OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 18 October 1995
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT

    THE PRESIDENT -- THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, O.B.E., 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 MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, Q.C., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, O.B.E., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH
    THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, O.B.E., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, O.B.E., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE RONALD JOSEPH ARCULLI, O.B.E., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, O.B.E., J.P.
    DR THE HONOURABLE EDWARD LEONG CHE-HUNG, O.B.E., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
    THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
    THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
    THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA
    DR THE HONOURABLE HUANG CHEN-YA, M.B.E.
    THE HONOURABLE ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING
    THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
    DR THE HONOURABLE SAMUEL WONG PING-WAI, M.B.E., F.Eng., J.P.
    DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG
    DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM
    THE HONOURABLE ZACHARY WONG WAI-YIN
    THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, O.B.E., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
    THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM
    THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN
    THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN
    THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN
    THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG
    THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG
    THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG
    THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN
    THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
    THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK HIM
    THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK
    THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.
    DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK
    THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG
    THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING
    THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
    THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING
    THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN
    THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
    THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN
    THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI
    THE HONOURABLE TSANG KIN-SHING
    DR THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSE WING-LING
    THE HONOURABLE MRS ELIZABETH WONG CHIEN CHI-LIEN, C.B.E., I.S.O., J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE LAWRENCE YUM SIN-LING

MEMBERS ABSENT

    DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, O.B.E., LL.D. (CANTAB), J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE
    THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING
    THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
    THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.
    THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI
    THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO
    THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING

THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, C.B.E., J.P.
CHIEF SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, O.B.E., J.P.
FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY FELL MATHEWS, C.M.G., J.P.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, C.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
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
MR NICHOLAS NG WING-FUI, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, O.B.E., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE
MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES
MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER
MR PETER LAI HING-LING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS
MR KWONG HON-SANG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR WORKS
MRS RACHEL MARY BEDDORD CARTLAND, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE
MR ALAN LAI NIN, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE

    MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, SECRETARY GENERAL
    MR LAW KAM-SANG, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
    MISS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
    MR RAY CHAN YUM-MOU, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

PAPERS

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

Subject

Subsidiary Legislation

L.N. No.

Land Survey (Fees) Regulation

458/95

Securities (Offence and Penalty) (Amendment) Regulation 1995

459/95

Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Pleasure Grounds) (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) (No. 6) Order 1995

460/95

Public Cemeteries (Regional Council) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bylaw 1995

461/95

Sessional Papers 1995-96

No. 1

---

Report by the Commissioner of Police on Police Welfare Fund for the period 1 April 1993 - 31 March 1994

No. 2

---

Urban Council Revisions to the Lists of Work Approved During the 1994-95 Financial Year and the First Quarter of the 1995-96 Financial Year

No. 3

---

Sewage Services Trading Fund Annual Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 March 1995

No. 4

---

Companies Registry Annual Report 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

No. 5

---

The Land Registry Trading Fund Hong Kong Annual Report 1994-95

No. 6

---

The Government Minute in Response to Report No. 24 of the Public Accounts Committee dated July 1995

No. 7

---

Hong Kong Sports Development Board Annual Report 94-95

No. 8

---

The Government Minute in Response to The Seventh Annual Report of The Commissioner for Administrative Complaints Hong Kong Dated June 1995

MISCELLANEOUS

Fourth Periodic Report by Hong Kong under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Thirteenth Periodic Report by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of Hong Kong under the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination

AFFIRMATION

Mr Fred LI Wah-ming made the Legislative Council Affirmation.

ADDRESSES

The Government Minute in Response to Report No. 24 of the Public Accounts Committee dated July 1995

CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, laid on the table today is the Government Minute responding to Report No. 24 of the Public Accounts Committee. The Minute sets out the measures which the Government has taken, or is planning to take, on the conclusions and recommendations contained in the Report.

Mr Peter WONG, the then Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), spoke in this Council on 26 July 1995 when tabling the Report. I would like to respond to some of the points he made.

Mr WONG highlighted the problems relating to the licensing of food establishments, particularly the aspects of co-ordination, both within and amongst government departments, and the time required to process applications. As we have advised the Committee at the public hearing, the licensing authorities, that is, the two Municipal Councils, are conscious of the problems and have been making efforts to rectify the situation. The Director of Regional Services and the Director of Urban Services have been seeking the co-operation of concerned departments to streamline the licensing procedures, and co-ordinating improvement measures to achieve this. Both have introduced measures to ensure that the processing time is kept within 60 days. They are also working actively on the "Provisional Licence System" for restaurants whereby premises will be allowed to operate when they have complied with certain basic requirements, pending the issue of a "full" licence. They hope to introduce this system by the end of 1995. In the meantime, control for food business premises will be strengthened and enforcement action on unlicensed premised stepped up to safeguard public safety.

