HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3873 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 24 May 1995
The Council met at half-past Two o’clock
PRESENT
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE SIR JOHN SWAINE, C.B.E., LL.D., Q.C., J.P.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE MR MICHAEL LEUNG MAN-KIN, C.B.E., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE SIR NATHANIEL WILLIAM HAMISH MACLEOD, K.B.E., J.P.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE PENG-FEI, C.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PANG CHUN-HOI, M.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN GILBERT BARROW, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
3874 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 THE HONOURABLE LAU WAH-SUM, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES DAVID McGREGOR, O.B.E., I.S.O., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, C.B.E.
THE HONOURABLE PETER WONG HONG-YUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG HOI-CHUEN, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MOSES CHENG MO-CHI
THE HONOURABLE MARVIN CHEUNG KIN-TUNG, O.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
REV THE HONOURABLE FUNG CHI-WOOD
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY HA WING-HO, M.B.E., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
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 EMILY LAU WAI-HING
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
THE HONOURABLE MAN SAI-CHEONG
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN POON KWOK-LIM
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TIK CHI-YUEN
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3875 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
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
ABSENT
THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, O.B.E., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA
IN ATTENDANCE
MR CHAU TAK-HAY, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SZE CHO-CHEUNG, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
MR HAIDER HATIM TYEBJEE BARMA, I.S.O., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
MR GORDON SIU KWING-CHUE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES
3876 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
MR MICHAEL DAVID CARTLAND, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, O.B.E., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
MR FRED TING FOOK-CHEUNG
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE
MR KENNETH JOSEPH WOODHOUSE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE CLERK TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG
THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR LAW KAM-SANG
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3877 PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Standing Order 14(2): Subject
Subsidiary Legislation L.N. No.
Newspapers Registration and Distribution
(Amendment) Regulation 1995 ................................................ 172/95
News Agencies Registration (Amendment)
Regulation 1995 ....................................................................... 173/95 Land Drainage (Consent and Approval) Regulation ............................ 174/95 Land Drainage (Appeal) Regulation .................................................... 175/95
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance
(Public Markets) (Designation and Amendment
of Tenth Schedule) (No. 2) Order 1995.................................... 176/95
Trustee Ordinance (Amendment of Second Schedule)
Order 1995 ............................................................................... 177/95
Securities and Futures Commission (Annual
Returns) (Amendment) Rules 1995.......................................... 178/95 Abattoirs (Urban Council) (Amendment) Bylaw 1995 ........................ 179/95 Library (Urban Council) (Amendment) Bylaw 1995 ........................... 180/95
Pleasure Grounds (Urban Council) (Amendment)
Bylaw 1995 .............................................................................. 181/95
Declaration of Markets in the Urban Council Area
(Amendment) (No. 2) Declaration 1995................................... 182/95
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Theft Ordinance) Order........................................................... (C)37/95
Official Languages (Authentic Chinese Text)
(Business Registration Ordinance) Order................................. (C)38/95
3878 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 Sessional Paper 1994-95
No. 88 — Report of the Broadcasting Authority
September 1993 - August 1994
ADDRESS
Report of the Broadcasting Authority
September 1993 - August 1994
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: Mr President, I have much pleasure in laying the annual report of the Broadcasting Authority for the year ending 31 March 1994 before the Council today. The report marks another year of dedicated work by members of the Authority in grappling with the fast changing broadcasting environment at home and abroad; a job made more difficult by rising expectations amongst the Hong Kong viewing public and a rapid growth in the number of channels to be monitored.
The public hearings conducted in connection with the mid-term review of the television licences of Asia Television Limited and Television Broadcasts Limited are testament to the good work done by the Authority in meeting these public expectations. It was greatly encouraged by the level and extent of public participation at these hearings and will seek, where appropriate, to utilize such forums to enhance collection of public opinion in the future.
Another important aspect of the Broadcasting Authority’s function is to regulate the services provided by commercial broadcasters. The Authority has been highly vigilant and conscientious in maintaining our broadcasts at a high standard. During the year under report, the Authority’s Complaints Committee dealt with a total of 1 382 complaints, and arising from these, some 18 warning letters were issued to various broadcasters to remind them of the need to observe more closely the different codes of practice issued. In addition, the Authority imposed on the licensees, on six occasions, financial penalties ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 for breaches of the codes.
I am particularly grateful to the Authority for fulfilling its many statutory tasks with such enthusiasm and ability. The fair, open and predictable regulatory philosophy it adopts has provided our local broadcasters with a stable environment to develop and expand their businesses. It has also helped in our pursuit of reinforcing Hong Kong’s position as a broadcasting centre in the region. This is in full accord with our broadcasting policies.
Looking ahead, the Broadcasting Authority will again be busily engaged in 1995. The mid-term licence review of Commercial Radio is already underway, and towards the latter part of the year the Authority will embark on the review of the satellite television licence held by Hutchvision. It also needs to
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3879
monitor further increases in the numbers of broadcast channels both on our subscription network and in the satellite broadcast arena.
I warmly commend all members of the Authority, particularly its Chairman, Sir Roger LOBO, for his leadership and wise counsel. I look forward to another year of their sound judgment and good advice, in the difficult job of regulating Hong Kong’s fast changing broadcasting scene.
Thank you, Mr President.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Town Planning Ordinance
1. MR ALBERT CHAN asked (in Cantonese): In his written reply to my enquiry in September 1994, the Deputy Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands stated that a bill to amend the Town Planning Ordinance would be published by the end of that year. However, the Government has still not published the amendment bill. In this connection, will the Administration inform this Council why the amendment will has not yet been introduced into this Council for scrutiny and when the amendment bill will be published?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Mr President, Members will recall that a Consultative Document on Comprehensive Review of the Town Planning Ordinance was published for public consultation in July 1991. The intention was to bring about a completely new Town Planning Ordinance for future operations. A large number of public views were collected, including the views of this Council. These views were divided, and some doubts were raised, in respect of certain proposals originally made by the Administration. We therefore had to undertake a very careful examination of these views within the Administration.
The many complex and highly technical issues involved have required the Bill to take more time to be drafted than originally envisaged. Moreover the resources likely to be needed to implement the proposed new ordinance are very significant. The Administration is taking stock of the situation and studying a working draft of the Bill. Our examination involves an analysis of the pros and cons of amending our original proposals in the light of public views and legal complexity of the issues, as well as an in-depth study of some proposals made by the public. We are also considering the need and merits of introducing certain interim amendments to the current Town Planning Ordinance to see whether we can bring forward some improvement to the system early.
3880 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I note that recently whenever the Administration was faced with complicated issues, it appears that all it could do was to provide explanations, and cause repeated delays to the material policies; this fully reflects the mentality of a sunset government. Actually, further delays in the introduction of the Bill help, to a certain degree, protect developers’ interests by enabling them to develop, under an unreasonable Town Planning Ordinance, their properties and land more to their own advantage. If such delays continue, Hong Kong residents will be deprived of the opportunity to be involved in town planning. Will the Administration inform this Council when the bill will be submitted to this Council for consideration? It was mentioned in the document that there would be individual amendments, what does this mean? Will the Administration explain?
PRESIDENT: Would you like to take the first question first, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am afraid I cannot agree with what was raised in Mr CHAN’s question, that is, developers are benefited. In fact, the comprehensive review of town planning first proposed by the Administration involved issues that are extremely complicated, both in technical terms and in legal terms. When views are divided, we cannot hastily put forward a totally new bill, hoping that it will be accepted by the Legislative Council and the public. So, we need to analyze the views we have collected and decide whether it is necessary to amend our original proposals. At the same time, we need to be analytic and see which part of the existing Town Planning Ordinance should be given priority for amendment on the basis of the urgency of the matter; rather than repealing the entire ordinance and then draft a new one, as we originally intended to do.
PRESIDENT: What was your second question, Mr CHAN?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): In this main reply, the Secretary talked about introducing certain interim amendments to the current Town Planning Ordinance. Will he explain what he means by “certain interim amendments”, and has a timetable been fixed?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the submissions received, two views stood out. One is for more public involvement in town planning, as pointed our by Mr CHAN; the other is for improvement to the existing practice of the Town Planning Board (TPB) to enable more speedy preparation of town planning layout plans and hearings on such plans. We hope, therefore, to introduce an amendment bill that will incorporate the above views and bring about
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3881
improvements. For example, we may consider giving more chance for the public to sit in on TPB meetings. Or, we may quicken the processing of public objections to draft plans. We may also consider increasing the number of vice-chairmen or members of the TPB or establishing more committees to properly and promptly deal with suggestions and objections from the public. As a large number of legal issues are involved in the present town planning work, we will look into the need to create a legal section or the post of legal adviser within the TPB.
MISS CHRISTINE LOH (in Cantonese): Mr President, I was glad to hear the reply given by the Secretary just now. Will the enhancement of transparency be accomplished within the current legislative session or the soonest will be within the next one? Secondly, will the Administration allow the public to sit in open meetings through legislation or will it do so by way of a standing order?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Mr President, as regards the increase of public involvement, the current practice is that any plan published by the TPB will be displayed in a number of places so that the public may have a chance to express their views. We are considering how to reach a wider cross section of the public. As to whether or not to open TPB meetings to the public, either through legislative or administrative means, I would like to point out that, in actual practice, whenever members of the public express their views, by way of objections or suggestions, on draft plans, the TPB will invite them to attend its meetings to hear and discuss their views. This explains the recent increase in the TPB’s workload: every opportunity is given to the public to express their views. We have yet to decide whether in future the TPB’s discussions should be made open by legislative or other means, but we do intend to give the public more chance to get involved. For instance, draft plans, after being published, may be displayed in the relevant area for a longer period of time, or district boards or other people affected may be given more chance to look at the draft plans before they express their views or be invited to attend meetings. These are all feasible ways.
PRESIDENT: Miss LOH, not answered?
MISS CHRISTINE LOH (in Cantonese): My other question, Mr President, is whether it is necessary to wait till the next legislative session before the individual amendments mentioned by the Secretary are made.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Mr President, there is not much time and not too many sittings left of the current legislative session to deal with law-making. Moreover, we need
3882 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
more time to discuss the review we are currently conducting. In the circumstances, I am afraid we would have to wait till the next legislative session before we can submit a preliminary draft bill to this Council for discussion.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, this amendment Bill is extremely important to the development of Hong Kong. At first, the Administration said the Bill will be published at the end of 1997. It has been six months since the Administration so indicated and there is still no time-table. This is disappointing. Will the Administration inform this Council when it will submit the bill to this Council for consideration? Will the submission be postponed until after 1997?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): In fact, I already mentioned that point in my reply to the first follow-up question. Owing to the diverse views collected, we will first submit those which we initially regard as feasible and on which there is consensus to this Council for amendment. In considering other less focused views, or those that, after assessment, may appear to us to entail huge amounts of resources, we may need to consider the pros and cons of the proposals originally made before deciding whether amendments should be made. This is exactly what we are doing now. If we do decide to amend the original ideas, another stage of legislative work may be affected.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, if Members knew that the Administration is delaying the pace of urban redevelopment, they would not be surprised at the delays in the amendment of the Town Planning Ordinance. Will the Administration inform this Council whether the amendment Bill to the Town Planning Ordinance is related to the review on urban re-development issues? Are the two affecting each other so that they delay each other, making it never possible to find a solution to the problem?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am afraid I cannot agree with what Mr TO said. As I said, our original intention was not to cause delays by amending the existing Town Planning Ordinance. Rather, we wanted to draft an entirely new ordinance that may be totally different from the existing Town Planning Ordinance. That is why we need to deliberate very clearly. If we come to some consensus views after comprehensive consultation, we may make some preliminary improvements to the existing ordinance. Whether the entire existing ordinance should be got rid of for a new one to be drafted is still under consideration, as views on this are not uniform.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3883
Mr TO asked whether the amendment bill was related to urban redevelopment. I can categorically say that the two issues are absolutely unrelated. Urban redevelopment has been an on-going thing, whereas the drafting of an entirely new law is a separate matter. If one asks whether the two delay each other, the answer is negative.
PRESIDENT: I am obliged to call Dr HUANG Chen-ya, despite his absence, under Standing Orders. As he is not present his question will be postponed to the next sitting in accordance with Standing Order 19(6).
Unemployment Rate
3. MR HENRY TANG asked (in Cantonese): According to the latest statistics for labour force published by the Census and Statistics Department, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the territory for the first quarter of this year and for the period between December last year and February this year was 2.8% and 2.5% respectively. However, according to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, the unemployment rate for the period between December last year and January this year was as high as 9.5%. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council of the survey methods adopted by the Government; and whether the statistics obtained from such methods truly reflect the real situation of the labour market?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, the source of the data for the compilation of the unemployment rate is the General Household Survey (GHS). This is a continuous survey conducted on a random sample of 13 500 households per quarter selected in accordance with a scientifically designed sampling scheme to represent the population. Having regard to the frequency of the survey and resource implications, this is quite a large scale operation.
The data collection methods adopted by the Census and Statistics Department are those commonly followed by statistical authorities worldwide. Interviewing of respondents is performed on the basis of a well-structured questionnaire so that the activity status of the respondent can be established on well-stated, objective criteria.
Interviewing is conducted by full-time, properly trained field workers under appropriate supervision of senior staff to ensure adherence to designed procedures. Repeated calls to households are made as necessary. A high response rate of about 95% is normally achieved in the survey.
3884 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Under rigorous procedures, coupled with unambiguous definitions based on the recommendations of the International Labour Organization, the statistics obtained from the survey should truly reflect the real situation of the labour market.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, while the labour sector has been criticizing the Labour Importation Scheme as snatching away local workers’ rice-bowls, and government officials have stressed on several occasions that the two are not necessarily related, can the Government provide this Council with convincing data to explain the effect of labour importation on unemployment?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, the data which is collected in the GHS is not directed specifically at shedding light on the labour importation scheme. It is aimed mainly to show the overall rate of unemployment in the community as a whole and to give some form of detailed breakdown of that. But there is no specific orientation towards the scheme that was mentioned by Mr TANG.
PRESIDENT: Yes, Mr TANG, not answered?
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): May I rephrase my question so that it may be easier to answer?
PRESIDENT: Remember this question goes to labour statistics not to the import of overseas labour, Mr TANG. Put your question again if you like.
MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President. My question in fact is, does the Government have any data to show the quarterly unemployment situation by sectors of the workforce? And can the Government give us the number of imported workers in those sectors? Can the Government give us these data in writing so that we can see whether or not imported workers are directly related to unemployment?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, as I have already indicated, the answer I gave to the main question did not cover this aspect because that did not flow from the question about the overall rates and the difference between the figures produced by the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) and those produced by the Government. However, I would be happy to see what figures might be available for the purpose that Mr TANG would like to have them and would be happy to provide them in writing. (Annex)
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3885
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, regarding the following three kinds of people: (a) those who want to get a full-time job but can only get a part-time one; (b) those who cannot get a job and can only be content with being housewives; and (c) illegal hawkers, can the Government inform this Council whether the current statistics have taken these people as among the unemployed? And does the unemployment rate remain at a low level because these people are not regarded as unemployed?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Yes, Mr President, I believe the definitions would pick up the first category mentioned. They would also pick up the housewives who are dealt with in the same way as normal persons, that is to say if they are not working but have been actively seeking work, they would be classified as unemployed. But if they have not been actively seeking work then they would be classified as economically inactive. There is a variation on this depending on whether the reason for not seeking work is that they believe that work would not be available to them. In those cases, they would be regarded as discouraged workers and would be included in the unemployed statistics. I doubt very much that the questions would reveal anything about whether hawkers were hawking legally or illegally, and I suspect that it would be very difficult to design questions that could illicit that information.
MR ROGER LUK: Mr President, according to paragraph one of the Secretary’s answer, the unemployment rate is derived from a random sample. Can the Secretary tell us the sampling error of this particular survey in respect of the unemployment rate please?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, the sampling error is described in the quarterly report on the GHS which contains a specific section on the reliability of the estimates and I would refer Members to that. With regard to the overall level of unemployment in the community there is a variation, a co-efficient of variation which applies to that of 0.3 percentage point. So for a 3% unemployment level, the range would be from 2.7% to 3.3%.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, does the Government agree that the unemployment rate is on the low side as far as low-income workers are concerned, because the Government’s unemployment survey is based on a sampling scheme representing the overall population of Hong Kong, and it is therefore unable to truly reflect the effects of the labour importation scheme on low-income workers and those housewives who failed to get a job and are therefore forced to cease looking for one? Will the Government consider conducting an independent survey specifically for low-income workers, in order to fathom the effects of the labour importation scheme on low-income workers?
3886 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, the figures that are derived from the survey apply equally across the board. They do not take account of the actual income level as such. I would refer Members to the definitions of unemployment which are again set out both in the quarterly reports and in the monthly bulletin of statistics, in the issue for January this year. The statistics do make clear that in looking at unemployment, the question is related to whether or not the individual in question, being over the age of 15, has had employment within the past seven days, is seeking employment and is available for employment. Those are the basic criteria. I will certainly note the interest in the relationship between these figures and the specific scheme which has been mentioned and will consider whether anything can be done in the context of these figures to try to illicit information that would shed light on that particular aspect.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, how long has this surveying method been in use? Has the method been reviewed lately?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Since 1982, Mr President, that methodology has been in place. The methodology is fully described, as I mentioned before, in published documents whenever the results are produced on a quarterly basis. There is a statement about the methodology there and I would refer Members to that.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, why did not the Government conduct the unemployment survey in a more detailed way and investigate the situation of different sectors such as the manufacturing sector, the service industry and the financial sector, so as to ascertain whether the unemployment rates in the various sectors are high or low and under what conditions, and to reflect more fully the unemployment situation of the labour sector on the whole?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, the present sample size is sufficient to give an accurate picture at the overall level but obviously since it is based on a sample and has already been observed, there is always with a sample an error of variation from the picture that the sample shows and what the totality of the picture would be and that has a direct relationship to the size of the sample. If you want to go to a level of detail, that involves actually dividing the sample. Every question that you ask is a division or a sub-division or a sub-sub-sub-division of the sample and the co-efficient of variation gets larger and larger. That is why in the statistics that are published there are asterisks by some of the figures indicating that these figures should be treated with caution.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3887
Now it is accepted that it would be desirable to shed more light on the details at the sectoral level and the Commissioner for Census and Statistics does have in mind to enlarge the sample, in fact to double the sample size with a view to trying to increase the level of detail and hence the in-depth analysis of the labour situation. Subject, of course, to the availability of resources, we hope that that will be able to go ahead if the resources are available, within the reasonably close future.
