renewal is a complex subject which cannot be readily resolved by asking private developers to resume land under the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance.
We must, first of all, address the issue of principle: Is it in the public interest as well as in the interest of improvement of community environment, or is it for the sake of increasing land supply that the Crown Land Resumption Ordinance is invoked to resume land?
If the resumption of land under the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance is in the interests of the public, then it can still be regarded as a fairly reasonable excuse since many of the public works undertaken by the Government involved resumption of land on this ground.
However, if the purpose of land resumption is to increase land supply, then it becomes a resumption of land on economic grounds. I believe that it is difficult to achieve this sort of goal and the general public will find it relatively difficult to accept. On this ground, I have considerable reservations about the Government’s plan of “allowing private developers to apply for land resumptions”.
As far as land resumption is concerned, apart from the question of principle, there is one more question concerning the rehousing of original residents, that is, how to rehouse the dispossessed tenants? Quite a number of the dispossessed tenants originally resided in bedspace apartments. We must in the process of resuming land and undertaking renewal projects, consider this: What compensation have we given to these residents and tenants? According to the compensation criteria under the existing legislation, the residents of bedspace apartments, with the compensation sum can in no way rent any better accommodation in the neighbourhood of their original residences. As a result, they are forced to move from one bedspace apartment to another. In terms of
3580 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 their living environment, they benefit nothing from the urban redevelopment exercise.
Therefore, in the process of redevelopment the rehousing of dispossessed tenants is a relatively important thing to consider. Many people think that the responsibility of rehousing the displaced residents rests with the private developers. But this is in reality not a viable option because if private developers were to take up this responsibility, I am afraid that no developer would commit itself to any redevelopment projects in the old districts. One of the reasons lies in the fact that the developers are exhausted of means to rehouse the residents in their original districts due to the unavailability of appropriate premises in the original districts. If the developers were to build new housing in the neighbourhood of the original districts before the redevelopment projects commence, the developers would become another Housing Authority (HA). I do not believe any developer will be willing to assume a role similar to that of the HA.
In fact, Hong Kong need only one HA, instead of a proliferation of private-developer turned-HAs. Many residents who are affected by the urban renewal process are in fact eligible candidates to be allocated with public housing by the HA. Therefore, I hold that it is the HA which should assume the responsibility of providing housing for them.
I propose that the Government should consider passing the rehousing responsibility to the HA while the developers pay a reasonable sum of money to purchase flats from the HA in order to rehouse the affected residents, thereby furnishing a genuine solution to the problem of rehousing the displaced tenants as well as minimizing the impacts on the residents who are affected by urban renewal.
Mr President, there is nothing new in the motion moved by the Honourable James TO today in that he requests the residents be reasonably compensated. Compensation is granted in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation passed by the Legislative Council. The most significant wording in the motion lies in the last phrase which states that “residents affected ..... rehoused in their original districts”. As I have mentioned earlier, “the residents be rehoused in their original districts” will constitute an impracticable option and I opine that the rehousing responsibility should rest with the HA. Mr President, I will not support any motion which is not practicable. Therefore I can only resort to abstention from voting.
These are my remarks.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, planning for land use is a highly political process. It determines who gets what, where, at what cost and with what in return. Planning should be about balancing competing interests. But can we rely on the Government to be dispassionate when it is an interested party
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3581
itself? For example, we know the Government will earn nearly $40 billion this year in land premium.
Land is of course one of Hong Kong’s most prized commodities. One would have thought that urban renewal therefore should be an important part of public policy because we need to make the best use of all available land. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Government does not have an urban renewal policy.
Perhaps it does have one, but it is too embarrassed to enunciate it. It seems the real policy is to favour those redevelopments which can make money for the Government. Presumably this is the reason why the Honourable James TO accuses the Government and the developers to be in cohorts. With such a background, it is hardly surprising that there has been little real public consultation on town planning and urban renewal. Under these circumstances, the Government is not overly interested to hear what the public really wants.