The second issue addressed by Mr WONG in his speech is road opening. The Administration fully recognizes the problems associated with repeated and multiple road excavations and the inconveniences these may cause to the public. We have devoted serious efforts to co-ordinate, plan, and control utility openings to keep disruptions to road users to the minimum. Members will see from the Government Minute what we have done and are planning to do in this respect. We aim to bring to this Council soon the necessary amendments to the Crown Land Ordinance for the implementation of the Excavation Permit Fee Scheme, a measure which we have been asked at various fora of this Council to pursue.

Turning to briefing out of prosecution work to private counsel, I note that the PAC concurs with the Attorney General that there are good public interest reasons for the Legal Department to maintain the briefing out system, mainly to meet operational needs if the resources or the expertise required do not permit the Legal Department to handle the case in-house. It is our intention to handle cases by counsel in the Department as far as possible.

As the PAC rightly points out, it is important for the Legal Department to have clearer policies and guidelines on the briefing out arrangements. The existing system is being reviewed by a working party chaired by the Director of Public Prosecutions and comprising representatives from relevant government departments, the Bar Association and the Law Society. The working party will report to the Attorney General by the end of this year. We shall continue to improve the existing arrangements taking into account the recommendations of the working group. On the question of briefing out fees, since April this year, both the Legal Department and the Legal Aid Department pay maximum standard rate fees only for long and complex cases.

Mr WONG also mentioned the Committee's deliberations on the subject of accountability of public organizations, in particular the role of the Director of Audit in conducting value-for-money audits of such organizations. On this, we note the range of views that Members of the Public Accounts Committee have expressed. We have given these careful consideration. Whilst such audits might increase the transparency and public accountability of statutory bodies, we need to consider whether they are appropriate having regard to the operating framework of individual organizations.

Like some Members of the Committee, our main reservations on the proposal relates to public corporations like the Mass Transit Railway Corporation, the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation and the Airport Authority which are established by law to run on prudent commercial principles. For this category of public organizations, we remain of the view that it would be inconsistent with the concept of establishing statutory bodies with a legal requirement to operate along commercial principles if their day-to-day management were to be placed under the scrutiny of the Director of Audit, and eventually to be made public.

We prefer instead to continue to place reliance on the tried and tested statutory and regulatory framework under which such bodies are required to operate. This includes internal and external professional audits and reporting of accounts to this Council. We have no wish to be complacent in this respect, however. We will therefore continue to examine further areas for increasing transparency and accountability, as suggested by Members, where these are also consistent with the principles of sound commercial management.

Mr President, I wish to conclude by saying that it is the aim of the Administration to serve the community by delivering quality services that are efficient and effective. The Director of Audit and the Public Accounts Committee have played a significant role in ensuring that we are on the mark. We will continue to work closely with them in our quest for greater efficiency.

Hong Kong Sports Development Board Annual Report 94-95

SECRETARY FOR RECREATION AND CULTURE: I am pleased to be able to present the Annual Report of the Hong Kong Sports Development Board for the year 1994-95. This Report incorporates the statement of the Hong Kong Sports Institute, and is the first consolidated report of the two organizations since they were integrated under the Hong Kong Sports Development Board Ordinance, with effect from 1 April 1994.

The year 1994-95 is the fourth and final year of the Board's First Strategic Plan. During that four-year-cycle, annual updates of progress have been produced for public information and a consolidated progress report covering 1991-95 has recently been issued.

A good deal of time has been spent in the past 12 months on the preparation of a second Strategic Plan which will cover the next four years, and will thus determine the direction of sports development up to the year 2000. Considerably more consultations with the various agencies have been undertaken in this process than was felt necessary in 1990. The draft Plan was also put out for public consultation from 1 June to 31 July, and comments were received up to 30 September. This exercise has brought the sports community together and its members have responded positively and contributed most helpfully.

Another milestone in sports development was achieved when in May 1994, the Board moved into its new office premises at Sports House, together with 34 National Sports Associations (NSAs). Sports House was built as part of the Hong Kong Stadium redevelopment, through funding from the Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club. The Government, as landlord of Sports House, has entrusted the Board with the responsibility of managing the building at a nominal rental. The building has provided an invaluable focal point for sports development, both locally and internationally, and its lecture theatre and conference rooms have been extensively used by the business and sporting communities.