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Government takes the view that the General Household Survey is more comprehensive, and its finding, that is, the unemployment rate of 2.5% to 3%, more scientific. However, a survey conducted by trade unions has found that the unemployment rate is as high as 9%. The discrepancy being so large, has the Government attempted to find out the factors contributing to the higher figure? Is that because of different bases being used? Or would it be possible that some trade unions targeted their investigations on certain specific sectors or specific age groups whereas the Government’s only looked at the general situation? If such is the case, will the Government consider conducting a survey using the same base as used by the trade unions so that the public can know which of the surveys has more reference value?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Yes, Mr President, the reason that the figures are different, I think, is quite easily explained. The figures produced by the FTU and those produced by the Government are in fact measuring different things. They are both samples, and as such, they each represent a whole, but the whole is different in these two cases. The Government’s whole is the entire population. The sample is taken from households right across the population and insofar as the results relate to unemployment, they represent the totality of the workforce, the full 3 million. On the other hand, for the FTU figures, that sample was taken only from FTU members and therefore can only represent the situation within the 200 000 or so members of the FTU, which is not necessarily a group that is representative of the whole of the population or the whole of the workforce. It may, for example, have some over-concentration in some particular occupations and some under-representation in some others.
There are some other differences between these surveys. The government figures, as I have mentioned, had a response rate of about 95%; the FTU figures, 43%. I think what can be said of the FTU figures is that they do show what would happen if once every three months you made 2 800 phone calls to members of the FTU, got a 43% response rate, and that was the result. The government figures, on the other hand, cover 13 500 households every quarter, which is 54 000 households during the course of the year. It is a constantly shifting mix of households being looked at, different each month and behind that is 128 000 individuals every year, 15 or over, who are being looked at in that sample. So I think that that is clearly a totally different order of
3888 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
magnitude and operation scale and it is hardly surprising that the figures show some degree of variation. However, that said, the doubling of the size of the sample which I have mentioned we would like to do, subject to the availability of resources, should throw sufficient additional light at the detailed level to give us a better picture in the sectoral areas and, I hope, be able to throw up some of the information that Members presently like to see.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, in surveying how many people are unemployed and under-employed, information pertaining to casual workers, part-time workers, hourly-paid workers and piece-work workers is most difficult to accurately interpreted and classified. Will the Secretary for Financial Services inform this Council:
(a) are those people who have not been working for a long time and now want to be employed again classified as unemployed? The Secretary explained just now that if these people were actively seeking a job, they would be classified as unemployed. But then how do we define actively seeking work?
(b) are those people who have been unemployed for a long time and reckon that they cannot find a job in their own trade and have therefore given up actively seeking jobs included in the number of persons being surveyed by the Government? Can these people be picked up in the survey?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President, the definitions and the questions that relate to them do include the category of persons without a job who are available for work but are not seeking work because they believe that work is not available to them. It also includes those who are available for work but are not seeking work because they have made arrangements to take up a new job or to start business at a subsequent date, as well as those who are expecting to return to their original jobs and this includes casual workers who are called back to work from time to time when their services are required. So those categories are indeed picked up by the specific questions. If Members are interested, I would be happy to circulate a copy of the questionnaire which contains 55 different questions and not all of these questions are asked in every case, but there are different streams of questions depending on the answers to the earlier parts of them. But I would be happy to circulate that to Members.
MR JIMMY McGREGOR: Mr President, could the Secretary say whether the Government accepts the 9.5% figure as stated by the FTU and if so, bearing in mind it is a very very high proportion, will the Government consider assisting the FTU to point the direction for some of these unemployed people in the way of companies which are making applications under the importation of labour
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3889
scheme? In other words, can you connect the unemployed with the people who wish to employ?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: On the first part of the question, Mr President, the figure of 9.5%, we do not regard that as representative of the situation in the population as a whole or in the workforce as a whole. As I have mentioned earlier, we regard that as only representing the position within the membership of the FTU which is all that that sample relates to.
On the second part of that question, I think we were straying a little bit outside the realm of the original question which was related to the reliability of the statistics in the light of the ......
PRESIDENT: You are not in a position to answer, Secretary?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: That is right.
General Out-patient Services during Public Holidays
4. DR TANG SIU-TONG asked (in Cantonese): At present, the general out-patient departments of public hospitals close on general holidays, thus causing problems to those who wish to seek treatment during extended holidays, such as the Lunar New Year, Easter and Christmas holidays. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) attendance at the accident and emergency departments of public hospitals on general holidays was higher than that on normal weekdays during the first four months of this year; if so, whether this has resulted in additional pressure on the accident and emergency services of the hospitals; and
(b) it will consider providing limited general out-patient services in public hospitals during holidays?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, a recent survey conducted by the Hospital Authority during the Easter Holidays (from 14 to 17 April) revealed an increase of 23.5% in accident and emergency attendance over the normal daily average. The increase is attributable to the partial opening of general clinics operated by the Department of Health as well as the closure of some private clinics during public or extended holidays.
3890 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
In order to ensure that patients requiring emergency care will receive prompt medical treatment, a triage system has been introduced in public hospitals whereby experienced and specially trained nurses will categorize patients according to the severity and nature of their medical conditions and give priority to urgent cases. It is coping well with the demand.
At present, the Department of Health provides general out-patient services on Sundays and some public or extended holidays in eight of its clinics. Only one out of all clinic sessions during the Lunar New Year and Easter Holidays this year was full. In view of the current utilization rates, the Government has no intention to further extend out patient services during extended holidays. However, we will closely monitor the situation.
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the first paragraph of its main reply, the Government pointed out that during the Easter holidays, there was an increase of 23.5% in attendance at the Accident and Emergency Department, but in the third paragraph of the reply it was also mentioned that the eight clinics opened during the holidays were not full. I would like to ask the Government what the names of these eight clinics under the Department of Health are; why were those clinics not full during the holidays and why did people not go there instead of seeking treatment from the Accident and Emergency Departments?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the average utilization rate of the clinic sessions during public and extended holidays ranges from about 47% to 80% depending on the clinic. This could be explained by the common tendency for patients to anticipate the partial closure of general out-patient clinics and seek medical treatment before public holidays. Furthermore, about 40% to 60% of those receiving treatment in our general clinics are chronic patients requiring regular follow-up consultation, hence they have been able to secure their appointments to avoid public holidays.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the first paragraph of her main reply, the Secretary for Health and Welfare mentioned that there was an increase of 23.5% in attendance at the Accident and Emergency Department. I would like to ask: out of the extra number and the total number of patients, how many had common ailments like fever and influenza, and how many were indeed urgent cases? Does the Government have any specific measures to divert the non-urgent cases from the Accident and Emergency Department to suitable clinics such as the general out-patient clinics?
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3891
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the primary purpose of the accident and emergency service is to provide medical treatment to urgent cases. However, the urgency or otherwise of some cases can only be determined after diagnosis by a doctor. On average, it has been estimated that out of the total attendance, about 4% are critical cases, 16% are urgent cases, 60% are semi-urgent cases and 20% are non-urgent cases. It is always very difficult for the doctor to refuse treatment to a patient when he presents himself at the Accident and Emergency (A & E) Department of a public hospital and it is only after he has diagnosed the patient that it is possible for him to decide whether this patient should or should not have gone to that department.
PRESIDENT: Dr LAM, not answered?
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): The second part of the question is: Does the Government have any specific measures to divert non-urgent cases from the Accident and Emergency Department to general clinics?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, it is difficult to generalize on what we can do to assist patients to seek medical treatment at the proper out-patient clinic. But all this has to do with general understanding and awareness of the type of treatment that a patient needs and this is part of the general health education that we are doing to help patients understand their own needs, so that they can go to either a general out-patient clinic when it is necessary, or to the A & E Department when there is an emergency.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, in the Secretary’s reply there is an obvious increase in the attendance rate during extended holidays and so on and so forth. I wonder if the Secretary can inform this Council whether there is adequate staff during those times on an ad hoc basis and whether the Government has any plans to negotiate with the private sector to ensure that the sudden increase will be eased?
PRESIDENT: By employing private doctors, Dr LEONG?
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: No, by asking, perhaps some of them, not to close their clinics during extended holidays.
3892 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Thank you Mr President. Thank you, Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung, for that question. Part of the problem of the increase in our A & E Department is due to private medical practitioners going on leave during holidays. I do not think it is possible for the Government to decide who can and cannot go on leave during these holidays. However, I understand that many medical practitioners do, as a matter of good practice and ethics, refer their patients to colleagues of their’s when they go on leave and inform the patients when they are likely to return. I understand that in the Tuen Mun Hospital, for example, of which Dr LEONG is Chairman of the Governing Committee, there is a plan under study to examine whether it is possible for both the public sector and the private sector to take part in shared-care programmes, and part of this process would no doubt address the problem of doctors going on leave during holidays.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, when replying Dr the Honourable Conrad LAM’s questions just now, the Secretary mentioned that out of the total accident and emergency attendance, about 20% were non-urgent cases. Will the Government inform us whether the Health and Welfare Branch or the Hospital Authority will consider taking some measures so that those patients with non-urgent problems seeking treatment from the Accident and Emergency Department during holidays can have doctors to attend to them? I do not want to say that these people are abusing accident and emergency services because it is a fact that it is very hard for them to find a doctor to attend to them on Sundays and holidays. Will the Government take positive action on this so that these people do not have to go to the Accident and Emergency Department and still find doctors to attend to them?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, I will certainly consider the possibility of better co-ordination between the private sector and the public sector in the provision of general out-patient services for patients during public holidays and I will be pleased to refer this matter to the Hong Kong Medical Association, for example, and other bodies which deal with these things.
MR PETER WONG: Mr President, would the Secretary inform us whether the fact that there are no charges for accident and emergency patients whereas there are charges for the general out-patient and private clinics has anything to do with the possible abuse by people using the accident and emergency units?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, we have not done any scientific study to assess whether it is the way that charges are levied in both the government out-patient clinics and the private sector that has been driving patients to the A & E Department, but this might well be one of the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3893 factors, that patients prefer a free service to a service for which they have to pay.
Succession Planning for the Police Force
5. MRS SELINA CHOW asked (in Cantonese): Recently, the police indicated that around 10% of police at the rank of superintendent would leave the force after 1997. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of local and expatriate senior police officers, that is, those of the ranks of superintendent and above, who are eligible for retirement before 30 June 1997, and what is the percentage of such officers out of the total number of their ranks;
(b) whether the Administration will release the number of police officers at the ranks of superintendent and above in Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Services who will accept compensation and leave the force before 30 June 1997;
(c) whether the Administration will announce the full findings of the survey on the intention of senior police officers to leave or remain in the force after 1997; and
(d) what measures the Administration will take to ensure that no succession gap will appear in the territory’s Police Force?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, the question refers to an estimate that about 10% of officers above the rank of Superintendent in the Police Force would leave before 1997. This figure was quoted recently in the media on the basis of a preliminary and personal assessment given by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Management) in the light of a manpower planning survey currently being conducted in the Police Force.
My answers to the four points raised in the question are as follows:
(a) Of the 457 police officers at the rank of Superintendent and above 24 are currently within the retirement zone; in other words, if they are on the Old Pension Scheme they are over 50 years of age, and if they are on the New Pension Scheme they are over 55 years of age. A further 18 will have to retire before 30 June 1997 because they will have reached the retirement age before that date. A breakdown of these figures by rank is attached to the written copy of this reply.
3894 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
(b) There are currently 182 members of Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Service (HMOCS) at the rank of Superintendent and above. Of these, nine will reach retirement age before 30 June 1997. The remainder have an option to stay until normal retirement age or leave under the terms of the HMOCS Compensation Scheme. The officers have been asked to submit formal returns to the Civil Service Branch by the end of July indicating whether they intend to retire before June 1997. It is not possible to say how many will decide to retire until the option forms have been returned to us.
(c) The Commissioner of Police intends to announce the findings of the manpower survey currently being undertaken in the Force once the results have been analyzed. The questionnaires issued to all officers in the Force at the level of Inspector and above were due in on 20 May. It will take some time to analyze them. The Commissioner hopes to release the results by July this year.
(d) On the basis of preliminary indications obtained in the manpower planning study, the Commissioner of Police is confident that, if nothing occurs which causes a significant number of officers to change their personal plans, the Force should be able to comfortably accommodate the slightly higher wastage rate expected. To avoid any succession gap, the Commissioner of Police and his senior colleagues will maintain close contact with members of the Force to gauge any change of mood or intentions that might signal a higher wastage rate than forecast. And they will continue to identify officers of potential for training and promotion to fill vacancies as they occur.
Annex
Breakdown of officers who will retire before 30 June 1997
1. Currently within the retirement zone: 24
Rank No. Deputy Commissioner of Police 1 Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police 2 Chief Superintendent of Police 7 Senior Superintendent of Police 8 Superintendent of Police 6
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3895 2. Will reach retirement age (55) before 30 June 1997 : 18
Rank No. Deputy Commissioner of Police 1 Assistant Commissioner of Police 1 Chief Superintendent of Police 5 Senior Superintendent of Police 4 Superintendent of Police 7
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, the worst scenario would be all 182 members of Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Service (HMOCS) at the rank of Superintendent and above decide to leave the Force by July 1997. They can and may do so. Why were they required to submit the so-called formal returns in a separate exercise and not as part of the whole review? Will the Government announce the number of officers leaving the Force after receiving all the returns?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: (in Cantonese): Mr President, this is a rather long question. If I miss out any part of the question, would Mrs CHOW please kindly remind me. First of all, the 182 officers mentioned above have the right to submit retirement applications before the transfer of sovereignty, irrespective of their years of service and age. According to our projection, however, I believe that a majority of the officers will stay to continue serving the people of Hong Kong. This questionnaire survey exercise will serve to establish the intention of the officers. If the officers decide to retire, we will have to make retirement arrangements for them. That is the reason why we have allowed them a total of six months to respond to our questionnaires. The questionnaires were sent out in February, so it is reasonable to require the return of the questionnaires by the end of July.
In addition, I would like to point out here that if these officers intend to retire under the prevailing system, they will have to, first of all, give a six-month advance notice to the Hong Kong Government and to exhaust all their accrued leave before 30 June 1997. Therefore, we will have sufficient time to ensure that proper arrangements are made for the officers to leave the Force slowly.
3896 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
As to whether we will publish the figures, as I have pointed out earlier, the Commissioner of Police is prepared to release the results by July this year when all questionnaires are received. The results, I believe, are more comprehensive. These 182 officers are just a relatively special group of colleagues.
PRESIDENT: Not answered, Mrs CHOW?
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, my question was: does paragraph (b) of the main reply imply that the worst scenario would be for all officers to leave the Force; however, the Secretary replied that a majority would likely stay while no reason was given thereof. My question is: what ground is the Secretary’s belief based on?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Mr President, the worst case would of course be that all 182 officers will leave. This is true. However, as all these questionnaires have to be sent back to the Civil Service Branch, although I have yet to tally figures or make in-depth study on the questionnaires, the information in hand shows that many officers are prepared to stay in Hong Kong. Of course, from now up to 30 June 1997, they may still change their mind.
PRESIDENT: I have got four supplementaries and will draw the line there.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): It was said in the last paragraph of the main reply that “the Commissioner of Police is confident that, if nothing occurs which causes a significant number of officers to change their personal plans, the Force should be able to comfortably accommodate the wastage rate”. Can the Secretary tell us what are the things that could happen? If such things happen, will that only cause the senior officers in the Police Force to change their personal plans, or will that cause all civil servants to change their personal plans?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Mr President, as a civil servant, we must always be cautious when we reply any question, in particular, a question referring to the personal way of thinking of so many colleagues. We definitely must make it clear that if something does happen, they may change their mind. I believe that it is a reasonable guess. However, it varies from person to person as to what would change their mind. Therefore, it is impossible for me to give a clear account in response to Miss LAU’s supplementary question on this matter.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3897
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, when faced with the problem of wastage of senior officers in the Force, the Secretary said in the fourth paragraph of his main reply that it is not a big problem and the public do not need to worry about anything because the Commissioner of Police and his senior colleagues will maintain close contact. However, the problem does make people very worried. Can the Government inform this Council whether the Government has effective contingency measures to cope with the potentially serious impact that wastage of senior police officers would have on the entire community?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am greatly encouraged that the recent retirement applications of only two relatively senior police officers under normal circumstances have created such tremendous reverberation. This shows that the public recognizes the importance of stability in the civil service, in particular in the Police Force; this also means that the public very much appreciates our work. In view of this, it is essential that we do pay attention to this issue.
Mrs LAU asks me what plans we have to cope with problems in this regard. First of all, the information in hand does not show that there is a high wastage rate among police officers. As I have already mentioned, it is more a question of age. We raised the retirement age of civil servants from 55 to 60 in 1987 and that has resulted in a large number of colleagues aged between 55 to 60 who may retire at any time. Therefore, under the circumstances, it is reasonable and normal that comparatively more colleagues will retire when they approach the retirement age.