But this sort of attitude misses the point about planning altogether. Planning must deal with a wide range of social interests, and it is the job of the Government to ensure that all the interests receive a fair hearing. Perhaps this debate can help us to get back to basics. Mr Steven POON said there is nothing new in this debate but this offers us an opportunity to ask ourselves again and to also ask the Government: what are the goals of redevelopment? Let us ask: what are the sort of changes which Hong Kong citizens would like to see enhanced in their neighbourhoods?
The Government’s response might be that it has entrusted the job of urban redevelopment to the Land Development Corporation (LDC) and to private developers.
The Government has tried to free itself from the financial and administrative commitment to urban renewal. Now, its latest idea is to allow private developers to resume land directly from landowners. This is an outrageous idea. Like Mr TO, I will find this idea very difficult to support if it is to be brought to this Council as policy. Mr President, the Government cannot be let off the responsibility of redevelopment so lightly. It cannot continue to pass the buck to someone else and reap the profits.
Redevelopment involves compensation. This means either giving residents a stake in the redevelopment of their neighbourhoods whenever that is possible, although I do realize it is not always possible to rehouse them in the same area, or to give them enough financial compensation to find new premises elsewhere.
The problem seems to that these compensation packages require massive up front costs. At the same time, the Lands Department demands that developers pay their full land premiums up front. This huge capital outlay means only the most lucrative urban sites are being taken up. We have been this
3582 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
happen in Central with the conversion of lower density housing to high rise commercial buildings.
As for the less economically viable areas, the LDC and the Housing Society simply cannot offer “flat for flat” compensation to residents and, at the same time, finance new construction projects and provide the rate of investment return necessary to lure private capital. So far, there has been no enthusiasm on the part of the Government to step in and lend any sort of support.
Dr the Honourable YEUNG Sum urged the Government to be an intermediary with developers. I think the Government should be more than that. In urban redevelopment it should have a more interventionist role.
Mr President, why the LDC cannot cross subsidize its less viable projects? Why is the Housing Society’s Urban Improvement Scheme put on hold? The private sector cannot help but the Government can. So what is the Government going to do about those issues?
What we, the public, are left with is slated land for urban redevelopment that is doing very little, but could be, and should be, maximized for our housing, commercial and industrial needs.
We need a fundamentally new approach. Firstly, the Government needs to see and accept that land use is ultimately for the people.
Secondly, it needs to therefore ask the people how they wish to enhance their neighbourhoods and balance their interests. I am certain that a public consultation process about urban redevelopment projects will not hinder executive decision-making, but will give officials plenty of good and practical ideas.
Thirdly, the Government must demonstrate its commitment to urban renewal by using the full range of the financial tools available to it to turn projects into reality. For example, the Government can provide loan injections, defer or discount land premiums, make land swaps and give bonus plot ratios.
It is not like our Government is incapable of making good use of these measures. They have used them before very effectively. In the 1970s, the Government deferred land premiums in order to encourage private sector investment in industrial development. In the 1960s and 1980s, the Government provided alternate redevelopment sites to two oil companies in exchange for their Tsing Yi and Kwun Tong sites. These land exchanges allowed major urban residential projects to go forward. Why these same measures cannot be used to push urban renewal?
Another possibility worth exploring is for the Housing Society and the LDC to pool their resources. The LDC could concentrate on raising funds and building the necessary infrastructure for an area to be redeveloped. The
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3583
Housing Society’s sale and rental programme, which already receives loans and discounted premiums from the Government, could be used to house occupants affected by the redevelopment.
The Government must stop transferring the responsibility of urban renewal onto the private sector. It has not worked well. Renewal can only work if the Government bears some of the financial risks and the administrative responsibility of enhancing community neighbourhoods. The loss of some government land premiums has to be balanced against providing better compensation packages to residents to enable run-down neighbourhoods to be rebuilt.
Mr President, I support the motion with the reservation that rehousing residents in their original districts may present real problems.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: In today’s debate the Honourable James TO is asking essentially for three things: completion of the review by the Government; implementation at an early date of new policy and legislation; and thirdly, reasonable compensation and the rehousing of all tenants in their original district.