Funds made available to the Board have continued to increase significantly since the Board's inception five years ago. The Government subvention for 1994-95 was $73.26 million and an additional $12.49 million was raised through sponsorship and donations. A total of $24.05 million was dedicated to the programmes of the NSAs, an increase of 25% on the previous year. In addition, the Hong Kong Sports Development Board currently controls two trust funds donated by the Jockey Club for the Board and the Sports Institute respectively, and there is a $100 million allocation from the Government for the Sports Institute, from which a total of $71.18 million has so far been used for the Board's and the Institute's operations.

Since the introduction of the Board's Block Grant Scheme in 1991, NSAs have been enjoying the benefits of funding for their staffing, office expenses and training programmes. In 1994-95, a total of $41.38 million was allocated under the Scheme to the ASF&OC and NSAs. A comprehensive NSA Career Development Plan has been implemented which includes an in-service training programme, an incremental salary scale, a provident fund scheme and a diploma course in Sports Management at the University of Hong Kong.

One of the Board's most significant community programmes has been the Hongkong Telecom Go! Sports Programme which was launched in 1993. With the full support of the Education Department, major sponsors and two School Sports Associations, it has already reached 40% of Hong Kong schools and promises to be one of the most comprehensive and exciting junior sports programmes ever introduced in the territory.

The Hong Kong Sports Institute is predominantly involved, in accordance with its mandate, in providing an environment in which athletic talent can be identified, nurtured and developed. This aim implies the pursuit of excellence by athletes and coaches. In 1994, Hong Kong's teams won a total of 19 gold, 25 silver and 28 bronze medals at the year's Asian, Commonwealth and FESPIC Games. The Institute played a significant role in helping to produce these results through its coaching effort, and support from its sports medicine and sports science staff.

The Coach Education Programmes administered by the Institute, working with the NSAs, have continued to develop with 35 associations participating. More than 3 900 coaches attended sports theory courses and over 450 coaches attended seven seminars.

A good deal has been done in forging technical links between the Institute and China. A total of 23 coaches were given financial support to attend coach education programmes there and in other countries. Strong working links have also been developed at a technical level with various institutes and organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and China.

An important new initiative was launched in athlete education, appreciating the need for the Institute to do more to keep athletes in the programme. Increased resources were made available to prepare athletes for a life after their sporting careers are over. More assistance have been given in providing educational training and in creating career opportunities for athletes. These important support services will be expanded upon in the next financial year.

All in all, it has been a successful first year for the new integrated body which must continue to provide the leadership to take sports development forward. The second Strategic Plan provides the vehicle for this and I look forward to consulting Members of this Council on that Plan in the near future.

The Government Minute in Response to The Seventh Annual Report of The Commissioner for Administrative Complaints Hong Kong Dated June 1995

CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, when the Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (COMAC) Seventh Annual Report was presented to the Council on 19 July, the Administration indicated that a Government Minute would be prepared in three months' time. This Government Minute is tabled today.

The Government Minute covers all the complaint cases which COMAC investigated and listed in his Annual Report. In the majority of these cases, the branches and departments involved have accepted and followed up all of COMAC's recommendations. There are a few cases in which some of the COMAC's recommended measures have had to be modified because of operational constraints. The reasons for these modifications are set out in the Minute.

Should any Member of this Council wish to have further clarification on any point in the Government Minute, the Administration would be happy to provide it.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Boulders Fallen on Tuen Mun Highway

1. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, in regard to the closure to Tuen Mun Highway to traffic on three occasions after boulders had fallen onto the Highway on 18 August 1995, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the causes leading to the falling of the boulders;
  2. whether any human error was involved and whether there was any dereliction of duty on the part of the officials concerned;
  3. whether there will be an independent inquiry; if not, why not; and
  4. what measures will be taken to ensure that similar accidents will not occur in future?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS: Mr President,

  1. Investigations have indicated that the probable cause may be attributed to fracturing of a part of the rock mass along a hidden plane of weakness during hand splitting of rock adjacent to the portion which subsequently fell off. The rock joints may also have been further weakened by water infiltration arising from heavy rains prior to the incident, including that associated with Typhoon Helen on 11 August.
  2. The case is still being investigated by the police. Upon completion of their investigation, the police may recommend to the Coroner that he is to conduct an inquest. The Coroner's inquest or any further legal proceedings in this matter will determine if any human error or dereliction of duty on the part of any officials was involved.
  3. A Coroner's inquest will essentially constitute an independent inquiry into the matter.
  4. For the works relating to the widening of Tuen Mun Highway, very intensive inspection and monitoring of the slopes are being carried out. The construction methods are under review and will be modified, if required. An alternative alignment is under investigation which will, if adopted, enable the works to proceed to the Tai Lam section without further cutting of the relevant slopes. For future projects which require rock removal from slopes adjacent to roads, we will require that a more rigorous hazard assessment be included in the construction methods proposals. This would ensure that all possibilities of risks and ways of avoiding them are examined in detail.

MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the widening of Tuen Mun Highway has done harm before its merits can be seen. It has caused serious traffic congestion and made over 700 000 Tuen Mun and Yuen Long residents suffer immensely. I think, to a certain extent, the Government is responsible as far as monitoring is concerned. I therefore insist that an independent commission be set up by the Governor to inquire into the matter.

Mr President, I would like to ask this follow-up question: The Secretary for Works has said in paragraph (d) of the main answer that for future projects which require rock removal from slopes adjacent to roads, a more rigorous hazard assessment would be required to be included in the construction methods proposals. This statement gives me the impression that in the past the Government or the contractors had not conducted any thorough hazard assessment and it was only after an incident had occurred that the Government would require the contractors to make a more rigorous hazard assessment. Why was the most rigorous assessment not made at the beginning of this kind of works and why did the Government have to ask the contractors to submit a more rigorous assessment only after an incident had occurred? When the Government initially contracted works to the contractors, was the assessment required to be made by consultants inadequate?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Cantonese): Mr President, basically, risk assessment will certainly be made on this kind of works. I have earlier mentioned that a number of monitoring measures are being carried out in connection with the widening of Tuen Mun Highway and the construction methods adopted in the past are under review. Widening Tuen Mun Highway is a difficult job because we have to widen the road while there is very little space. Certainly, I believe there will not be many works which will be subject to restrictions similar to those of Tuen Mun Highway in the future. However, we will carry out a detailed inquiry into the present incident so that when there are similar works in the future, we can review the necessary measures on the basis of the experience gained on this occasion.

PRESIDENT: Not answered?

MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary for Works has not answered my question. My question is: Why did the Government not require the contractors to make the most rigorous hazard assessment when it initially contracted works to them and why did the Government have to ask the contractors to make a more rigorous assessment only after an accident had occurred and problems had arisen?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Cantonese): Mr President, what I meant was this. When the widening of Tuen Mun Highway was first carried out, we had indeed required that risk assessment be made. I have mentioned that there were unexpected factors in this incident. The accident was probably caused by fracturing of a part of the rock mass along a hidden plane of weakness. When we make hazard assessment of works in the future, we would certainly take this factor into consideration. I was not saying that assessment had not been conducted in respect of the works on this occasion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Government has clearly treated the Tuen Mun Highway incident differently from the Kwun Lung Lau incident, especially in respect of the release of information and in the publication of reports. I wonder whether the sloppiness of the Government has anything to do with the fact that the Legislative Council happened to be in recess at the material time.