As to the plan we have if the wastage rate turns to be higher than forecast, the Police Force has in fact drawn up a series of plans, such as the filling of civilian posts in the Police Force currently taken up by police officers with civilian staff, the restructuring of part of the establishment of the Police Force, the re-arrangement of work and the generation of more opportunities for accelerated promotions for young and capable officers. I believe that all these are good plans.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr President, could the Secretary just clarify that the 10% figure is in fact a personal assessment? In paragraphs (a) and (b) of his reply, he mentions 24 and nine people respectively are within the retirement zone, which just so happens to be equivalent to about 5% of the 457 or 182. The Secretary says in the last part of his reply that “the Force should be able to comfortably accommodate the slightly higher wastage rate expected”. I would like the Secretary to tell us, should the survey prove that 10% is in fact accurate, if that would be regarded as what he means by only a “slightly higher wastage rate” or would it be deemed as overwhelmingly higher than the normal wastage rate, because 10% is the double of 5%?
3898 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, there is no such thing as a normal wastage rate, mainly because a wastage in terms of retirement and so on is a function of the age profile of the organization. As I have just said, we also have the special factor of the change in retirement age in 1987. But for a Force of the size of the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, I think a wastage rate, even if it is 10%, could easily be accommodated.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the fourth paragraph of the main reply indicates that some factors may cause police officers to change their personal decisions about their future. Has the Government noticed that there is a trend for some private companies and billionaires to offer police officers extremely attractive remuneration packages, and the Government usually approves their applications to leave the Force at short notices? Is it one of the factors he mentioned in his reply.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Mr President, there are of course a loft of factors causing the officers to leave the Force and the attraction of job opportunities in the private sector is of course one of them. If an officer applies for leave to quit a particular government post and to join the private sector, they have to apply in accordance with the established procedures. We have regulations to govern such applications if the posts in the private sector are not suitable.
Stop and Search Operations by the Police
6. MR ROGER LUK asked: Will the Administration inform this Council of the effectiveness (in quantitative terms) of “stop and search” operations on the street by police officers in achieving their intended purposes and whether the checks and balances currently in place have been effective in preventing police officers from abusing their authority in this regard?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, in 1994, police officers exercised their power to stop a person on 1 300 000 occasions. This figure includes stop and search, roadblock operations, and stop and question (which does not involve search). As a result of these operations, some 10 000 wanted or missing persons, together with some 30 000 illegal immigrants were located. In quantitative terms, on roughly one out of 30 occasions, the police achieved a successful result.
In addition to this quantitative measure of effectiveness, an active and visible police presence on the streets and in public places, particularly in crime black spots, together with their authority to stop and search, acts as a deterrant.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3899
The Police Force is, of course, conscious of the need to balance the protection of, and respect for, personal freedom, privacy and dignity, with the maintenance of law and order. A comprehensive set of guidelines and procedures on the conduct of stop and search operations is set out in Police Force General Orders, the Force Procedures Manual and the relevant Headquarters Order. Any complaint against the abuse of authority will be thoroughly investigated. If the complaint is substantiated, the police officer at fault will be liable to disciplinary actions or even criminal proceedings.
Of the 3 090 complaints received by the Complaints Against Police Office last year, only 19 were related to stop and search. From these figures, the problem of abuse does not appear to be serious. We will, however, keep the situation and the existing guidelines under review.
MR ROGER LUK: Mr President, the mean population aged 18 and over for 1994 was 4.5 million and this means that on average about one in four adults have been stopped by the police last year. Does the Secretary agree that this ratio reflects that the police have been excessive, if not abusive, in exercising this power?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, no, I do not agree so. I would like to point out first that not all of the 1.3 million cases involved a person being searched. The figures, as I explained, include roadblock operations and stops which do not involve a search. But, as I have explained, the powers are necessary to combat the problem of illegal immigrants and for the detection and prevention of crime.
PRESIDENT: Not answered, Mr LUK?
MR ROGER LUK: Mr President, just the point that the roadblock operation does not include the search of a person; have I heard it incorrectly?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, no, the roadblocks do not involve the search of a person.
REV FUNG CHI-WOOD (in Cantonese): Mr President, I believe the majority of the public does not like to be stopped and searched by the police in public places. Have the police considered reducing the number of stop and search operations and yet still effectively maintaining law and order?
3900 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I think that the figures I have quoted are good. Without the powers that I have referred to, 3 000 more illegal immigrants would remain in Hong Kong and thousands of wanted persons would remain at large each year. If we were to reduce the number of operations, we would reduce the effectiveness of those results. In other words, there would be more illegal immigrants at large and there would be more wanted persons at large each year.
DR CONRAD LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, in paragraph 4 of the main reply, the Secretary for Security said that the Complaints Against Police Office received 3000-odd complaints last year, and only 19 were related to stop and search. Although there are only 19 such complaints, in our daily contact with the public, we find that many of them do not bother to lodge complaints because they are afraid of trouble. In these complaint against police cases, very often members of the public complain that the police did not have sufficient reasons to stop them, but the explanations offered by the police were usually that the police officers suspected they were illegal immigrants. When we pursued further why they suspected these people were illegal immigrants, the answers given were often ridiculous. So I would like to formally ask the Secretary here, what are the grounds for the Government to suspect someone is an illegal immigrant?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, the police are required to have reasonable grounds of suspicion and it is obviously difficult for us to set down, in specific terms, how those detailed grounds can be defined; there are no hard and fast rules. A police officer, however, is given specific instructions not to stop persons arbitrarily simply in the hope that he or she will find evidence of a crime. Reasonable suspicion is based on the information or observations that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a person has done, or is about to do, a certain act. The factors that are taken into consideration are the behaviour of the person concerned, articles carried, the circumstances prevailing in the surrounding area and the crime situation in that location. Police officers are expected to use their common sense, their experience and their professional judgment before exercising this authority.
In the case of suspicion regarding illegal immigration, the grounds for reasonable suspicion are, I think quite obviously, a little more widely drawn. It is very difficult to categorize an illegal immigrant and, therefore, we again rely on the common sense, experience and professional judgment of the police officers concerned.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, we agree that it is difficult to define objective suspicion. Having heard the figures quoted by the Honourable Roger LUK, that is every year one out of four adults would have been stopped once by the police, the Secretary said that last year, 30 000 illegal immigrants and 10 000 missing or wanted persons were located in these operations.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3901
However, I wish to inform the Secretary that the number of stop operations in 1993 was lower by 20%, but the results were more or less the same, about 20 000 to 30 000 illegal immigrants were located. So, should the Secretary not therefore review whether guidelines for locating wanted persons and ways of teaching police officers to exercise their judgment be made more practical? More instruction and training may perhaps be given to police officers so that the number of stop operations can be reduced to the minimum while achieving the same results. All that is needed is more accurate judgment on the part of the police officers. Does the Secretary find my views useful?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I can again refer to my previous answer when I say that police officers are given specific instructions not to search simply in order to discover evidence of a crime. I am afraid I must clarify the statistics given by the Honourable Member. The number of stop and search operations which took place in 1993 and 1994, when compared, showed an increase of 6%. The number of wanted or missing persons and illegal immigrants that were found in 1993 and 1994, when compared, show an increase of 12%. So in other words, we were more efficient by increasing the number of operations by only 6%, but yet achieving a 12% increase in successful results.
PRESIDENT: Mr TO, not answered?
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, if this is the case, we could then locate more illegal immigrants if we made 4 million stop operations a year. I would like to ask the Secretary where does the balance lie? What exactly is the meaning of his reply?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President, I do not think we have any intention, or indeed the capability of doing four million stop and searches in a year. As I pointed out in reply to an earlier question, the question of stop and search remains largely a matter of judgment. Nobody walks around with a sign saying, “I am an illegal immigrant”. Nobody walks around saying, “I am a wanted or a missing person”. We must rely on the professionalism and the judgment of the police officers concerned. There are no fixed quota of stops and searches; we do this simply in response to the crime situation. And I think that the results that I have explained in the answer to the main question illustrate that we have been quite successful in that respect.
3902 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Occupational Health Clinic
7. MISS CHIRISTINE LOH asked: Will the Administration provide this Council with a breakdown of the occupations and the injuries and/or diseases of persons who sought treatment at the Occupational Health Clinic in the first eight months since its opening?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, a total of 246 persons sought treatment at the Kwun Tong Occupational Health Clinic during the eight months from 30 November 1993 to 31 July 1994. 148 (or 60%) of them were treated for work-related injuries or illnesses. A breakdown by the type of work-related illnesses/injuries and by major occupational groups are as follows:
Occupational Groups
Type of
Work-related
illnesses/injuries Construction
Manufacturing
industries Service Office Total
Upper limb injuries
Lower limb injuries
6 6 8 0 20 4 5 8 0 17
Trunk injuries 7 14 20 2 43
Head/Neck
injuries
Occupational lung diseases
Musculo-skeletal disorders
Occupational
dermatitis
1 1 20 4 1 4 30 8 1 16 13 6 36 1 5 4 1 11
Lead poisoning 0 2 0 0 2
Noise-induced 3 3 10 7 hearing loss - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- Total 24 56 59 9 148 = = = = = = = = = = =
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3903 Repatriation of Vietnamese Migrants
8. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): The Vietnamese Government has earlier undertaken to take back 1800 of Vietnamese boat people (VBP) stranded in the territory each month. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how many VBP are expected to be repatriated to Vietnam each month;
(b) what measures have been put in place to attain the above target of repatriating 1 800 VBP each month, and what are the anticipated difficulties in enforcing such measures and how they can be overcome; and
(c) whether consideration will be given to adopting mandatory repatriation so as to attain the above target; if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr President,
(a) It would be premature to forecast the number of Vietnamese migrants who will be repatriated until such time as the simplified procedures are implemented and assessed, but we shall, of course, strive to repatriate as many as possible each month.
(b) To expedite the return of Vietnamese migrants to Vietnam, the simplified repatriation procedures agreed at the Sixth Steering Committee of the International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees will be implemented.
The major difficulties envisaged are two-fold: the willingness of the Vietnamese migrants to go home and the speed with which the Vietnamese authorities clear their names for return. To encourage more Vietnamese migrants to join the voluntary repatriation programme, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Hong Kong Government have stepped up counselling in the detention centres and an additional allowance of US$150 has been introduced to each eligible migrant who volunteers to return to Vietnam.
(c) We will step up the orderly repatriation programme as a means to encourage more Vietnamese migrants to join the voluntary repatriation programme, which remains our preferred repatriation option.
3904 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 Purchase of Electricity from Daya Bay
9. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: Owing to the fact that the China Light and Power Company Limited (CLP) is committed to purchasing 70% of the power generated from the nuclear power station at Daya Bay but the financial arrangement regarding such purchase is excluded from the Scheme of Control agreement, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) how long the CLP is committed to purchasing 70% of the electricity produced from Daya Bay;
(b) how the price of electricity purchased from Daya Bay is determined; and
(c) of the amount of the fixed annual return that the Guangdong Nuclear Power Joint Venture Company is entitled to recoup through electricity tariffs?
SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Mr President, the Guangdong Nuclear Power Station (GNPS) at Daya Bay is owned and operated by the Guangdong Nuclear Power Joint Venture Company, Limited (GNPJVC). GNPJVC is a joint venture between the Hong Kong Nuclear Investment Company Limited (HKNIC), which has a 25% equity share and the Guangdong Nuclear Investment Company, Limited (GNIC) which holds the remaining 75% equity.
Under the terms of the joint venture contract, HKNIC is committed to purchasing 70% of the total output of the GNPS of which 25% is purchased directly from GNPJVC and 45% by way of resale from GNIC. The nuclear electricity purchased by HKNIC is resold, without any mark-up, to its holding company, the China Light and Power Company Limited (CLP) for distribution to CLP customers. CLP’s purchase of nuclear electricity via the HKNIC is monitored by the Administration through the annual Auditing Reviews.
With this background, the answers to the specific questions are:
(a) unless the parties agree to an extension, the joint venture contract will be effective until 5 May 2014, that is, 20 years after the commissioning of the second nuclear unit;
(b) HKNIC and GNIC are required to purchase electricity from GNPJVC at full economic cost, which includes an element of profit. The following conditions apply in respect of the resale of electricity from GNIC to HKNIC:
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3905
(i) no mark-up is permitted during the resale of electricity from GNIC to HKNIC;
(ii) the amount of electricity purchased under the resale arrangement cannot exceed 4.5 billion units per annum for the first five years of operation up to 31 December 1998; and
(iii) during the first five years of operation, the sale price per unit cannot exceed the notional cost of a unit of electricity generated by a coal fired station constructed in Hong Kong and commissioned in 1991.
(c) GNPJVC’s profit is fixed as a percentage of the funds invested by its shareholders and has regard to the performance and utilization of the station. The actual amount of return is commercially sensitive. GNPJVC does not sell electricity directly to customers in Hong Kong or in Guangdong. The amount of GNPJVC’s return which is recouped from CLP’s customers is proportionate to the amount of electricity purchased via HKNIC.
Influenza Vaccination
10. DR HUANG CHEN-YA asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the total number of cases of influenza or influenza related diseases requiring hospitalization in hospitals under the management of the Hospital Authority in each of the past three years; and
(b) whether it will organize vaccination programmes for our senior citizens in view of the investigation results in a number of cases confirming the efficacy of influenza vaccination in reducing influenza and its complications?
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President,
(a) The total number of cases of influenza admitted to hospitals under the management of the Hospital Authority was 50, 61 and 61 in 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively. We do not have readily available information on the number of cases of influenza related diseases requiring hospitalization. Since, under the current discharge coding system of these hospitals, influenza related diseases is not separately identified.
3906 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
(b) In considering whether to organize any vaccination programme, we have to examine carefully the extent of the problems relating to the disease in the local community, possible side-effects of the vaccine, operational logistics, cost-effectiveness and the overall benefit that the programme could bring. In the case of influenza vaccination, as influenza viruses are known to undergo frequent transformation, we have to consider also whether or not new vaccines could be developed in time and produced in sufficient quantities to support a community vaccination programme. The Advisory Committee on Immunization of the Department of Health, comprising experts in related disciplines, will be deliberating the issue later this year.
Inspection of Buildings
11. DR DAVID LI asked: According to the findings of inspections carried out on housing and office buildings throughout the territory by the Hong Kong Concrete Repair Association, more than 60% of all buildings have or will develop serious and potentially dangerous structural problems. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether consideration will be given to setting up a mandatory inspection scheme whereby owners must check their buildings every five to 10 years; if so, what is the time table for implementing such a scheme?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the Government has in fact been keeping a close watch on the structural conditions of private buildings and undertaken inspections ourselves. In 1989, the Buildings Department (BD) initiated a scheme of external visual inspections on the structural conditions of buildings. 60 000 buildings have been inspected and categorized according to their degree of danger. 266 buildings have been demolished and almost 5 000 repair orders served to 16 000 buildings. Some 40 000 buildings are considered unlikely to require any major action within the five years from the time of initial inspection.
In October 1994, BD also commissioned a consultancy study into the conditions of buildings constructed between 1946 and 1958 which have cantilevered structures. The survey is aimed to ascertain the current structural conditions, assess the durability and deterioration trends, and recommend a strategy for the future inspection and investigations, of these buildings. The study is scheduled to be completed at the end of this year. However, when steel corrosion was found to be the cause of collapse of a canopy in Aberdeen last year, BD considered that “younger buildings” constructed between 1959 and 1980 should also be surveyed. The Administration hopes to seek funds for this proposal shortly.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3907
The Government shares the view that building owners should be responsible for maintaining their properties. A mandatory scheme requiring them to carry out regular inspections would help to further strengthen building safety and maintenance. The Administration will be better placed to examine the need and practicability of a mandatory building inspection scheme when findings of the above study and survey are available. In the meantime, the Administration will continue with publicity efforts to educate building owners to properly maintain their properties and Building Management Co-ordination Teams in the districts will also provide advice on building maintenance to owners and resident associations.
Employees Retraining Board
12. MR PANG CHUN-HOI asked (in Chinese): Regarding the problem of shortage of funds faced by the Employees Retraining Board, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) it will continue to inject funds into the Board; if so, what the amount of injection will be; if not, why not; and
(b) consideration will be given to increasing the levy imposed on employers of imported worker; if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President,
(a) In 1992, the Government injected $300 million into the Employees Retraining Fund (the Fund) to provide financial assistance for the Employees Retraining Board (ERB) to carry out its statutory functions. Apart from the Fund and its interest income, the ERB also receives levy income from the employers of imported labour under the General Labour Importation Scheme and the Special Importation of Labour Scheme for Airport Core Programme Projects.
For the financial year 1995-96, the ERB plans to spend $290 million to provide retraining programmes to displaced workers aged over 30, industrial accident victims, people with a disability and others who wish to rejoin the labour force. $239 million of these expenses will be covered from interest generated by the Fund and the levy income. The remaining $51 million will be met from the Fund itself, which balanced at $280 million on 30 April 1995.
By the end of the 1995-96 financial year, the Fund will still have $229 million left. As the financial situation of the ERB is healthy, there is no immediate need to inject further money into the Fund.
3908 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
(b) The Administration is currently conducting a review on the operation of the General Labour Importation Scheme. The rate of levy will also be looked at as part of the review.
Public Carparks
13. MR LAU WONG-FAT asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the total number of government-owned public car parks at present, together with the number of such car parks which have been handed over to private companies for management; and
(b) the total receipts from public car parks managed by private companies for the 1994-95 financial year, together with the percentage of the receipts apportioned to the Government and the private companies respectively?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,
(a) There are 14 government-owned public carparks. These are managed by Wharf Holdings Company Limited and Wilson Parking (HK) Company Limited under separate management contracts, with each company being responsible for seven carparks. These contracts were let through competitive tenders.
(b) In 1994-95, total gross receipts from these carparks amounted to about $340 million, with about 90% of this going to the Government.