I think I would not dwell on the first two points other than to perhaps make a comment that, as far as the first point is concerned, I certainly hope that the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands will come to a conclusion as quickly as possible provided that all the necessary consultations, including consulting Members of this Council, have been completed. As regards the second point I really cannot comment because I really do not know whether or not there is going to be any new policy, and if so whether it requires legislation.
As far as the third point is concerned, I really did not understand what reasonable compensation was, so I looked up the debate we had in 1992, Mr President. During that debate Mr James TO suggested that perhaps the compensation should be the equivalent of one year’s accommodation comparable to that occupied by the tenant. He also suggested then that displaced tenants be rehoused in their original district. Reading the context of his speech I thought these two things were alternatives, but I think, listening to him today, clearly he wants both. And indeed, I think as far as his request today is concerned, he is suggesting that in terms of rehousing it is what, I suppose in the old days, was called a foot for-foot exchange. If you have one foot of residential accommodation you get one foot in return, commercial and likewise. I just do not know how that can be done. I think, Mr President, we must not forget that we are talking about tenants. We are talking about tenants that are paying a protected rent, generally speaking, and we are not talking about people that own their flats.
In terms of the emotive language used regarding the developers, all I can say is this. The existence of old and dilapidated buildings was not created by
3584 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
developers. Multi-ownership, lack of maintenance, simply old age, perhaps poor construction technique and materials used has resulted in the necessary redevelopment of some of our older buildings. To accuse developers of actually taking advantage of that situation is, in my respectful view, wholly unfair and a total distortion. Would the problems we are discussing today totally disappear if a single developer never bought an old building? Of course they would not. They would still be with us. Sooner or later, if no one developed these buildings, they would fall down or they would then have to be torn down for safety sake, as suggested by my honourable colleague, Mr Edward HO.
Against that background, looking at the question of rehousing tenants in urban renewal projects, we must firstly ask ourselves. Who should be rehoused? According to Mr TO, everyone. Where should they be rehoused? In the original district. Well, I think if everyone has got to be rehoused in their original district this will clearly have to be a new government policy, requiring probably the force of law and therefore requiring legislation. But even if you had that law, you might as well add a third one to that particular limb, to say that you are compelled to redevelop. You are compelled to rehouse, because that is the only way it will work. No sensible person will redevelop if they are compelled to do something they possibly cannot do.
I think Mr Steven POON’s suggestion of rehousing in other districts, perhaps with the developers paying a greater part in that particular aspect, is something that I, on behalf of my constituency, cannot readily accept, simply because that is again assuming a burden that they never bargained for when they bought the old property. But that at least is doable, whether they accept it or not is a different matter. It is at least doable. So, I think what we should do is to encourage the Government today to look at and to re-examine the existing policies to see where we want to go in terms of urban renewal.
I do not want it to be said that one does not feel sorry for the plight of some of these tenants. And I emphasize the words “some of these tenants”. Some of them are old, some of them are still working, and indeed, this is the community’s problem. This is not the problem of a particular sector. But I think the Real Estate Developers’ Association have always prided themselves in being able and willing to sit down and to discuss the whole problem, and indeed not just this problem, with the Administration as we have been doing over the years. And indeed, I think what Dr YEUNG Sum has advocated indeed probably would, at the end of the day, achieve more through dialogue, through cooperation, through persuasion rather than through the force of law, if it can be accepted by this Council.
Mr President, I wish to make really two final points. Firstly, it seems to be unfair to change rules in mid-stream. If you require people to do more than what they are expecting to do, then it would not be right. Yesterday when we had a discussion I had suggested that, as a short-term measure, to alleviate housing shortage, perhaps the Government could consider allowing increased density on a payment of a premium of land bought from the Government over
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3585
the last several years. Mr James TO said that was totally unfair. Well, all I can do is to say: where is the comparison?
The second point is: please do not introduce conditions that will deter rather than encourage urban renewal.