After the Kwun Lung Lau accident, the Government published its report before the police released their investigation findings. The Government also appointed a consultant, Professor MORGENSTERN, to prepare a report which was published upon completion. But as regards the Tuen Mun Highway accident, I understand that the Government has already completed its internal report, it is just not willing to publish it. Besides, the contractor concerned has appointed an eminent consultant to study the matter and has also submitted a report to the Government. Similarly, the Government is unwilling to publish it. Since casualties and public interests were involved in both incidents, why were some reports published and others not? What justification does the Government have? Will the Government be willing to publish these two reports only if the Legislative Council invokes the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Cantonese): Mr President, Mr Albert CHAN is right in saying that the contractor and the Government have completed the investigation reports. We hope to render an account to the Tuen Mun District Board later after a conclusion has been reached on the basis of the two reports. That is to say, we are prepared to publish the reports.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, after experience has been gained from the falling of the boulders onto Tuen Mun Highway, in case of similar accidents in which the closing of roads would be necessary as a matter of emergency, does the Government have adequate contingency measures to ensure that the traffic condition will not become chaotic again? If so, can the Government tell us what these measures are?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Cantonese): Mr President, I hope that this question can be answered by my colleague, the Secretary for Transport.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President, we acknowledge that the closure of Tuen Mun Road resulted in a lot of inconvenience and of course the Government very much regrets that. But having said that, the Government has no reservation to state, even now, that we did take the correct decision in closing Tuen Mun Road, because there was no question of subjecting commuters to any injury or death. Emergencies are emergencies. We have contingency plans in trying to arrange alternative transport modes to cope with emergencies. But the very fact is that in emergencies of this magnitude we cannot arrange alternative modes of transport at the flick of a switch. If we compare, for example, the closure of Tuen Mun Road to the closure of any major road elsewhere, for example M1 in England, it is inevitable that commuters will be inconvenienced. But we have learnt from the experience. The Transport Department, Police, Highways Department, Transport Branch and all other departments concerned are conducting a wash-up. We have had a preliminary round of discussions and we shall continue to see what lessons we can learn. From our findings we will try to ensure, that in the unlikely event that it will be necessary to close such a major road again, we can accommodate traffic flow more efficiently.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, part (b) of Mr WONG Wai-yin's question asked whether any human error was involved and whether there was any dereliction of duty on the part of the officials concerned and part (c) of the question asked whether there would be an independent inquiry. According to my understanding, Mr WONG was asking whether there would be an independent inquiry into the dereliction of duty or error, if any, on the part of the officials concerned. However, in his reply to part (c), the Secretary for Works said that a Coroner's inquest would essentially constitute an independent inquiry into the matter. Has the Secretary looked up the Ordinance regarding a Coroners' inquest? A Coroner's inquest inquires into the cause of death, in other words, it may conclude that death is caused by accident, natural causes or negligence. It will not inquire into whether there has been a dereliction of duty and, if so, by whom. Does the Government think that a Coroner's inquest conducted according to the law can basically replace an independent inquiry to determine whether there has been any error or dereliction of duty on the part of the officials concerned?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Cantonese): Mr President, concerning the question as to whether it is necessary to conduct an independent inquiry, I believe we had better wait for the conclusion to be reached by the Coroner's Court. If further investigation is deemed necessary, it will certainly be considered.

MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, as regards the Government's proposal to close the Tuen Mun Highway in November in order to carry out expansion works, we learnt from the newspaper that the proposal was opposed by the Tuen Mun District Board upon being consulted by the Government. Can the Government tell us how it has tried to persuade the District Board to accept that the works should be carried out?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Cantonese): Mr President, earlier on when we were explaining to the Tuen Mun District Board about the expansion works in the Siu Lam section, we mentioned the need to close certain sections of Tuen Mun Highway, not the whole highway. At that time, the District Board hoped that we could come up with measures which would enable expansion works to be carried out without having to close the highway. Colleagues of the Highways Department are now conducting an overall review on the plan for the expansion works in order to come up with satisfactory measures which would enable widening works to be carried out without having to close the highway.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am very pleased to hear the Secretary for Works say just now that other feasible measures would be considered as far as possible so that the closing of the highway would not be necessary. I would like to raise a point that the repeated opposition by the Tuen Mun District Board was due to a lack of information. I believe the Tuen Mun District Board and the Yuen Long District Board would like to know the way the incident was investigated and be provided with sufficient information so as to understand the plan for future works, for example, how many sections of the highway still need to have works carried out; how many times the highway will have to be closed in the future; whether the closing of the highway this time would enable all of the works to be completed or whether there are other alternatives, for example, that works be carried out during the night. Since the District Board has none of the above information, it cannot make any decision. Will the Secretary for Works promise that the Government will not unilaterally and rashly make a decision to close the highway which will affect tens of thousands of people before sufficient information has been provided or before the two district boards or the Panel on Transport of this Council has considered the matter on the basis of detailed information?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Cantonese): Mr President, that is what we would like to do. We will not close the highway before consent has been obtained from the two district boards. We will certainly consult the two district boards.

Public Housing for Civil Servants

2. MRS ELIZABETH WONG asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, will the Government inform this Council of the details regarding the Government's policy on the allocation of public housing to its lower-paid staff and whether there is any intention to change its policy; and if so, whether compensation is payable to cover the retrenchment of such time-honoured staff welfare?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Mr President, all along, as part of our efforts to improve the welfare of junior staff, there has been a long standing scheme to make it easier for such staff to apply for public housing. Under the scheme, the eligible staff can apply through the civil servant public housing quota in addition to the waiting list quota.