Chinese Summonses Issued by Magistrates’ Courts
14. MISS EMILY LAU asked (in Chinese): At present, some items in the Chinese version of the summonses issued by the Magistrates’ Courts are still written in English, including the address of the defendant, particulars of the charge and the location of the offence and so on, and this may cause inconvenience to people who are not conversant with English. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council whether:
(a) a Chinese version is attached to all summonses issued by the Magistrates’ Courts;
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3909
(b) there is a special format for the summonses issued with an accompanying Chinese version; if so, why some of the items in the Chinese version are still written in English and; whether this runs counter to the original intention of issuing a Chinese version; and
(c) there are any plans for the Magistrates’ Courts to issue summonses written in Chinese only; if so, when such plans will be implemented?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President,
(a) Summonses issued by the Magistrates’ Courts are produced by the Computerized Case and Summons Management System (CASEMAN). Whether a summons contains a Chinese translation depends on whether a standard offence description(s) has (have) been prepared by the relevant prosecuting department(s). Most (about 3 000) standard offence descriptions are already available in both English and Chinese, and summonses in respect of these offences are being issued in both languages. However, variables such as the defendants’ addresses have not yet been included because of the limitation of the CASEMAN’s capability.
(b) All summonses are prescribed and issued pursuant to Form I of the Magistrates (Form) Rules, Cap. 227 of the Laws of Hong Kong. A Chinese version of the Form has been prepared, and it will be brought into operation upon the upgrading of CASEMAN’s capability in the light of the findings of the inter-departmental working party referred to in (c) below.
(c) In the longer-term, CASEMAN will have to be upgraded to enable summonses to be issued in both English and Chinese. An interdepartmental working party has been formed to identify the changes required to achieve full bilingualism in summonses and to work out how to interface with prosecution departments on the electronic exchange of information. The working party is expected to complete its findings by the end of this year.
Provision of Student Hostels by UGC-Funded Universities
15. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): Regarding the provision of student hostels at the universities funded by the University Grants Committee, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the criteria adopted by the universities in approving students’ applications for such accommodation; whether the universities have accorded priority to students on grounds of long travelling distance
3910 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
and inconvenient transport facilities in allocating hostel places; if not, why not; and
(b) whether the Government will request the universities to provide information regarding the number of students residing in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long districts whose applications were rejected by these institutions in the past three years, as well as the reasons for rejection?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President, among the seven UGC-funded institutions, only the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK), the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) and the University of Hong Kong (HKU) currently have student hostel accommodation. The Lingnan College (LC) and the Hong Kong Institute of Education (HKIEd) will, however, also have some student hostel accommodation at their new campuses in Tuen Mun and Tai Po respectively.
In reply to part (a) of the question, the main criteria adopted by the CUHK, HKUST and HKU for allocating hostel places to students are:
(a) the student’s travelling time between home and campus;
(b) the student’s living environment at home; and
(c) exceptional personal needs, for example, physical disabilities.
In addition, the HKUST and HKU reserve a small number of hostel places for allocation to students with leadership qualities and a proven contribution to hall life.
In reply to (b) of the question, the Administration has sought information from the universities concerned. The HKU and CUHK do not have statistics on the number of students living in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long whose applications for hostel places were rejected. However, both universities confirm that under normal circumstances, students living in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long would be assigned hostel places. In the case of the HKUST, all students living in Tuen Mun or Yuen Long and applying for admission to a student hostel have been allocated hostel places over the past three years.
China-based Wives’ Eligibility for Public Housing
16. MRS ELSIE TU asked: China-based wives of Hong Kong residents know that, in addition to other benefits, they can beat the seven-year residency rule in applying for public housing by depositing Hong Kong-born infants in the territory to make up the 60% eligibility rule for allocation of housing to a family. Therefore a mother even with one China-born child can avoid this rule
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3911
if she deposits two more Hong Kong-born children in the territory and have them added to her husband’s singleton application to fulfil the requirement. As this practice creates social problems for motherless babies, encourages larger families, and lengthens the waiting time for local residents on the Waiting List, will the Government inform this Council if it will plug this loophole by counting only the residency qualification of the mother after her admission to Hong Kong on the daily quota, and not the children she has deposited here apparently as a housing warranty for herself?
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING: Mr President, an applicant for public housing, together with a majority of his family members, must satisfy the seven-year residency rule in order to become eligible. For an applicant already on the Single Person Waiting List, he may apply subsequently to add the names of his wife, children and relatives to the application, and to transfer it to the General Waiting List. Upon transfer, he may be given a credit, in terms of waiting time, equivalent to half of the waiting time he has already accumulated on the Single Person Waiting List, subject to a maximum credit of three years. This means that following genuine changes in family circumstances, he does not have to queue up afresh. This arrangement has been operating satisfactorily, and is considered reasonable and fair. In 1994-95, there were about 1 100 such cases, of which only a small number involved children born in Hong Kong of China-based wives. We do not intend to change this policy, but will keep it under review.
Compensation to HMOCS Officers
17. MR TIMOTHY HA asked (in Chinese): A Member of the British Parliament recently stated that compensation payable to members of Her Majesty’s Overseas Civil Service (HMOCS) serving with the Hong Kong Government who would be obliged to retire prematurely as a result of the transfer of sovereignty in 1997 should be borne by the Hong Kong Government. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the total number of these officers;
(b) of the total amount of compensation to which they are entitled; and
(c) whether it has clearly indicated to the British Government that such compensation will definitely not be paid from the territory’s public funds; if so, when and in what way this was done; if not, why not?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, the British Government has obligations to members of HMOCS as set out in United Kingdom White Papers and as followed in other territories upon the loss of the Secretary for State’s authority due to constitutional change. They have
3912 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
therefore agreed to introduce and pay for an HMOCS Compensation Scheme for HMOCS officers serving in Hong Kong. Under the Compensation Scheme, officers may opt to retire between 1 July 1996 and 30 June 1997 or continue in service after ceasing to be members of HMOCS. These compensation and retirement arrangements are consistent with the British Government’s obligation and HMOCS officers’ terms of appointment. The answers to the specific questions are as follows:
(a) Approximately 550 HMOCS officers could be eligible for compensation under the HMOCS Compensation Scheme. Compensation will be payable irrespective of whether an HMOCS officer retires or continues in service after ceasing to be a member of HMOCS.
(b) The amount of compensation payable to individual HMOCS officers varies according to factors such as salary, length of pensionable service, age, and the pension scheme under which the officer serves. The maximum individual compensation payable is £120,000 at 1991-92 prices; which will be updated in line with the United Kingdom Retail Price Index (the present ceiling is £134,500) and would be payable to an officer in his mid-forties. The British Government estimates the total cost of the HMOCS Compensation Scheme at around £40 million.
(c) The HMOCS Compensation Scheme will be funded entirely by the British Government. The Overseas Development Administration in the United Kingdom will be responsible for detailed payment arrangements.
Reclamation in Hong Kong
18. MISS EMILY LAU asked: Will the Administration inform this Council:
(a) when reclamation was first started in the territory, and what were the major reclamation projects completed since then;
(b) how many hectares of land have been formed by reclamation in the territory; and
(c) how many hectares of land will be formed by reclamation between now and 30 June 1997?
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, reclamation in Hong Kong can be traced back a long time. An examination of previous maps indicates that reclamation could have started in Hong Kong well before 1887. However, some of the historical records cannot
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3913
be traced now, but it is generally understood that a lot of the built-up area on North Hong Kong Island, the coastal areas on West and East Kowloon were reclaimed before 1945.
All the reclamation works were done to acquire land for the social and economic development of Hong Kong. It is estimated that 5 400 hectares of land were formed by reclamation up to September 1994. Recent examples include reclamation required for the formation of Sha Tin, Tuen Mun, Tseung Kwan O and Tin Shui Wai New Towns, container terminals, and industrial estates. More recently, reclamation works at West Kowloon, Chek Lap Kok Airport and Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate have been largely completed.
A number of reclamation projects are still in progress, and it is estimated that by 30 June 1997 they would form an additional 100 hectares of land for Hong Kong. These include the remaining part of West Kowloon, Central and Wan Chai, Aldrich Bay, Belcher Bay and Stonecutters Island.
Remuneration of Principal Executives of Statutory Bodies
19. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Chinese): Regarding the salaries and fringe benefits received by the principal executives of statutory public bodies, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the criteria for determining their remuneration;
(b) which statutory public bodies have disclosed the remuneration of their principal executives; which statutory public bodies have not and what are the reasons for non-disclosure, and whether consideration will be given to requesting these bodies to disclose the remuneration of their principal executives; and
(c) what mechanism does the Government have to monitor those public-funded statutory bodies which have not disclosed the remuneration of their principal executives?
CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, the remuneration received by the principal executives of statutory bodies financed by public funds varies because they have different levels and areas of responsibilities. My reply to Mr CHEUNG’s question will necessarily have to be a general one.
(a) The criteria adopted by these statutory bodies vary according to their specific requirements but in general the following are taken into account:
3914 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
- the pay levels of jobs in the Civil Service or the private sector that have comparable responsibilities and that require similar qualifications and experience; and
- any independent management studies carried out within the organization concerned.
(b) The total remuneration for staff of these bodies is publicly available. Some bodies have also made public the remuneration bands or pay scales of senior executives through recruitment advertisements or annual reports. A list of these bodies is attached.
We will encourage the others to make similar information available to the public as far as possible when they are requested to do so. However, information on the remuneration of individual staff cannot be disclosed because this might undermine the ability of the organizations concerned to recruit and retain staff of the right calibre and with the necessary experience, bearing in mind they often have to compete with the private sector for staff. This is particularly so for bodies which are required by law to operate on prudent commercial principles.
(c) There are well-established mechanisms by which the Government can monitor the operation of all these bodies. They include:
- legal provisions governing their operation;
- government representatives sitting on their management boards;
- the submission of regular reports to the Government and other governing bodies; and
- audited annual accounts presented to the Government and tabled in the Legislative Council.
Annex
1. The Opening Learning Institute of Hong Kong
2. Hong Kong Institute of Education
3. UGC-funded institutions
4. Hong Kong Academy for Performing Acts
5. Hong Kong Arts Development Council +
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3915 Annex
6. Mass Transit Railway Corporation
7. Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation
8. Securities and Futures Commission *
+ will be disclosed upon the establishment of the Council in June 1995 * will be disclosed in June 1995 when its Annual Accounts are published.
Former Special Branch Officers
20. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Chinese): Regarding the police officers formerly deployed in the disbanded Special Branch who still work in the Police Force at point 47 and above of the Police Pay Scale, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the age of such officers and their current posts, and how many of them have opted for the new pension scheme; and
(b) a breakdown, by the category of police officers at point 47 and above of the Police Pay Scale who were previously posted to the Special Branch and those of equivalent ranks who have never worked in the Special Branch, of the respective numbers of officers who are applying for and those who have been granted approval for early retirement in each of the past three years; and the annual percentages of the former out of the total number of officers in the ranks concerned?
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, we have identified about 100 serving police officers of the rank of Superintendent (Police Force Point 48) and above who have, in some stage of their careers, served in the Special Branch. There are likely to be more, but we cannot provide an accurate figure without laboriously checking the personnel records of all serving police officers in these ranks. As there are 457 police officers in these ranks, this would be a major undertaking.
For the reasons stated above, we are unable to provide the detailed breakdown requested. However, the general situation in respect of officers who have applied for early retirement in the ranks of Superintendent and above are set out below. All applications have been approved.
3916 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Rank 1992 1993 1994 1995 (to date)
Present strength
Superintendent of Police 11 2 6 13 291
Senior Superintendent of Police
Chief Superintendent of Police
2 3 1 5 92 1 - - 2 53
Assistant Commissioner - - - 4 21 of Police and above --- --- --- --- ---
Total 14 5 7 24 457 = = = = = = = = = = =
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
PUBLIC BUS SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
AIRPORT AUTHORITY BILL
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3).
Second Reading of Bills
OFFICIAL LANGUAGES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE CHIEF SECRETARY moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Official Languages Ordinance.”
CHIEF SECRETARY (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that the Official Languages (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read the second time. The Bill seeks to remove the present restriction on the use of Chinese in the higher courts and certain tribunals.
Section 5(1) of the Official Languages Ordinance provides that proceedings in the courts specified in the Schedule to the Ordinance may be conducted in either English or Chinese as the court thinks fit. These scheduled courts include the Magistrates’ Courts, Coroner’s Court, Juvenile Court, Labour
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3917
Tribunal, Small Claims Tribunal, Immigration Tribunal, Municipal Services Appeals Board, Administrative Appeals Board and Minor Employment Claims Adjudication Board. However, section 5(2) requires that proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the District Court and any other courts not specified in the Schedule shall only be conducted in the English language. This means that all hearings in these courts are conducted in English only, although section 5(3) specifically allows the parties and witnesses attending before any court to use either of the languages or such other language as the court may permit, with interpretation provided by a Court Interpreter as required. Chinese documents which are to be produced in court must be translated into English and certified by officials translators.
In August 1992, the Chief Justice appointed a working party chaired by Mr Justice Patrick CHAN to “consider the ways in which the Chinese language can be used in the District Court within existing resources and with the addition of reasonable resources”. In September 1993, he appointed another working party chaired by Mr Justice LITTON to “consider the means by which the use of Chinese language may be further promoted in court proceedings at all level where appropriate, and generally the greater use of Chinese in the law.” Both Working Parties recommended that the present restriction on the use of Chinese in the higher courts should be removed. Having accepted this recommendation in principle, the Chief Justice appointed, in September 1994, a Steering Committee, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Patrick CHAN, to advise on how this should be implemented. The Steering Committee has now completed its task and put forward its recommendations on both the necessary legislative amendments and the actual implementation strategy.
The Executive Council has endorsed the recommendation made by the Steering Committee that the Official Languages Ordinance should be amended to remove the present restriction on the use of Chinese proceedings in the higher courts and certain tribunals. The Official Languages (Amendment) Bill 1995 contains one key clause, that is, Clause 3. This clause enables a judge presiding over a court hearing to use either or both of the official languages, but his choice of the language will not dictate what language a party, a legal representative, or a witness is to use. Lawyers representing parties may use either or both of the official languages; and parties and witnesses may even use other languages. Interpretation will be provided as required. It is also proposed that, as a matter of practice, court documents may be submitted in either English or Chinese, and will’be translated, if necessary, into the language which the Judge decides to use at the hearing; and the written transcription of proceedings will be prepared in either English or Chinese as the court thinks fit.
This reform will lead to the increased use of the Chinese language in Hong Kong courts, as it will give an option to those people who feel that justice is best served by the use of Chinese, rather than English, in their cases. But it is a complex exercise and it needs to be implemented in phases. The Executive Council has endorsed the 8-phase implementation strategy recommended by the Chief Justice’s Steering Committee, which aims to put in place a framework
3918 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
which will allow the use of Chinese, along with English, in all judicial proceedings by 1 July 1997. The pace of the phased implementation will be left to the Chief Justice to decide, having regard to the experience gained from a series of trial schemes which are due to start in August this year. Clause 3 of the Bill provides the Chief Justice with the necessary power for this.
The Honourable Simon IP and some other Members of this Council have suggested that simultaneous interpretation should be used as a more immediate means of putting in place a bilingual court system. The Steering Committee has studied the feasibility of this, and has concluded that simultaneous interpretation would not be suitable for evidence taking because oral delivery is always made impromptu. Without a full translation of the exchange, material mistakes could be made through simultaneous interpretation and, if uncorrected, could result in a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, unlike consecutive interpretation, inaccuracies in simultaneous translation cannot easily be detected. However, the Steering Committee has an open mind on the feasibility of providing simultaneous interpretation for other stages of a trial. The Judiciary will launch a pilot scheme this October on the use of simultaneous interpretation on appeal cases heard in the High Court which do not involve the giving of evidence.
The Chief Justice’s Steering Committee has consulted the Bar Association and the Law Society and has taken their views into account when finalizing the Bill and the 8-phase implementation strategy. I understand that the Legislative Council’s Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services has been consulted and has given its support.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
PUBLIC BUS SERVICES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to amend the Public Bus Services Ordinance.”
He said: Mr President, I move that the Public Bus Services (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read the Second time.
Franchised bus companies play a vital role in providing public transport. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that over 3.5 million passenger trips are made by bus every day. Any serious disruption to bus services would have dire consequences and it is incumbent on the Administration to do its best to prevent such a situation from arising. The Public Bus Services (Amendment) Bill 1995 before Members today seeks to provide the Government with the necessary powers to deal with emergencies should a franchised bus company cease to operate.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3919
The present Ordinance was enacted in 1975, over 20 years ago. The existing provisions which empower the Governor in Council to revoke the franchise of a bus company that fails to maintain a proper and efficient service and to take temporary possession of its property for a period not exceeding one year or suspend a franchise in case of an emergency are inadequate to deal with present-day situations. One key reason is that the sizes of bus fleets have grown substantially. Thus if one of the major operators ceases to operate, there would simply be insufficient lead time within the one-year period to select a replacement operator and to allow the replacement operator to gear up to operate a proper franchised bus service. We also need to have powers to deal with situations where a franchise is not renewed and, apart from leasing bus depots and buses, to empower the Government to purchase property which is considered to be absolutely necessary for bus operations, for example, buses and spare parts. This is to facilitate a replacement operator’s preparatory work to commence service.
Indeed the measures proposed are tough, but they are required to safeguard public bus services in emergency situations. However, the Government has no intention whatsoever to penalize the franchisee financially and, accordingly, the Bill provides for open market rentals or compensation to be paid for leasing or purchasing buses and other property required to provide a bus service.
Mr President, let me now briefly outline the main features of the Bill:
(a) Clause 3 of the Bill permits the Administration to suspend a franchise and take possession of any property used or kept by the franchisee when an emergency exists.
(b) Clause 4 of the Bill extends the period of taking possession of property used or kept by the franchisee to a period of not more than two years with an extension of up to another year subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. The situation where a franchise is not renewed after expiry is also covered. Upon receipt of the Government’s written notice, the franchisee is required to deliver the property to the Government.
(c) Clause 5 of the Bill gives the Government the right to purchase property, except for land and buildings, which are used or kept by the franchisee. The franchisee has to be notified which items of property that the Government intends to purchase within one year from the date of the Government taking temporary possession. The clause also gives the Government the power of entry.