Mr President, for the reasons that I have given, my colleagues and I in the Liberal Party, whilst we support some aspects of the motion, cannot support other aspects of it. We will abstain on this motion. Thank you.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, this Council passed a motion on 1 July 1992 calling for a review of the procedure used in the redevelopment of private buildings. Up to now, we have not yet seen any move by the Government. When Members ask about the progress, the Government invariably gives the evasive response that it has already completed its review of the redevelopment procedure used by the Land Development Corporation (LDC). I say to myself: Either the Government has mistaken one for another and is therefore insisting that LDC is in the private sector, or it is simply showing no respect for the motion passed by this Council. If the Government does not intend to take the actions specified in the motion, if it does not want to get involved in disputes over the redevelopment of private buildings and if it is indifferent to the hardships of the lowly citizens whose dwellings are being repossessed, I hope that the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands will say so clearly when he speaks later on. And also whether the affected residents will receive reasonable compensation and be rehoused.
Speaking during the motion debate in that year, I called for the establishment of an ad hoc group in which dispossessed residents would be represented and whose terms of reference would include:
(1) To review the current overall policy on the redevelopment of private buildings;
(2) To define the Government’s role, such as that of a mediator, in the context of the redevelopment of private buildings, so as to protect the interests of aggrieved parties;
(3) To define the obligations of developers in the context of urban renewal, such as exploring the feasibility of rehousing the dispossessed tenants and paying a higher amount of compensation, of introducing statutory controls and of setting up a special fund;
(4) To determine which department should be responsible for handling and adjudicating complaints arising out of urban renewal; and to lay down the specific procedures that are to be followed; and
3586 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
(5) To find out if it is necessary and feasible to set up a co-ordinating body with overall responsibility for the redevelopment of private buildings; and to lay down this body’s terms of reference.
The Government has done nothing about my suggestions in the past two years. It has not even done the minimum, which is to set up a group to review the procedure used in the redevelopment of private buildings. This is disheartening. I suspect that the Government never really respects the wishes of the public as expressed by their representatives in this Council. I hope that, after today’s debate, the Government will move quickly to carry out the suggested review. The Government has already wasted 22 months for nothing. Meanwhile, the interests of humble citizens in the context of urban renewal have been sacrificed again and again. The statutory rate of basic compensation is too low; it has never been revised. I do not know if this is because the Government does not want to ameliorate the situation or if there is some other explanation. Over the years, lowly citizens, receiving only meagre compensation, were deprived of a lot of their due benefits. A case in point is the people living in Chong Yip Building in Sham Shui Po, who were treated high-handedly again and again. There are other examples, too many for me to cite here. If the Government continues to ignore the problem, I will begin to suspect strongly that it is thinking and behaving like a true sunset government, which waits out its time and leaves everything to a new government to be established in 1997 to take over.
These days, the Government is thinking not about how to help lowly citizens but about how to help private developers. It is thinking of letting private developers invoke the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance and push lowly citizens further down the abyss.
I think that there is a big problem with this kind of thinking. The Government’s intention may be to give private developers more power and to speed up urban renewal with the full mobilization of private sector resources. The construction of new buildings will be speeded up to bring property prices down, to give Hong Kong’s urban areas a new and contemporary look and to turn downtown Hong Kong in the quickest possible time into a modern, spruced-up centre.
However, letting private developers invoke the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance will do great damage to Hong Kong as a community. At present, only government departments themselves, LDC and the Housing Society have the power to invoke this Ordinance and they can invoke it in what is vaguely defined as “the public interest” subject to the Executive Council’s approval. They are government agencies or independent public bodies. Making money is not their primary goal. Even so, when they undertake urban renewal projects “in the public interest”, their actions are much criticized. Greater trouble will surely arise if private developers are given the power to invoke the Ordinance. The primary goal of a private consortium is to make money. It is not likely to take up any social responsibility. If the law is amended to help speed up urban
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994 3587
renewal by giving private developers the power to invoke the Ordinance, the spirit of private property rights, which is the most important corner-stone of the capitalist society, will be seriously violated. If the Government sacrifices the rights of small property owners to speed up urban renewal and allows their property to be easily and frequently resumed, this will in the long run only weaken the foundation of society.