All these clauses also set out in detail the compensation provisions and the terms upon which possession of franchise related property is to be taken. A new section 25D under clause 5 also provides for disputes as regarding compensation to be referred to an independent arbitrator.
3920 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Clause 6 of the Bill provides that the amendments will apply to all existing franchises.
Mr President, let me assure Honourable Members that the Government has no intention of taking over public bus services except in very exceptional circumstances and, even so, for no longer than it takes for private enterprise to resume operations. The Bill before this Council simply seeks to safeguard the interests of the travelling public. With these remarks, I recommend the Bill to Honourable Members.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
AIRPORT AUTHORITY BILL
THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES moved the Second Reading of: “A Bill to reconstitute the Provisional Airport Authority and to provide that from the commencement hereof it shall be known in the English language as the Airport Authority and in the Chinese language as “機場管理局”, to enable it to provide, operate, develop and maintain an airport for civil aviation in the vicinity of Chek Lap Kok and otherwise to define its functions, to make provision for the safe, secure and efficient operation of such airport and for connected purposes.”
He said: Mr President, I move that the Airport Authority Bill be read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to reconstitute the Provisional Airport Authority (PAA) as the Airport Authority (AA) to enable it to provide, operate, develop and maintain our new airport at Chek Lap Kok. The Bill defines the functions of the Authority and makes provision for the safe, secure and efficient operation of the airport.
In January 1994, we published the Airport Corporation Bill in the form of a White Bill for public consultation. Members of this Council formed a Subcommittee to study the White Bill. We are most grateful for the comments and suggestions put forward by members of the Subcommittee. In addition, we would like to thank the Honourable Peter WONG who sent us a separate written submission and the Honourable Albert CHAN, the Honourable Frederick FUNG, the Honourable Fred LI, the Honourable Steven POON and the Honourable TAM Yiu-chung who put forward comments on behalf of the organizations they represent. We would also like to thank members of the Airport Consultative Committee, as well as other organizations and members of the public for taking time to study and comment on the White Bill.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3921
In the course of the public consultation exercise, we received 19 written submissions. We held 14 meetings with the Subcommittee of this Council, the Ad Hoc Study Group of the Airport Consultative Committee and a number of organizations. The comments and suggestions put to us focused mainly on the name, structure, powers and functions of the Authority, employment of staff, the extent of governmental control, monitoring and auditing, payment of compensation and charges. We have studied each and every comment received. In line with the “Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Construction of the Airport in Hong Kong and Related Questions” (MOU), we have also consulted the Chinese side of the Airport Committee of the Joint Liaison Group.
The objectives and structure of the Airport Authority Bill are the same as those in the 1994 White Bill. In drafting the Bill, we have aimed to address as many of the comments and suggestions received as possible. We have also taken into account fully the agreements reached with the Chinese side.
Name
Under the Bill, the PAA will be re-named the “Airport Authority” (AA) in English and “機場管理局”in Chinese.
Structure
During the public consultation process, we have received suggestions that in order to provide a wide range of checks and balances on the Authority and on its management, the Authority should have a Board. It has also been suggested that the Authority’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer should be separate persons. Accordingly, clause 4 of the Bill now provides that the affairs of the Authority shall be under the care and management of a Board. Clause 3(3)(a) of the Bill also makes it clear that the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer will be different persons with different roles and responsibilities.
Localization
Some commentators suggested that given the importance of the Authority, it should adopt a localization policy for employment of staff and that the Chairman and, if possible, the Chief Executive Officer should be “locals”. Others specifically suggested that the Chairman should be a Hong Kong permanent resident. Clause 3(3)(a) of the Bill now provides that the Chairman shall be a Hong Kong permanent resident as defined in the Immigration Ordinance. As regards employment of staff, the Authority’s plan is to fill all senior posts, including that for the Chief Executive Officer, with Hong Kong permanent residents and the Authority will recruit from sources outside Hong Kong only in the absence of suitable local candidates.
3922 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 Powers and functions
On the powers and functions of the Authority, comments we have received focused mainly on the scope of activities and powers of the Authority relating to charging of land and property, borrowing and delegation of functions. Some felt that the powers of the Authority in the White Bill were too wide. Others were concerned that in the unlikely event that the Authority fails to repay its debt or exercises its power to charge or to delegate in a wrong manner, it may inadvertently lose control of the airport.
As regards the activities of the Authority, in addition to providing, developing, operating and maintaining the airport, clauses 5(2) and (3) and 7(2)(f) of the Bill now provide that the Authority may only engage in “airport-related” activities. By “airport related”, we mean that the Authority should only undertake activities which are essential or conducive to the efficient operation of the airport or which are related to the development and running of an airport, for example, the development of hotels, freight forwarding facilities, offices, or other commercial and retail premises. We do not envisage that the Authority will undertake activities which are not normally undertaken by airports in other territories.
Turning now to the charging and disposal of land and buildings by the Authority, the Land Grant referred to in clause 16 of the Bill will specifically prohibit the Authority from disposing of land and buildings required for the operation of the airport or charging them in such a way which would jeopardize the operation of the airport. Clause 16(1) of the Bill further provides that the restriction over charging and disposal of land and buildings in the Land Grant cannot be changed except with the prior approval of the Financial Secretary.
As regards the Authority’s power to borrow, clause 28(4) of the Bill provides that the Governor may direct the Authority not to borrow above a particular level without the prior written consent of the Financial Secretary.
As regards delegation and sub-delegation of the Authority’s functions, the White Bill already provided that some powers of the Authority could not be delegated. These include the power to delegate, the power to form or acquire a subsidiary, the power to acquire or dispose of shares in a subsidiary and the power to make bylaws. The White Bill also provided that the Financial Secretary would be given powers to revoke any delegation made and irrevocable delegations have to be approved by him in advance. In the Bill we have put before Members today, we have included one additional residual safeguard. Clause 9(3) of the Bill provides that the Financial Secretary may direct the Authority not to delegate functions except with his prior consent. This would ensure that in effect, the Government could at any time forbid the delegation of any function of the Authority.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3923 Auditing
On auditing of the affairs of the Authority, we have received divided views. There was strong support for strengthening the auditing functions of the Authority. Some have said that since a considerable proportion of the Authority’s funds comes from the public purse, the Director of Audit should be given the power in the Airport Authority Ordinance to initiate value-for-money audits on the Authority. Some felt that the Director of Audit should also audit the annual accounts of the Authority. On the other hand, others were content to leave the regular annual auditing functions in the hands of private sector professional auditors. Some also felt that, as long as the Director of Audit could carry out value-for-money audits on the Authority, clause 29(6) of the White Bill already provided adequate powers.
It is clearly most important that the activities of the Authority are subject to rigorous and effective audit procedures. With this object in mind, we have decided to strengthen the mechanism for audit within the Authority by providing in the Bill that the Authority must establish an Audit Committee. Clause 31 of the Bill provides that the functions of the Audit Committee are to consider matters relating to the financial affairs or audits of the Authority as it considers necessary or desirable and any other matters referred to it. It further provides that neither the Chief Executive Officer nor any other employees of the Authority could be a member of the Audit Committee and that its chairman shall be a member of the Authority. The Committee is expected to play a proactive role and may instigate value-for-money studies in any area where it considers the management approach may be made more cost effective and efficient.
As regards the role of the Director of Audit, section 15 of the Audit Ordinance provides that “Notwithstanding that he is not empowered by any Ordinance to audit, examine or inquire into the accounts of a person, body corporate or other body, the Director may audit, examine or inquire into the records and accounts of any person, body corporate or other body if he is authorized in writing to do so by the Governor in the public interest .....”. Clause 32(7) of the Airport Authority Bill makes it clear that this section of the Audit Ordinance applies to the Authority. So the Governor could, if necessary, authorize the Director of Audit to audit, examine or inquire into the records and accounts of the Airport Authority.
Used in combination, section 15 of the Audit Ordinance and clause 31 of the Airport Authority Bill provide strong powers, and I believe them to be sufficient. Like the Mass Transit Railway Corporation and the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, the Airport Authority will be required to operate on prudent commercial principles. Like the two railway corporations, it will be expected to raise considerable sums of money in the international capital markets and it is important that it develops the same strong reputation amongst lenders and international credit rating agencies. This can only be achieved if a proper balance is struck between the need for prudent oversight of the
3924 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Authority’s activities and the need for it to be allowed to operate effectively as a commercially independent entity, and be seen to be so.
Compensation
Turning now to the payment of compensation, we have received suggestions that the Authority, which is wholly owned by the Government, should be obliged to act in the public interest and should not be paid any compensation for losses incurred as a result of being directed by the Governor in Council to take certain courses of action. There is, however, another angle to this issue. Lenders to the Authority will want to be assured that the Authority will be able to generate the necessary revenues to service and repay its debt and that its ability to do so will not be adversely affected by a direction given by the Government. Balancing the two considerations, we decided that the circumstances under which compensation will be payable should be qualified. Clause 20(2) of the Bill now provides that compensation will only be payable where compliance with a direction given by the Governor in Council in the public interest results in the Authority’s being unable to conduct its business according to prudent commercial principles and to pay a debt or otherwise being unable to discharge any of its legal obligations. In addition, clause 20(3) of the Bill provides that an application for compensation shall be made by, and only by, the Board of the Authority.
Quorum for meetings
A number of commentators expressed concern that the quorum requirement for meetings of the Authority in the White Bill was too low as compared to that for other statutory bodies. Clause 18(8) of the Bill now specifies that the quorum for all meetings of the Board shall be at least half of the members of the Authority including the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The minimum number of public officers in the quorum is now two.
Airport charges
We have received suggestions that the Government or the Legislative Council should be given wider powers to vet and approve airport charges. These stemmed from a concern that the Authority might try to levy high fees in order to maximize profits. Others have noted however that doing so might significantly undermine the Authority’s ability to conduct its business according to prudent commercial principles. Clause 34 of the Bill now provides that the Authority may make a scheme or schemes for determining airport charges and before making such a scheme, it shall submit to the Governor in Council for approval a draft of the proposed scheme together with a statement specifying the date on which the charges are intended to operate and reasons for the proposed scheme. Separately, we have taken the opportunity to refine the definition of “airport charges” in the Bill. At the time the White Bill was drafted, it was thought that aircraft passenger charges would be subject to international obligations applying to Hong Kong. Accordingly these charges were included
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3925
under the definition of “airport charges” in the White Bill. It now transpires that, as a result of the conclusion of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on air services, aircraft passenger charges would not be subject to international obligations applying to Hong Kong. The definition of “airport charges” in the Airport Authority Bill has therefore been amended accordingly.
Conclusion
Mr President, in drafting the Airport Authority Bill we have attempted to take into account all views and suggestions put to us. We have strengthened government controls over the Authority. We have defined more clearly the Authority’s powers and functions, structure and procedures. We have sought to strike that delicate balance between controlling the Authority but at the same time not restricting its activities in such a way as to render it impossible to conduct its business in accordance with prudent commercial principles. Mr President, I commend this Bill to this Council and I look forward to further discussion with Members.
Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).
IMPORT AND EXPORT (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1994
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 7 December 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).
INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (CLOTHING INDUSTRY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1994 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 7 December 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).
3926 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 COPYRIGHT (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 29 March 1995 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).
TAI LAM TUNNEL AND YUEN LONG APPROACH ROAD BILL Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 8 March 1995 Question on Second Reading proposed.
MRS MIRIAM LAU: Mr President, the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Bill introduced into the Legislative Council on 8 March 1995 provides for the award of the franchise to build and operate the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road to the Route 3 (CPS) Company Limited. The tunnel and the approach road will form an integral part of Route 3, providing a vital strategic corridor serving the northwestern part of the New Territories.
A Bills Committee, of which I am the Chairman, was set up to study the Bill. The Bills Committee held altogether seven meetings to discuss the major issues which involve both principles and policies. The Bills Committee also met with representatives of the Company with a view to better understanding the Company’s traffic forecasting process for the project and its stand on the toll adjustment mechanism. Representatives of the Company advised that the banks would not support the project without the provision of the toll adjustment mechanism.
Let me briefly go into the areas of major concern to Members. The first one is the internal rate of return (IRR) sought by the Company. The target IRR for this project, estimated at 15.18%, compares favourably with IRRs of other similar projects in the Asia Pacific Region which range between 15% and 25%. Members have noted that the Company’s forecast of usage of the facility over the franchise period is 8% lower than that projected by the Administration. Although the Administration is satisfied that this difference is within an acceptable forecasting margin, Members have asked the Administration to provide the Bills Committee with the IRR based on its own traffic forecasts. The result was that if the Administration’s traffic forecast were adopted, an IRR
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3927
of 16.20% would be reached at the end of the franchise period, an increase of about one percentage point over the Company’s target rate of 15.18%. This return would still be reasonable when compared to other similar projects.
The second area which Members have examined in detail is the toll adjustment mechanism. The Company will have three anticipated toll increases during the franchise period, that is on I January of the years 2003, 2010 and 2017. This is subject to the criterion that in the year preceding such anticipated toll increase, the Company’s Actual Net Revenue is below the Maximum Estimated Net Revenue for that year. If in any year the Actual Net Revenue is below the Minimum Estimated Net Revenue, the Company may apply to the Administration to advance a toll increase or to have an additional toll increase when all three anticipated toll increases have been used. If the Actual Net Revenue is equal to or exceeds the Maximum Estimated Net Revenue in a year preceding a year with an anticipated toll increase, the toll increase will be deferred. Any excess of Actual Net Revenue over the Maximum Estimated Net Revenue in any year will be paid into a Toll Stability Fund. Money in the Fund may be applied to increase the Company’s net revenue so as to defer toll increases. The majority of the Members of the Bills Committee accept the toll adjustment mechanism subject to the introduction of some measures to enhance transparency and enable the Legislative Council to monitor the operating cost budget and revenue accounts of the Company. I shall go into these measures in more detail in the latter part of my speech.
Members of the Democratic Party on the Bills Committee consider that toll increases should be subject to the control of the Legislative Council and would move an amendment to this effect at the Committee stage. I have asked the Administration to ascertain the proposed franchisee’s views on the matter. The consortium has advised that having regard to the large amount of bank debt and the commercial and other risks involved, the toll adjustment mechanism is crucial to the banks’ willingness to provide financing for the project. Accordingly, if the Bill were to be amended to the effect that toll increases would be subject to the approval of the Legislative Council, the Company would be unable to obtain bank financing and would not therefore be able to undertake the project.
The third area of concern is over clause 31(4) which provides that where at any time the Financial Secretary is of the opinion that the moneys in the Toll Stability Fund are in excess of the moneys that are required for the purposes of deferring toll increases, he may direct the excess amount to be paid into the General Revenue. Members are very concerned over this provision and consider that the Bill should also provide for the Financial Secretary to re-transfer money back into the Fund if circumstances require. After much discussion, the Administration has agreed to make an undertaking during the resumption of the Second Reading debate that should moneys be transferred out of the Fund to the General Revenue, this would not lead to any toll increase resulting from there being insufficient money left in the Fund to deter toll increases for the remaining period of the franchise. In the unlikely event that
3928 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
there is insufficient money left in the Fund because of any such withdrawal, the Administration will initiate immediate action to transfer back the requisite sums from the General Revenue to the Fund up to the amount that has been withdrawn.
To enhance the transparency regarding the franchisee’s plans and performance, the Administration will table in the Legislative Council in July every year the franchisee’s plans as embodied in its three-year rolling projection of net revenue and its annual budget of operating costs. In October every year, the Administration will also table in the Legislative Council the figures contained in the annual submission of the audited statement of Actual Net Revenue and make a statement on the occasion on both the figures and any application for a toll increase. It will also brief the Transport Panel on the Administration’s findings before deciding by the end of October whether the toll increase should be agreed. In addition, it will table in the Legislative Council before 31 December every year a copy of the audited statement of accounts of the Toll Stability Fund, together with the auditor’s report on the statement of accounts, if any, as well as a report by the Toll Stability Fund Management Committee. These arrangements will enable Members to discuss and debate any proposed toll increase so that Members’ views can be made known to the Administration before the Secretary for Transport decides whether he is satisfied with the Company’s net revenue statement and whether or not he agrees with the toll increase application. I trust the Secretary will in his speech later on confirm that all these arrangements will be effected.
Mr President, the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Project is most urgently needed to provide relief for traffic congestion in northwest New Territories, particularly along Tuen Mun Road. The new road will also facilitate cross-border traffic and will allow further development in northwest New Territories. This important transport infrastructure is already long overdue and we cannot afford to wait any further.
With these remarks, Mr President, I commend the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Bill to Honourable Members.
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the debate held during the last meeting of the 1992-93 Session is still fresh in my memory. During that sitting we debated heatedly the Western Harbour Crossing Bill. The most controversial part was none other than the “toll adjustment mechanism”. That mechanism not only enabled the Legislative Council to be bypassed, but also stripped the Council of the function of monitoring the operation of the Government and public utilities. We exchanged fire with the Government over this issue for a number of times, requesting the Government to listen to our opinions under the general priniciple of protecting the interests of the public, so that the consortia would not be given the opportunity to reap huge and “legal” profits and be free from monitoring by any mechanism.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3929
The then Secretary for Transport, Mr YEUNG Kai-yin, promised that ample time would be allowed for communicating with the Legislative Council before any Bill relating to “build, operate and transfer” (BOT) franchise was to be tabled to the Legislative Council for scrutiny in the future. He also undertook at that time that when Bills of that nature were introduced into the Legislative Council, sufficient time would be made available for the Legislative Council to deliberate the Bill to ensure that the Bill governing the franchise would not have to be discussed and passed by this Council in a hasty manner. Unfortunately, when the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Bill came before this Council for scrutiny, the Government did not honour its promise. It was only after the Bill had been drafted and consent had been obtained from the Chinese side that the Administration gave a briefing to this Council. This showed that the Administration lacked the sincerity to communicate with this Council. Moreover, according to the legislative programme of the Government, it is intended that the legislative process in respect of the Bill be completed by the end of May; however, the Bill was first tabled for this Council’s scrutiny as late as 20 March, in total disregard of the fact that this Council would not have sufficient time to scrutinize such an important piece of legislation. Behind this cosmetic posturing and sleight of hand was the Government’s contempt for the opinions of this Council.
While going back on its own undertakings, the Government did not even listen to our opinions and requests. The provisions in and the spirit of the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Bill follow exactly those of the Western Harbour Crossing Ordinance. I believe that the Government has provided guidance to the consortia as to the direction in which to proceed when they submitted their tenders. This is in total disregard of the opinions of the Legislative Council. The Democratic Party has to voice strong discontent in this respect.
In fact, the existing Legislative Council has a sound public opinion base while the next Legislative Council will be fully elected and its foundation of public opinion base will even be beyond doubt. This “toll adjustment mechanism” conferred upon the consortia by the Government is not subject to Legislative Council monitoring and approval. Insofar as the revenue of the franchisee does not exceed the maximum estimated revenue within a specified time span, it can effect toll increases on the specified dates. That mechanism of toll increase will be maintained for a period of 30 years. The Legislative Council is not required to participate at all. That will mean not only depriving the Legislative Council of its power in monitoring the operation of public utilities, it will also imply that the Government will, for the sake of protecting the interests of the consortia, put commercial interests above public interests. The practice of the Government obviously goes against the democratic and open development trend of this Council. The Government pays no heed when the public tries to make known its aspirations through the Legislative Council. The Democratic Party holds that this is totally unacceptable.
3930 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Some people are worried that the investment risks will be greatly increased with the participation of the Legislative Council, then no consortium will invest and no bank will be offering loans. The Democratic Party finds this view or argument absolutely absurd. First of all, in many democratic countries, such as the United States, France, and so on, the operation of their public utilities is monitored by either a legislature formed through democratic elections or by independent boards or councils with public representatives on them. If the private sector is not willing to invest in anything that the Legislative Council can play a part in, does it mean that all investment will go to countries with no democracy? The fact shows that the contrary is the case. The investors attach importance to a stable and predictable investment environment, not one where the Legislative Council cannot play a part. The Legislative Council is not irrational. We will raise no objection if the franchisee operates under healthy conditions, renders good services and targets for a reasonable rate of return. However, if the operation of the consortium is plagued with problems, if huge loss is thus incurred due to operational or personnel problems and toll increase need to be effected to make up for the loss, then this Council will of course be duty-bound to see who should shoulder the responsibility. The argument that banks would not be willing to offer loans if this Council were to particiapte is also far from convincing. At present, the fare increases of a number of public utilities are subject to Legislative Counicl approval, for example, the Eastern Harbour Crossing, the Cross Harbour Tunnel, the Tate’s Cairn Tunnel, the Star Ferry, the Yaumatei Ferry and so on. Yet they can successfully apply for loan from banks for the purpose of investment. I therefore cannot see any difficulty in obtaining bank loan for Route 3 (Country Park Section). I believe that the consortium is only making use of the possible refusal of loan applications as a pretext. If the argument advanced by the Government or the consortium is correct and valid, does it imply that all projects of similar nature will have to have a “toll adjustment mechanism” in order to attract tenderers?
In fact, during the discussion, we have been under tremendous pressure from various quarters. We are warned that if our amendments are carried, there will be no Route 3. I do not share this view because, as a matter of fact, we have all along been requesting the Government to fully fund the construction of Route 3. In fact, Route 3 includes not only the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road, but also the Ting Kau Bridge section. The Government ultimately will have to allocate $4 billion to construct part of Ting Kau Bridge. Only an additional $7 billion would need to be allocated if the Government were to fund the construction of the entire Route 3. This approach would, on the one hand, benefit the public in terms of the toll level while, on the other hand, bring benefits to the Government in the form of stable revenue. Therefore, I totally disagree that without the participation of the consortium, there will be no Route 3.
Mr President, leaving aside issues such as the powers of the Legislative Council and the difficulty involved in obtaining loan, the toll adjustment mechanism is absolutely not suitable for Route 3. First of all, the triggering of the mechanism depends on whether the revenue at that time is within the range between the maximum and minimum estimated revenue. The determination of the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3931
estimated revenue is based on the forecast of the volume of traffic flow and the mix of vehicles using the Route. I have made a detailed study of the two forecasts and I have great reservations about their accuracy.
First of all, cross-border traffic between China and Hong Kong is becoming busier and Route 3 is linked to Lok Ma Chau; therefore, the main users of Route 3 will be container trucks and lorries. The number of container trucks will increase significantly after the introduction of 24-hour clearing service at the Lok Ma Chau border crossing point. However, the consortium estimates that the mix of vehicles using the Route will remain unchanged after 2009. This is certainly overlooking the fact that the increase in the volume of cross-border traffic between China and Hong Kong will result in a large number of container trucks and lorries using Route 3. According to the existing toll structure, the toll for container trucks doubles or triples the toll for private cars. If the consortium has made an excessively conservative estimation of the number of container trucks using the Route, the consortium may have to effect three toll increases unnecessarily.
Apart from this, the consortium has failed to take into full account the development of the traffic network in New Territories West in the next 30 years. The Government announced last year that the Northwest New Territories Railway will be completed by 2001, but the consortium estimates that the Northwest NT Railway will not be operational until as late as 2006. There is a lapse of five years between the Government’s announced completion date and the consortium’s estimation. The construction of the Shenzhen West Expressway and the Ling Ding Bridge has been put on the discussion agenda and some suggest that they be linked up with Route 3. However, the consortium concerned has failed to consider the possible effects these important trunk road projects will have on Route 3. I have to admit that the construction plans for these trunk roads have not be finalized and the consortium will therefore certainly have difficulty formulating an accurate forecast. It is impractical that the Government requires Members of this Council to pass, in one go, a piece of legislation which contains the specified maximum and minimum revenue, the rate and number of toll increases and the number of years between toll increases, while all those provisions are based on potentially inaccurate forecast.
I will move amendments to the Bill on behalf of the Democratic Party to the effect that the Legislative Council will be given the power to scrutinize the application for toll increase for the future Route 3. Moreover, I will move another amendment in the hope of enhancing the transparency and representativeness of the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Appoach Road Toll Stability Fund Management Committee.
At present, all three members in the Management Committee are government officials. The main function of the Management Committee is to use the Fund to defer toll increases so as to stabilize the toll level. The existing Bill only specifies the source of the Fund while the way the Fund is to be used is left totally in the hands of the Management Committee. Notwithstanding that the Fund is to be used in full compliance with the provisions, the Management Committee
3932 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
may still exercise its discretion as to whether the Fund will be used to stabilize the toll. We must understand that upon the expiry of the franchise, the money left in the Fund will be transferred to the public coffers. If the relevant government officials allow the consortium to keep on introducing toll increases, thus letting the Fund snowball until the money in the Fund has to be transferred to the Treasury, that will certainly boost government revenue. And the users of Route 3 will have to keep paying higher toll which goes against the principle of equity. Therefore, I request that the Legislative Council and the public should also play a part in the Management Committee, so as to ensure the best utilization of the Fund.
Some may think that the possibility of “black box operation” is eliminated since the Bill has provided that the Management Committee has to table its Statement of Accounts to the Legislative Council every year. Although it has been stipulated that the Statement of Accounts of the Fund has to be tabled to the Legislative Council, the Council is not given the authority to make decisions on the use of the Fund. Moreover, our worries are not allayed because the Government may refuse to listen to or accept the opinions of the Legislative Council. With the inclusion of non-official members into the Committee, the transparency of the Committee can be greatly enhanced and this will be in line with the trend of a more democratic and open society. In fact, there is nothing special in this arrangement because the involvement of non-official members in the Emergency Relief Fund Committee is already a precedent. Two have been elected from among Legislative Councillors to join the Emergency Relief Fund Committee. So, my amendment cannot be said to be setting a precedent. In fact, the setting up of a committee comprising entirely of official members is totally unnecessary. We believe that our proposal of abolishing the membership of the Secretary for Transport and the Director of Accounting Services in the Committee will not hamper the operation of the Committee since the Secretary for Transport and the Director of Accounting Services may continue to attend the meetings of the Committee so as to submit information and to take part in the discussion. What they will lose is only the right to vote in the Committee. Therefore, this will certainly not jeopardize the operation of the Management Committee.
Mr President, taking into account the great impact Route 3 will have on the traffic in the New Territories, the importance of this public facility and the franchise’s life span of 30 years, the Legislative Council is duty-bound to take up the monitoring responsibility to balance the interests of different social sectors, no matter whether we look at the issue from the angle of protecting the interests of the users or enhancing the development of the transport network. The Legislative Council cannot shirk its responsibility in this regard.
Mr President, last but not least, I must emphasize that the amendments moved by the Democratic Party only aim at ensuring that the Bill will enable the future Route 3 to provide services that are in line with the public interest. We have no intention of shelving Route 3. The Democratic Party must make this point very clear in the hope that my colleagues and the government officials will no longer threaten us that, once our amendments are carried, there will be no Route 3. In fact, I do not need to go to great lengths to explain the importance of Route
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3933
3 because no one in this Council is unaware of it. However, shall we accept a public transport network which has a toll adjustment mechanism that goes against the principle of protecting the public interest? If we accept that without reservations, does it mean that this unreasonable mechanism will have to be put in place for all similar projects? I do hope that my colleagues can give full consideration to this issue. I will move two amendments at a later stage.
Thank you, Mr President.
MRS ELSIE TU: Mr President, I am sure that every Member of this Council agrees that this tunnel is necessary for the benefit of those who live and work in the New Territories.
I am convinced that this rather large Bills Committee worked hard to reach the best possible terms from the Company now being considered for the award of the franchise. The Committee has made sure that there will be transparency and that the Company’s performance and any future toll rises will be monitored by this Council.
Of the 17 members of the Bills Committee, and I was not a member, we are told that a minority of only two wish to amend the Bill so that toll increases in future will be under Legislative Council and public control. I hardly need to remind those who are putting forward the amendments of the meaning of “franchise”, that is, the freedom of a company to operate in its own way. Because of the freedom granted to the Company, it is necessary for the Government to lay down strict conditions under which the franchise can operate. It is the duty of this Council to scrutinize those terms and see what improvements can be made and how the public interest can be safeguarded. Once these terms have been accepted, the Company must be free to operate its business. The role of the Legislative Council is then to monitor the efficiency of the Company and to make sure that it operates within the terms of the franchise.
Those who propose this amendment are fully aware that if the amendment is carried it will scupper the project because the banks refuse to lend money for a project that is under the unpredictable decisions to be made by a body like the Legislative Council which may change its membership every four years, which may not have business expertise, and which is likely to be influenced by vote-catching rather than sound financial principles.
What the amendments do is virtually to change a private enterprise into a government-controlled enterprise. The two systems, capitalist and socialist, cannot operate at one and the same time. History has proved that governments are not particularly good at running business ventures; they usually end up by being more costly and less efficient.
3934 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
The proposer of the amendment has done a great deal to try to improve transport facilities in the New Territories. It would be ironical if he were to scupper this project, or even delay it indefinitely, which is most likely to be the case if the amendments succeed.
Mr President, this Council needs to be watchful, but not obstructive or destructive. The proposed amendments may be politically profitable, but in the long run will bring no improvement to transport in the New Territories about which we are all deeply concerned.
MR STEVEN POON (in Cantonese): Mr President, the purpose of investing is to make profits. Whether an investment project is designed to be profiteering depends on the amount of money made. I do not understand why the Honourable WONG Wai-yin said the investment in Route 3 is meant to reap colossal profits. Any amount borrowed has to be repaid. Banks will only lend money to borrowers when they are sure the borrowers are capable of making repayments. Route 3 is a big project, involving several billions of dollars but, to illustrate, let us use the example of borrowing money for the purchase of a flat: If in negotiating for a loan I were to tell the bank that, after borrowing, my repayments would require prior approval from the Legislative Council. I believe the bank would find the arrangement difficult to understand and would not approve the loan. It is too bad that Dr David LI, Mr Vincent CHENG and Miss Christine LOH have stepped out of this Chamber and cannot give a response. Maybe the most well-off Members can. What I mean is that borrowing from a bank is possible, but if repayments in future require approval from the Legislative Council, I believe the requirement would make it difficult to find a lender.
Mr WONG Wai-yin also said there do exist provisions for some public utilities to the effect that Legislative Council approval is required for fare increases. His examples include companies running the Eastern Harbour Crossing, the Cross Harbour Tunnel, the Tate’s Cairn Tunnel, the Star Ferry, and the Hong Kong and Yaumati Ferry. These may not be appropriate examples to cite after all. At the time, the Legislative Council was not as politicized as it is now. All the Administration needed to do was demand a show of hands in the Council. At that time 1997 was not an issue. There were not so many doubts then, and people were not worried about the way Legislative Councillors would be elected. Having said that, however, we do have examples of public utilities whose fare increases do not require approval from this Council: Towngas, the two bus companies in town, the two electric companies and Hong Kong Telephone. So, depending on the merits of each case, we have examples for each category. Under the existing conditions in Hong Kong, the subjective desire of asking banks to approve loans to institutions whose repayments require Legislative Council approval will be impossible to realize. Mr WONG Wai-yin said Legislative Councillors are rational and I am sure he is too because I have been working with him for several years. We are not sure whether future Legislative Councillors are. The consortium is even less sure. I
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3935
believe investors want to dispense with the requirement of Legislative Council approval in respect of fare increases by prospective borrowers because they are worried that borrowers may not be able to repay in future.
The issue lies not in the Legislative Council not giving approval or having no power to do so. On the contrary, the Legislative Council may exercise its power to give approval at this very moment. The present position is something like this: If two parties enter into a contract, and the investors, being one of the parties, produce a contract and say they will sign it if the other party agrees to the terms of the contract, in which case the other party shall act according to the terms of the contract. The investors are not saying the other party is entitled to change the terms of the contract. Now, if applications for fare increases have to go through the Legislative Council, that means the Legislative Council is empowered to stop fare increases, meaning that the contract entered into with the investors may be unilaterally changed by the Legislative Council. We must understand that this situation runs counter to the original intention of the signing of the contract.
Mr WONG Wai-yin questioned the necessity for the establishment of a fare increase mechanism for public utilities in future. I believe that many investors will have the worries I mentioned just now insofar as legislative and executive functions remain two separate systems and it is unlikely that the executive will influence the legislature, which, as things stand, is a direction along which the Legislative Council is developing. Once investors develop such worries, what should we do? Should the Administration shoulder the responsibility of completing the project, as Mr WONG Wai-yin says? I dread the need for the Administration to do so. Is Hong Kong changing from a capitalist society to a socialist one? Must a project like this one be nationalized now? Why should Hong Kong nationalize a project that can be operated by a commercial organization while the whole world is going for privatization - the United Kingdom, the United States, Communist Vietnam, and China, who even privatizes state-owned assets for listing purposes? I do not understand. Is this communism? What is this Council doing now? I do not understand.
Mr WONG Wai-yin talked a lot about traffic flow estimates. I wrote about the same topic in my article that appeared on Ming Pao Daily News. Traffic flow estimates are an academic issue not related to practical problems. No matter what the estimates are, and what the results are after deductions and additions, everything has to be within the boundaries defined in the so-called internal rate of return (IRP), whose lower limit is 13.70% and upper limit is 17.08%. The base figure is 15.18%. Since everything is subject to the IRR, it is meaningless to have extended and heated debates over the issue of traffic flow estimates.
3936 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
What worries us is that banks will not bankroll the project if Legislative Council approval for future fare increases is required. Nothing can be done without bank financing. The completion of the Western Harbour Crossing may be delayed for several months or even several years. Route 3 may be delayed for several years. I wonder whether Mr WONG Wai-yin would then be entering as a candidate for election in the same district and how he would explain the delay to his voters. Preparatory work for Route 3 has taken a lot of time and everything would vanish if Mr WONG Wai-yin raises objection. If I were Mr WONG, I would not dare to enter as an election candidate there. I hope Mr WONG Wai-yin may either re-consider his position or deal with the matter in a more reasonable manner.
Another issue that arises is related to the so-called Toll Stability Fund Management Committee (the Committee). Indeed, Mr WONG Wai-yin is well aware of the fact that the issue was one that I raised in a panel discussion. I raised the matter hoping that the Administration could consider whether or not members of the public should be allowed to join the Committee. We were given a lot of feedback from the Administration. My understanding of the feedback is that the only purpose of the fund is to stabilize tolls. The fund may not be used for charity or to finance the consortium. Its sole purpose is clearly defined by law. Furthermore, the law requires that the fund be plated with the exchange fund, which shall invest as it deems fit. So, there is little left for the Committee to do. The committee may be regarded as a “paper committee”. No meetings are required and its account is made public. Supervision is not an issue. Even the Financial Secretary cannot divert the money in the fund to somewhere else. If the Financial Secretary wants to transfer money out of the fund, he must undertake to transfer it back from the Treasury and the fund will not diminish. After hearing such feedback, I form the opinion that having members of the public on the Committee would not enhance supervision. Both the Liberal Party and I think that if public supervision on the Committee is required, we should appoint as members of the Committee those members of the public who can contribute to the Committee rather than having Legislative Councillors appointed automatically to the Committee. This is a principle about which we hold totally different opinions from the Democratic Party.
What the Democratic Party or Mr WONG Wai-yin is saying is that a Legislative Councillor must be appointed to the Committee. I feel this idea is exactly the opposite of what we think. A Legislative Councillor is elected to take up legislation work rather than take part in the work of any committee. Whether the Administration appoints someone to a certain committee depends on whether that someone can contribute to the committee. We therefore do not think that the law should clearly state that someone is automatically entitled or qualified to be appointed to the Committee simply by virture of his or her being a Legislative Councillor.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3937
Mr President, the debate on this matter has dragged on for too long. I agree with what Mrs Elsie TU says, which is that we should start the construction of Route 3 as soon as possible. Indeed, it is one of the ten projects linked to the new airport. Without it, a sizeable portion of communications or traffic with China would be hindered. Without it, traffic congestion in northwest New Territories will continue to exist. We have been discussing time and again traffic congestion there, but I feel that further debates on side issues such as those I mentioned a few moments ago are meaningless. I hope Members from the Democratic Party can withdraw their amendment.