Furthermore, where the Government itself wants to resume a site, it invokes the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance only as the last resort. Allowing private developers to invoke the Ordinance will surely leave the interests of humble citizens less protected. Imagine a private developer who wants to repossess property. At present, he cannot invoke the Ordinance. So he has to talk to the small property owners involved. This will put the latter in a stronger bargaining position and enable them to protect their interests better. The private developer has no choice under the law except to offer to pay a higher amount of compensation.
Sure, there are unlawful options. For instance, criminals or triad members can be used to force residents and small property owners to surrender possession by smearing their doors with paint, by letting snakes into their dwellings, by setting fire or by making threats. But because these are criminal activities, the residents can ask the police for help and for protection. If private consortia are given the power to invoke the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, humble citizens will be in a weaker bargaining position. The private consortia can refuse to raise their offer of compensation and then, when the time is ripe, apply to invoke the Ordinance. The affected small property owners will suffer dire losses. After private consortia are given the power to invoke the Ordinance, the unscrupulous ones among them will probably use unlawful methods to harass the residents while pretending to talk with them. The conferral of greater powers on private consortia to resume property will put small property owners in dire straits.
In sum, the power to invoke the Crown Lands Resumption Ordnance must under no circumstances be given to private developers. Instead, the Government must consider introducing legislation to require private developers, when repossessing buildings, to make proper arrangements for rehousing the affected residents in their original districts or in nearby districts. These dispossessed residents will then not become “human footballs” kicked back and forth between the Government and private developers.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
MR MAN SAI-CHEONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the process of land resumption for redevelopment, the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, which is regarded by many as “the imperial sword” (a symbol of unassailable power), has caused much worry to many occupants of the residential and commercial premises who are affected by redevelopment projects. Many of the occupants
3588 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 4 May 1994
might well be dissatisfied with the compensation terms offered, but when the Administration proceeds to resume land justifying its action with reasons such as “in the public interest” or “for the public good”, they either have to move out unwillingly or resist the resumption bitterly, resulting in serious clashes with the staff concerned. This is something which we do not want to see. The Administration has to consider the serious consequences before it involves the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance.
The right to private property is respected in Hong Kong. A responsible government should interfere with that right through legislation only if there are compelling reasons to do so and only if it can ensure that those affected are reasonably compensated. A responsible government should not redevelop by fair means or foul which would result in undesirable consequences. To invoke the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, the Administration should set guidelines for compensation to ensure that residents who are affected can obtain fair and reasonable compensation.
Compensation options should be offered to residents who are affected by redevelopment, for example, “flat for flat” or rehousing in the original district. The residents concerned should not be compelled to accept compensation terms at the eleventh hour which are unreasonable and which they are not willing to accept. As urban renewal in old districts will boost the supply of flats, compensation should go beyond the scope of removal assistance and rehousing and allow the residents who are affected to share the fruits of redevelopment of their original district. If the Administration can fairly and openly assist residents by setting compensation guidelines which are to be followed by bodies like the Housing Society and the Land Development Corporation in the process of land resumption, incidents similar to the clashes which occurred during the land resumption in the six streets in To Kwa Wan can be avoided.
Finally, the Administration has to be particularly careful in its cooperation with private developers in order not to give the public any impression of collusion. Although large scale redevelopment in old districts is inevitable in order to curb high prices of flats, the Land Development Corporation and the Housing Society have, in the past, encountered a lot of problems which the Administration has failed to tackle properly during the process of land resumption. The problems of compensation and rehousing, in particular, have delayed the process of urban renewal to a large extent. More problems might arise especially when private developers are involved. Given that private developers have “the imperial sword”, that is to say, the powers conferred by the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, if the compensation terms are far too unreasonable, it will not be difficult to see why the public would suspect collusion between the Administration and private developers in order to enable the latter to reap huge profits with “the imperial sword”. The Administration might then be accused of exploiting residents in the name of speedy redevelopment of old districts. An administration which is accountable to the public should avoid giving the public the wrong impression. The authorities concerned should therefore exercise close supervision over private developers
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.