Thank you, Mr President.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, before I deliver my prepared speech, I would like to respond to a few points. First, Mr Steven POON thinks that the amendments proposed by Mr WONG Wai-yin are indicative of nationalization and a communist way of handling things. I was not in the stream of social science, but to my understanding, nationalization means that assets or enterprises are developed largely by national capital with the State taking the lead in the operation. The amendments that Mr WONG Wai-yin will be moving merely concern the way the toll of a tunnel will be adjusted in future. There are two reasons for a person equating the way toll is adjusted with nationalization or communism. One is that he is an idiot who is ignorant of everything. The other is that in so doing he is trying to “put labels” on other people. If there is any Member of the Legislative Council who does not know what nationalization or communism actually means, I shall be pleased to lend him a book on Marxism and Leninism. If he still fails to understand it, I would advise that Member to take up extra-mural courses organized by the University of Hong Kong or other tertiary institutions on the basic concepts of social science.
Secondly, does it mean that no one will make investment if toll adjustment is to be subject to the deliberation and approval of the Legislative Council? This is a question which we debated two years ago. The logic that Mr POON based his argument on assumed that no one would make investment in Hong Kong should there be a Legislative Council born of a democratic political system and a directly-elected Chief Executive because these people will expend all their efforts to entice support from voters in order to secure a directly-elected seat. That is to say, Hong Kong will not be able to function if we have a Legislative Council fully elected by direct election and a directly-elected Chief Executive. I think this is a kind of alarmist talk and shows a lack of common sense. Let us take a look at many other countries or places in the world. To name a few, the United States, Canada, Britain and even Taiwan. Which one of them does not have the popular election system? If the induction derived from that logic is tenable, would it not mean that all of these places are plagued by depression in all sectors, little investment, full unemployment, crumbled economy and a chaotic state of conditions in the country? Can Members tell us which of the places with a directly-elected legislature has those features mentioned above?
3938 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Mr President, we can have a diversity of opinions on this matter but “putting labels” on other people is not the rule.
Mr President, at the initial stage of the tendering exercise, guidelines had been issued to leading consortiums by the Government. In addition to giving a brief introduction of the “build, operate and transfer” (BOT) arrangements for Route 3 (Country Park Section), the guidelines also indicated that consortiums can draw on the arrangements set out in the Western Harbour Crossing Ordinance. Yet, when the Western Harbour Crossing Bill was tabled at the Legislative Council for deliberation, fierce contention had been aroused in the Legislative Council over the issues of automatic toll increase mechanism, internal rate of return and so on. Members criticized vigorously that the Legislative Council was being divested of its rights and stated that the automatic toll increase mechanism was unacceptable. Now that the Government is leading the consortia to institute an automatic toll increase mechanism, I would like to ask the Government whether it has listened to the opinions of the Legislative Council and whether it has taken into account the interests of the general public. Is it that the Government intended to free toll increase from any sort of control in order to protect the interests of the consortium which had been contracted to build the Western Harbour Crossing and, for this reason, the Government is going to stick to the automatic toll increase mechanism for the Route 3 (Country Park Section) project that follows? I also hope that the Secretary for Transport will clarify later on whether the automatic toll increase mechanism will be included in contracting out BOT projects in future and whether all the projects taken up by the private sector will not be monitored by the Legislative Council in future.
The Government kept stressing that this Bill would not bypass the Legislative Council because all the mechanisms proposed in the Bill would be subject to the approval of the Legislative Council before coming into effect. Yet, the Government stood firm later and asked the Legislative Council to approve the Bill without making any changes to it. The Government added that if amendments were to be made, the consortium would withdraw and the Government would have to carry out another tendering exercise again. In the event of any delay in the project, the Government would hold the Legislative Council responsible. However, I must emphasize that from our debate on the Western Harbour Crossing Bill in 1993 to this Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Bill that we are dealing with now, the Democratic Party has time and again drawn the Government’s attention to the fact that the automatic toll increase mechanism is impracticable and unacceptable. Has the Government listened to this appeal made by the community?
The Government has repeatedly stated that the monitoring mechanism contained in the Bill is adequate and that the result of the tendering exercise which was contested by three consortiums is the best in the public interest. This includes a mere three toll increases and the average internal rate of return will be lower than that anticipated by the Government as well as that of BOT projects in neighbouring regions. Such being the case, the interests of all
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3939
sectors can be safeguarded. I think the Government has misled members of the public in saying so. The fact that the internal rate of return is lowered as there were three consortia bidding for the project is an improvement, but only a slight one. While there were three consortiums competing for the project, the rate of return is just around 1% less than that of the Western Harbour Crossing. Is this to be taken as the best result in the public interest? Perhaps the Government simply decided in favour of the one which made the lowest bid among the three, thinking that this could be taken as a justification with which the Legislative Council and the community would be satisfied.
In fact, Route 3 possesses an even greater potential for development than that of the Western Harbour Crossing. As Route 3 is a trunk route on land, its anticipated profit from the development of real estate will be promising enough to make up for a low rate of return for any kind of investment. Let me cite some examples to illustrate this point. The rate of return of many public transport facilities in the territory is very low. However, the actual benefits that the consortium will gain from their investment in public transport facilities do not come from the facilities themselves, but the development of real estate. The internal rate of return of the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRC) is 10% but the proceeds gained from property development have constituted a considerable non-recurrent income of the MTRC and indirectly assisted the MTRC in the development of Tsuen Wan line, Kwun Tong line, Island line and even the New Airport line. Kowloon Motor Bus Company Limited gained $1.7 billion solely from the sale of land last year. The ferry service provided by the Hong Kong Ferry (Holdings) Company Limited has not been very profitable in the past few years and the ferry company has even suffered losses. However, the ferry company has indicated that if the Government allowed it to build properties above its pier in Central, they would immediately make improvements in the ferry service and buy new ferries. These are investments and these consortiums are merchants. The Hong Kong Ferry (Holdings) Company Limited is willing to invest despite the rate of return being so low because what it is interested in is not the transport services, but the high rate of return in the development of real estate. Let us get back to the Country Park Section of Route 3. The consortium which successfully bidded for the project is Sun Hung Kai Properties Limited and group. Everyone knows that in recent years Sun Hung Kai Properties Limited has acquired plenty of farmland along Route 3 or other trunk routes in its vicinity. The profit generated from the development of properties along these routes will be very assuring upon the completion of Route 3. Under such circumstances, the low rate of return of the Route 3 project does not have any impact on the financial condition of the consortium because the consortium is not really keen on Route 3. Having successfully bidded for the project, the consortium only has it in mind to finish this route speedily and then proceed to the development of real estate in northwest New Territories.
3940 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Route 3 is vitally important to residents of the New Territories and container truck drivers because it will become the trunk road that they rely on to travel between northwest New Territories and the urban areas. However, has the Government made the best of its efforts to fight for a deal which can safeguard the long-term interest of members of the public in a better way? The answer is no. Mr President, Mr WONG Wai-yin has submitted his amendments. His purpose is very simple. That is, he did so for the sake of public interest, enabling members of the public to be more fairly treated when travelling Route 3 (Country Park Section) as regular and long-term users. If Members of the Legislative Council unite and take the same side, I believe there will be greater concession on the part of the consortium.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would state my stance before explaining the rationale behind it. I would vote against the amendment to clause 45 of this Bill to be moved by Mr WONG Wai-yin and I would also say “no” to the original Bill.
Actually, I agree that the Legislative Council has the power to monitor the rate of toll increase proposed by the public utility companies. The amendment to be moved by Mr WONG Wai-yin this time only serves to add a power of veto by the Legislative Council to the existing mechanism of toll increase recognized by the Government. That is to say, even if the Legislative Council has the power to negative the rate of toll increase proposed by the Route 3 (CPS) Company in the future, it would still have no dissenting power with regard to toll increase mechanism of the consortium. This kind of monitoring is like supervision with a cage. Within this framework, you can say “no”, otherwise you will have to say “yes” because it has been made clear that there will be no further amendments. That does not give sufficient protection to the people of Hong Kong, especially in terms of consumer rights.
I think the monitoring of the public utility companies should go beyond the surface of a power of vote; a distinction should be drawn to differentiate whether the toll increase mechanism is beneficial to the public or whether it is even more beneficial to the consortium. If the actual profits of the franchised companies have not reached the lowest level of estimated net profits for a certain year, they can raise the toll to a rate even higher than that of inflation. I think that is in fact a mechanism to safeguard the profits of franchised companies. Even if the Legislative Council then had the power to scrutinize the applications for toll increase, it could either say “yes” or “no” because our hands would be tied and our choices would be limited. Therefore, that is in fact a mechanism to protect the consortium’s interests. The Legislative Council would not have the power to make any amendment in the future and the rate of toll increase could be made higher than that of inflation to safeguard the profits of the consortium. I therefore think that another mechanism would be more suitable to our consumers.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3941
Take the formula CPI - X, that is, the Consumer Price Index minus a certain number, as an example. When the profit margin of he franchised consortium fall short of a certain percentage, it can ask for a toll increase the rate of which will be the Consumer Price Index minus a certain number. Suppose the current Consumer Price Index is 9.6 and X is 2 or 3, the rate of increase will be 7.6 or 6.6. In this way, while franchise companies will be allowed to increase their toll when their profit margin reached a certain level, consumer’s rights can also be protected. We think that only mechanisms like this should be considered.
Such a mechanism will not stop the consortium from making money. Having a rate of toll increase lower than that of inflation does not necessarily mean that greater profits cannot be made. This mechanism alone does not protect consumers. If the consortium can improve on its management, techniques and staffing, profits will rise despite the fact that the rate of toll increase is lower than that of inflation. Besides, my proposal has not set a ceiling for profit margin and so the margin could be higher than 15% or it could reach 17%, 20% or even 30%. Hence, I think that Mr WONG Wai-yin’s motion goes for outward appearance at the expense of the soul. Therefore, I cannot support it.
The debate about this Bill is another version of the Western Harbour Crossing incident. By using the same tactics, the consortium is forcing the Legislative Council into a corner with this mechanism. There is no difference. Besides, the Government has also agreed to the use of this kind of tactics. Now, there are only two options open to Members: let the Bill be carried or to suffer the consequences of the withdrawal of the consortium. Considering this kind of tactics and the fact that I do not agree to the toll increase mechanism proposed by the Government, I will also vote against the original Bill.
I would support the second amendment to be moved by Mr WONG Wai-yin to clause 32. The amendment seeks to introduce a Member of the Legislative Council and a Hong Kong permanent resident into the Committee because that would increase the transparency of the public utility companies. Some Members and staff of the Transport Branch have spoken to me about this amendment and they said the introduction of these two kinds of people would politicize the Committee. That is the point Mr Steven POON has raised earlier. I totally support what Mr LEE Wing-tat has said. People who said these things are ignorant; they are trying to escape from the reality that the constitutional system of Hong Kong is undergoing a democratization process.
Elected Members are themselves a matter of politics. Where there are Members, there are political activities. That is a matter of fact. If there should be no Members, if things should not be politicized, then theoretically, Members should not be involved in any advisory board and committee of the Government at all, otherwise, these committees will become politicized. Besides, no Member should become a member of the Board of Directors of statutory bodies or committees, otherwise these boards and committees would become an area of
3942 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
political battles. However, that has not been the approach adopted by the Government. The Government often appoints appointed or elected members of the district boards, the Urban Council and the Legislative Council as members of various advisory boards and committees which have policy-making powers, for example, the Housing Authority, the Town Planning Board and so on. If the Government has appointed Members to sit on these boards and committees, why can it not do the same with regard to this particular committee?
Besides, the Government is now vigorously implementing a representative system, encouraging the public to elect their Members so that they can make future policies for and on behalf of the people. Theoretically, the power of the elector could follow this line into the policy-making bodies. If Members should not be involved in all the policy-making bodies, the pronouncements of the Government would become lies and that would also mean that the Government was not willing to implement a representative system.
Even if no Member were allowed to sit on these committees, does it mean that these committees will not be politicized? Politics is public affairs; where there is public affairs, there is politics. I do not think that if there were no Members on the committees, the committees would not be politicized. It would only result in a politicized situation which is not transparent. We would not be able to see the politicized situation within the committee nor perhaps the economic and self interests which would also come into play. Therefore, we should not object to the introduction of a Legislative Council Member and a member of the public into the committee so that they can monitor the company from the points of view of consumers and the legislature.
In September this year, all members of the three-tiered boards and councils will be elected. After 1997, the Chief Executive will not be appointed and perhaps, one day, we would even have a directly-elected Chief Executive. In that case, if Hong Kong is to be left in the hands of an elected Chief Executive, why can this committee not consist of a Legislative Council Member elected from among the councillors themselves? If people are scared, are they scared of election or are they scared of democracy? I hope those who object to the proposition can clarify this point.
I support the amendment to clause 32 to be moved by Mr WONG Wai-yin.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): I would like to respond to the Honourable LEE Wing-tat with regard to the way he labelled the Liberal Party moments ago. As a matter of fact, when it comes to sticking labels, the Democratic Party is second to none in this Council. As regards the so-called label-sticking that Mr LEE said the Honourable Steven POON had resorted to, in fact it was not so much sticking label as telling the truth. Hong Kong is a capitalistic society. Capitalism is built upon freedom of investment, and freedom of investment is built upon stable profits and stable business. If these two things are not stable,
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3943
the desire to invest will greatly diminish. As a matter of fact, in the present, the consortia concerned have made it clear to the Bills Committee that they will not accept any mechanism whereby toll rise will be determined by the Legislative Council.
Such being the case, if the consortia were unwilling to take up the project of Route 3 which had to go ahead, the only choice left would be to have the Government take up the project, and government commitment would mean state enterprise. Any left-tilted government or left-tilted political party would ask the government to take up various social responsibilities, and in the end its social and economic responsibilities would snowball. Nationalizing industry and commerce and putting them under state ownership is precisely what leftist political parties are after. Therefore, when Mr POON pointed out this fact it was not exaggeration at all.
The Honourable WONG Wai-yin said, not only this time, but also during the debate on the Western Harbour Crossing Bill, that “if the consortia won’t do it, the Government can do it”. If whatever the consortia refuse to take up is taken up by the Government, then everything will have to be taken up by the Government, so that every single project will be built and run by the Government. In fact, there is nothing the private sector cannot commit itself into. I believe that an essentially capitalistic society must acknowledge one thing, and that is: we hope the Government will work with the private sector and let private enterprises have reasonable profit by way of returns as far as is practicable. Not to put too a fine a point on it, nobody is interested in business with no returns. Investors have freedom of investment. If they profiteer, they will certainly be censured, or, when choices are available, they will not be given business. Insofar as free market is concerned, we must acknowledge that there should be other choices, and that the public is free to express themselves. That is why we have to protect freedom of expression.
Where membership of the committee is concerned, I believe Mr POON’s remark is being distorted, for Mr POON did not say no Member of the Legislative Council should join the committee. He merely said no one should be made a member of the committee simply because they were Legislative Councillor. Of course, if a Legislative Councillor, apart from being a public representative, is also equipped with certain specialized knowledge and are able to usefully contribute to the committee’s deliberations, that is, if the Member has both of these qualities, it would certainly be ideal. However, there should not be rigid provision that one be made a member of the committee by virtue of being a Legislative Councillor in spite of the fact that one is incapable of understanding what is going on there. This will only hamper the operation of the committee.
Mr President, I think there is a need to clarify the matter so as to set the record straight.
3944 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Hong Kong has a very good tradition, that is, there are a lot of investors and private organizations investing profusely in public utilities. This spares the Government from spending public money. As we can see, the electricity company, telephone company and container terminals in Hong Kong are all operated by way of private investment. They are subject to varying degrees of profit or price control. The consequences of such kind of investment are: apart from sparing us the need to spend public money, I believe that no one will criticize the electricity supply of Hong Kong as being not as good as that of neighbouring countries in terms of efficiency or charging; the telephone services, whether ordinary or mobile, are equally advanced; and even in terms of container terminals, Hong Kong at present is the largest container port in the world. The Government so far has never invested in any container terminal. All the terminals are being invested and operated by private consortia. I think that we have to realize that this is a feature of Hong Kong and is a good feature worth maintaining.
I remember when the Chinese and the British Governments were negotiating over the future of Hong Kong in the 1980s, the confidence of the Hong Kong people had plunged to the lowest point, and many people were afraid that the investors would leave Hong Kong in the future. If the investors really leave Hong Kong, what will the future of Hong Kong be? On the other hand, China has promised to practise one country, two systems in Hong Kong and to maintain capitalism here. What China means is to maintain the environment for investment in Hong Kong. I recalled that when we were discussing the Western Harbour Crossing Bill, someone said, “where there is the Legislative Council, there will be no investor.” I do not know whether this comment has subsequently been researched to find out if it is true. But I also remember that when this subject was under debate in the Legislative Council, it was claimed by an Honourable Member that when all the seats in the Legislative Council were to become elected in 1995 and when the democratic voices became loud and strong, they would stage a comeback. Of course, I am not an investor. But I think that if there was any investor sitting in the public gallery and listening to this remark, he would consider packing his luggage and leaving before 1995. There are rules and regulations in investment. And the investors would like to know what these rules and regulations are. If they have to watch to find out what the whims of politicians are before deciding whether to increase the charges or not when actually these politicians are to be replaced by another batch every four years, how are they supposed to run their businesses? I believe that this will pose a very big problem to the investors.
We have to acknowledge that when the Legislative Council is getting more democratic, it is also becoming more politicized. And this is inevitable. Some Legislative Councillors always say that they speak on behalf of the taxpayers, and that if the investors do not invest in public utilities, public money can be spent for that purpose. It sounds so generous. But I would like to point out that a large proportion of the voters in Hong Kong do not have to pay tax. How can these Members say that they are elected by taxpayers? They can only say that they are representatives of the voters. What a contradiction indeed. In my
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3945
opinion, that legislature in Hong Kong is different from other western legislatures. According to my observation, the situation of Hong Kong is different from many other countries which have long history of democratic development, and Britain is one of the examples. In Britain, the Members of Parliament can really say that not only do they represent the voters, but they also represent the taxpayers. It is because most of the voters in British have to pay tax, and they have to pay a lot. I therefore deem that we have to recognize a fact, that is, in the present situation, if we do not encourage the investors to invest in public utilities but, instead, we impose various restrictions on them so as to suppress their investment desire and even propose to replace their investment with public money, this will definitely prove unsuitable to the practical environment of Hong Kong.
Mr LEE Wing-tat just mentioned that Mr Steven POON was “tagging labels on others”. I think that Mr LEE might not have heard clearly what was said by Mr Steven POON or Mr LEE might be only taking a statement not of context and thus “tagging a label back” on Mr POON. I do not think the proposed monitoring of the toll adjustment mechanism by the Legislative Council is tantamount to nationalization, communism or socialism. But as regards the proposal that the project be financed by public money if no private consortium is willing to commit itself to it, would that not be a form of socialism? It may not be similar to the old form of socialism practised in the Soviet Union and China, but at least it is the European style of socialism. The Labour Party of Britain also acknowledges that it is a leftist political party practising a certain kind of socialism. But recently, even this party has given up attaining the goal of nationalization of enterprises. Hence, I think that it is unrealistic for Hong Kong to put this into practice.
Quite a number of Members have just mentioned about investors. I believe that we do not have the actual experience of getting bank loans in the capacity of investors. But there is a kind of experience which many Hong Kong people, including many Honourable Members here, should have, and that is purchasing property. It is learnt that nearly one million Hong Kong people are flat-owners. Most of these people have to obtain bank loans in order to purchase property. When a person signs the contract with a bank, he cannot say that every time before he pays the instalment, a family meeting will have to be held in order to decide, through democratic voting, whether the bank can increase the amount of monthly instalment. It is impossible. If one wants to obtain a loan, one has to prove to the bank what kind of return and protection it is going to get. This is the rule of the game in reality. If the bank refuses to grant any loan, nothing can be done. This applies to the Route 3 Project, the Western Harbour Crossing Project and home purchase as well. The bank can adjust the interest rate at any time. If one does not agree with that arrangement, one will not get the loan. If it as simple as that.
3946 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
Finally, I would like to respond to a point. I do not know if the consortium, which has been successful in tendering for the project, has purchased many pieces of land in the vicinity of the project site. It is because when the Committee asked the representative for the consortium how much land it had purchased, he could not answer. But I reckon that since there is a vast stretch of usable land extending from Tai Mo Shan to Yuen Long and since there are at least five major property developers in Hong Kong, if Sun Hung Kai Properties Limited knows where to purchase the prime sites in the related area, I believe the other property developers will not lag behind and may have already purchased a lot of land. Some people may say that since the successful bidder of the Route 3 Project is the Sun Hung Kai Group which is also engaged in real estate business, it can thus afford to accept the less favourable terms and to earn less profits or even negative returns because, after all, it can reap profits from the real estate business. If that is the case, then the consortium being awarded the contract for the Route 3 Project will be forced to become a great philanthropist, benefitting other property developers at the expense of itself. I find this illogical.
As Members all know, the consortium concerned has already clearly stated that should the toll adjustment mechanism be subject to the control of the Legislative Council, it would be unable to obtain bank financing and would not therefore be able to undertake the project. In the circumstances, what should be done? Should public money be used? In fact, I have thought out a third method. If any one is going to undertake the project, just give it to the Democratic Party.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, during the debate on the Western Habour Crossing Bill, I myself gave full support to the interests of the Government and the consortium. But today I am sure I will support the Honourable WONG Wai-yin’s amendment. In principle, his objective and the data he presented are not entirely correct. So why do I still support him? It is because I want the consortium to wake up to reality.
The election which is due in September is very important to the overall political structure of Hong Kong. However, many consortia in Hong Kong are self-serving. Not only are they indifferent to the election, but the rate of registration as voters among them is also very low. The political struggle in Hong Kong is something which Members of the Legislative Council cannot avoid. They have to resort to their own ways in the process. It is understandable that candidates standing for direct election have to seek support at the grassroots level. While consortia have to protect their own interests, what have they done so far? Why do we have to fight for the rights and interests on their behalf? The fact that they do not even bother to register themselves as voters shows that they do not take the election system and the Members seriously indeed. So why do we have to take them seriously then? This time I vote against it because I want to make the business and industrial sector of Hong Kong wake up to reality. If the business and industrial sector really regards the
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3947
elected seats as something important, they ought to show sincerity and do their part. In fact, there are no free lunches, nor are there any volunteers. Very often when people say that there are volunteers helping in the election, they are deceiving themselves as well as others. Volunteers have to eat and drink anyway.
Mr President, economy plays an important part in the future development of our society. There should be communication and trust among various sectors to ensure that Hong Kong remains an economic and financial centre and all the people staying in Hong Kong after 1997 may enjoy a better future. Although I vote in support of Mr WONG today, I know that he is definitely doomed to lose. Therefore, my vote is not going to affect the outcome in any way. As far as the residents in the New Territories are concerned, Route 3 is absolutely important. I personally think and it is undeniable that it must be built. Even if I raise objection, the Government will still proceed with the project. But let us not forget that the consortium has often said that if the Bill is not passed, they will pull out from the project. In my view, we could not care less if they really do. Could Hong Kong’s tomorrow be doomed simply because the consortium refuses to undertake this particular job? I personally think that the Government can fund the whole project and then list it in the stock market. Why not? Alternatively, the Government can float the Mass Transit Railway Corporation in the stock market, using the sum of money to finance the Route 3 project, while retain the control on its operation. Why not? Now in England, many of the state owned enterprises are listed in the stock market by the Government there.
The consortia regard themselves as being extremely important. I am absolutely opposed to that. I think that as we are now living in a progressive and modern society, we have to bear in mind that what is taken from society should be used partially in the interest of society. We should not think ourselves as being extraordinary or perforce right. In fact, people of various sectors have to adapt themselves to the circumstances. I am of the view that it is not entirely unreasonable for the Legislative Council to devise a mechanism to monitor the consortium in matters relating to toll increase. But at the same time, the interests of the consortium should also be protected. I would like to offer a piece of advice to members from various political parties that promising free lunches to electors in return for their votes is absolutely easier than putting forward constructive proposals.
Mr President, while political parties only commit themselves to the well-being of their respective electors, they should take into account that taxes and other revenues collected by the Government mostly come from normal operation and inevitably even as a result of the efforts put in by the consortia in various respects. We do not want to see Hong Kong change from a commercial society built on financial and economic success to a welfare kind of society. I would like to advise certain people from the bottom of my heart that if Hong Kong does well, it can help China achieve greater success in its open policy in future; if Hong Kong does not do well, it will become a burden for China and
3948 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
the standard of living here in Hong Kong will be significantly lowered. Therefore, I hope that the politicians, in addition to their own conditions, will take into account the interests of various investments in Hong Kong in future as well as their reasonable returns.
Mr President, however it may be, I think the business and industrial sector should warn themselves. The election due in September is crucial to the investment climate in Hong Kong as well as the interests of the business and industrial sector in future. The people from the business and industrial sector should make the most of the coming few days before 1 June to register themselves as voters so as to make sure that there will be normal competition for the seats in the Legislative Council, and it will not result in a one sided situation. Otherwise it will be too late to blame others. This is the main motive for me to cast an opposing vote.
Mr President, I so make my submission.
MR ALFRED TSO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I consider that the Route 3 (Country Park Section) Project is an item very much worth investing in. After the open invitation for tender, followed by the selection among the three consortia and some renegotiation, a series of conditions have been arrived at. This series of conditions are tabled here today to be considered by the Legislative Council whether to accept or not so as to allow the consortium to go ahead with the construction of this section of Route 3.
I want to point out that Route 3 will be highly beneficial to the residents and road users. We have to understand that the tolls to be levied in the future, when measured against the road users’ time spent, fuel consumed and maintenance cost incurred for their vehicles, will appear justified in view of the benefits brought on by the completion of Route 3 which will be extremely valuable to both the users and society. Should there be no Route 3, it would be a great disadvantage to the people in the transport business and the residents of the New Territories. Therefore, the construction of Route 3 is very important. The residents of the New Territories, especially those who live in Tuen Mun and Yuen Long, all earnestly hope that the construction can commence as soon as possible. If it is due to today’s dispute that the consortium eventually gives up undertaking the construction of Route 3, it will be very regrettable. I shall loathe to see this happen. I also think that, in the process of selecting the successful tenderer, all investors have been given a reasonable chance to consider whether they would opt to invest in this project. Today, we are to make a choice, that is, whether to start the construction as soon as possible or to run a risk. If today’s dispute leads to a change in the conditions of the franchise and the consortium’s subsequent withdrawal from the project, so that the commissioning of Route 3 is delayed or even the construction mode of Route 3 is thus changed, I shall be loath to see the impacts which the above-mentioned eventualities will have on the community.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3949
I want to point out this again: even though the Democratic Party considers that the monitoring mechanism is not to the benefit of the public, as I have said before, Route 3 will bring great benefits to the users, and so we should not only look at whether the so-called monitoring mechanism is strict enough to prevent the consortium from profiteering. If such mechanism is so important, why did the Democratic Party not, by all possible means, force the Government to introduce this mechanism or a whole series of related conditions as part of the tender invitation deal? In such case, the consortia which tendered for this project would have clearly known that if they could not satisfy these conditions, they would not be awarded the contract for the project. Then, we would have been spared today’s dispute on the monitoring mechanism which may result in a delay to the construction.
Secondly, concerning the suggestion that should the consortium reject the conditions of the franchise the Government may as well undertake the construction itself, this of course will be possible. But if this should be the case, then first, these would certainly be a delay and, secondly, since we had anticipated that we might be faced with such a situation, we ought to have forced the Government to invest $7 billion in the construction of Route 3. Then the construction of the Route could have commenced in 1992 or 1993 and we would not have to be still debating whether to support or whether to pass this Bill today, in May of 1995.
Mr President, I think that it is time for us to make a choice. I personally oppose the Democratic Party’s amendment. I hope that the Bill can be passed immediately so that the construction can commence at once. Let me stress again that the users have the right to choose. If they consider the tolls of Route 3 to the unreasonable, they are free to continue to use the highly congested Tuen Mun Highway or Tolo Highway to avoid paying the so called unreasonable tunnel tolls.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all, I would like to state that the Democratic Party supports the construction of Route 3 for we have also been urging the Government to expedite this project over the past few years. Our position is clear as far as the construction of Route 3 is concerned. Secondly, I would like to point out that the Honourable WONG Wai-yin moved this amendment on our behalf on grounds of two reasons. And I would like to explain to you briefly.
First, the Government has failed to keep its promise. Mr YEUNG Kai-yin, the former Secretary for Transport had, over the issue of the Western Harbour Crossing, explicitly made a promise that the toll increase arrangements would be seriously reviewed. But unfortunately, he is now holding a senior position in a consortium. And it is unfortunate that history repeats itself. The Government took the same disastrous road when it negotiated with the consortium concerned. This makes the Democratic Party very angry because the fact that Government had promised to seriously consider the issue showed
3950 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
that they also noted there were problems in the toll adjustment mechanism. But regrettably, history repeats itself when the arrangements on Route 3 are reached by the Government and the consortium. We feel that the Government has not fully lived up to its promise.
Secondly, the incidents of the Western Harbour Crossing and the Route 3 this time make us feel that whenever there is a large-scale infrastructural project, a consortium will invariably claim that they will not take part if the fee or toll adjustment needs to be approved by the Legislative Council. Do think of our position as Members of the Legislative Council. We have to protect people’s livelihood and promote economic growth. We have to strike a balance between these two and cannot stand on the side of the consortium all the time. A consortium participates in the construction of a large-scaled public project only because there is profit in it for them. We all know that the Route 3 project is a profitable one, it will never lose money. If it does, why would they tender for it? Nonetheless, they threatened that they would not participate in the project if toll adjustments have to be subject to this Council’s approval. And the Government gave in. This being the case, consortia investing in large-scale public projects can completely ignore the Government as well as this Council. Just think, this Council as well as the Government have to give in under the threats of these consortia. The consortium concerned said that in any case, they would not participate if toll adjustments have to be approved by this Council. So, the Government has been frightened, and so was the Legislative Council. Then the consortium can dominate the operation of the Government as well as the Legislative Council. Will even an ordinary person yield to such a threat?
Finally, I would like to point out that Members of the Legislative Council will reject all applications for fee or toll increase. When we have a high inflation rate, such increase will certainly fuel the inflation if all public utilities ask for an increase higher than the inflation rate. No Member of this Council will object to public utilities’ application for an increase lower than the inflation rate. Do not think that directly elected Members will promise everything in order to win votes. If a candidate proposes that public housing estates should be rent-free, do you think he will be elected or re-elected? So please do not harbour the misconception that a directly elected Member tends to give empty promises. In fact, he has to make wise decisions and political judgements. He cannot talk nonsense because he has a heavy political responsibility. So do not think that a directly elected Member would surely have no sense and tend to make empty promises.
I hope Members, before voting, will reconsider carefully whether we should bow to the threats of the consortia and whether we have had made an unwise judgement. I hope you will consider these two points seriously.
HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995 3951
DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I did not intend to speak at first. But after I heard the bickering between the two political parties, I think as an independent Member and an elected Member of west New Territories, I have to say a few words.
I think what matters most is the needs of residents of west New Territories. At present, the traffic problem of west New Territories is really difficult to solve. Even with various arrangements such as bus lanes, the external traffic of the whole of west New Territories is now lost in a quagmire.
Concerning the question of profit control, the Government has in fact been having that all along. Political parties may not agree with the Government’s practice in this respect. However, members of the public obviously have other choices in relation to Route 3. Motorists may use Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun Road and Tolo Highway as the alternatives. But to us residents of west New Territories, we need a route that enables us to travel to Kowloon in a very short time. Therefore, we are now thinking that Route 3 should be completed as soon as possible so that residents will be able to use it.
At present, a lot of land in northwest New Territories, such as the 200 hectares of land north of Tin Shui Wai, may be developed. The Government is also planning for its development. Should there be no Route 3, there would be no development for a lot of land. As to population, the original estimate was that west New Territories would have about 700 000 people, but now it is estimated that the population will be 1.4 million in the future. In view of the increase in population, transport facilities are very essential to us. I would like to call upon colleagues of this Council to support the Route 3 project because this is the only life line of west New Territories.
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have heard some strange arguments today. For example, it is said that the consortium would be giving up if the Legislative Council were to play a monitoring role. Mr President, will that situation really arise? If we dare not monitor the consortium because we are so threatened by it, then the Government can likewise threaten us in future, saying that you people had better not monitor my work, otherwise the Government can also give up carrying out the project, thus nothing can be built.
Another strange argument is that the Democratic Party is said to be pursuing socialism. Should the Democratic Party pursue socialism, I think we are sure to lose in September. In fact, those who accuse us as believers of socialism are often those who dare not take part in direct elections. Why do they not give it a try? There is simply no market for socialism in Hong Kong. We all know that. So how could we have advocated socialism? If we as Legislative Council Members do not play our monitoring role, our function as a parliamentary assembly would have been lost by half. Indeed, Mr President, is it not practicable if all the infrastructural projects are undertaken by the Government? Certainly not. Is it pursuing socialism if every project is carried
3952 HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL — 24 May 1995
out by the Government instead of contracting it out to a consortium? Such arguments are really very strange. Amongst the projects which have been granted fund for construction by the Finance Committee, many are undertaken by the Government, and which were approved unanimously by both the Liberal Party and the Democratic Party. So do we become supporters of socialism whenever we approve any infrastructural project to be undertaken by the Government? These arguments actually cannot hold water. Let me ask Members to think about this, the question now is a simple one, which is whether or not we want to have the function of monitoring. Those who want it will vote in favour of us, whereas those who do not want it will vote against us. It is as simple as that. Why talk about-ism this or -ism that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, may I first express the Administration’s sincere thanks to the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU and all other honourable Members who served on the Bills Committee to vet the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road Bill. I am grateful for their tremendous input and efforts in examining the Bill, and for completing their work so expeditiously. May I also thank honourable Members for the views they have expressed this afternoon. In this respect, the Honourable WONG Wai-yin’s criticism that the Administration has failed to keep the Council informed is, in my view, unfounded. The Administration in fact provided three sitreps to the Legislative Council Transport Panel before the Bill was introduced, and the very fact that the Bills Committee has been able to complete its deliberations to allow the Second Reading to be resumed today is indicative of the fact that there has been adequate time to study the Bill.
Proposed terms of the franchise
The Bill seeks to award a franchise to the Route 3 (Country Park Section) Company to build and operate the Tai Lam Tunnel and Yuen Long Approach Road. Under the proposed terms of the franchise contained in the Bill, the franchisee is committed to building the project, at its own expense, within a very aggressive construction programme of 38 months. The budgeted project cost is $7,254 million, and any cost overrun will have to be fully borne by the proposed franchisee and will not be part of the construction cost on which the permitted return is based. In other words, cost overruns will not be passed onto the road-users.
I must emphasize that the package offered by the Route 3 (CPS) Company is the best available, achieved through a competitive tendering exercise. The proposed BOT franchise will allow this urgently needed project to be completed in the shortest possible time and at the lowest cost. The tolls proposed by the franchisee will provide a low and stable toll regime. The Administration has no hesitation in commending this Bill to the Legislative Council. Some Members have referred to land hoardings in northwest New Territories by the Sun Hung Kai Group. This is totally irrelevant. The project has no associated property development right whatsoever.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.