This scheme was first introduced in 1963, with the number of units included in the civil servant quota varying over the years, depending on the production of flats by the Housing Authority and the demand for the units which are produced. In 1963, 117 units were available under the quota. The number of units gradually increased. In 1972, there were 2 001 available. However, in 1974 there was no quota due to an acute shortfall in the number of flats produced that year. From 1975 to 1978 the quota varied between 500 and 1 500 places. In 1979 the quota was set at 1 100 places and subsequently increased to 1 700 places in 1985. Since 1985 the quota has remained at 1 700 places a year, comprising 1 300 rental units and 400 Home Ownership Scheme units. The latter has become increasingly popular. A total of 37 666 officers and their families have benefited from the quota system since its inception.

As regards the composition and mode of operation of the quota, this assumed its current form in a major revision in 1979. The allocation was divided into a General Quota, through which the Master Pay Scale (MPS) and the Model Scale 1 (MOD 1) staff are allocated units, and a Special Quota for junior police officers (JPO) and rank and file officers in the disciplined services, who occupy departmental quarters and are within 10 years of their minimum retirement age. The distribution of the quota between the various categories is subject to discussion with the staff representatives. The distribution since 1991/92 has been 660 places for MPS; 440 places for MOD1 staff; 400 places for JPO; and 200 places for other rank and file. The sub-quota for JPO and rank and file officers in the disciplined services has been undersubscribed for the last five years. For instance, 92 units in last year's sub-quota were returned to the general quota pool for re-allocation.

The current eligibility criteria are: officers on or below point 21 on the MPS (currently monthly salary being $22,035), officers on or below point 28 on the police Pay Scale (current monthly salary being $28,015), officers in the disciplined services receiving $23,180 per month or MOD 1 staff with maximum salary of $9,225. As the length of service determines priority in allocation, priority will be given to those officers with longer years of service. Those who wish to apply through the general waiting list can do so in addition to applying through the civil servant public housing quota.

The quota is set by the Housing Authority on the advice of the Housing Department. The Civil Service Branch negotiates annually with the Housing Department on the size of the quota and the distribution of the units in various public housing estates and Home Ownership Scheme estates. As a result of the negotiations this year, we are able to secure the first increase in the size of the quota for 10 years. But we have also had to accept a reduction in the number of rental units. The quota for 1995-1996 will be 1 950, compared with 1 700 in the past. This quota comprises 750 rental units, 700 Home Ownership Scheme units and 500 Home Purchase Loan Scheme places. Recently, the amount of the Home Purchase Loan, which is also interest-free, has been increased from $300,000 to $600,000.

I would like to emphasize here that we have not and do not intend to change our policy. Although the civil service housing quota is not an entitlement for junior staff, we are aware of and we attach great importance to this special kind of welfare. There is therefore no question of compensation being paid for the changes in the quota. The changes in the quota this year have been caused by developments in the public housing programme. I am fully aware of the situation faced by the Housing authority and accept that civil servants will understand that this will have an effect on the quota. At the same time, however, I feel it is important to ensure that civil servants have a reasonable share of the available units. I hope that the reduction in rental units can be offset by the increase in the Home Ownership Scheme units and the introduction of the Home Purchase Loan Scheme places.

The call circular inviting eligible civil servants to apply for places in this quota is expected to be issued by the Civil Service Branch shortly, with the allocation of units to start as soon as possible thereafter.

MRS ELIZABETH WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to thank the Secretary for the Civil Service for making such a detailed reply. As a matter of fact, I know what many civil servant desire is simply that the Government fulfils its responsibility of providing adequate public housing to Hong Kong people, including the civil servants who are also a part of them. My follow-up question is: Has the Administration consulted the civil servants on the number of places in the quota provided each year? The Secretary mentioned that the Civil Service Branch often negotiates with the Housing Department. Have the civil servants been consulted as they are being affected; if not, why not?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Mr President, I fully agree with the remarks made by Mrs Elizabeth WONG just now. That is what we should do and will definitely do. Regarding the question as to whether we have consulted the civil servants, the civil servants public housing quota was, in fact, on the agenda every time we met with the staff representatives. Their demand was to increase the quota every year, for instance, from 1 700 units to 1 900 units. We are fully aware of that. We were informed of such demand when we conducted the annual negotiation with the Housing Department. Of course, the possibility of meeting the demand hinges on a number of factors, which are out of my control. We have tried our best to secure 1 950 places. The quota has in fact been increased. But regrettably, among these 1 950 units, the number of rental units is less than that of last year, and the staff are dissatisfied with it. This has nothing to do with whether we consulted the staff or not, as we all along know what the staff ask for. In this respect, we are absolutely clear.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, just now the Secretary emphasized in his reply that there was no change of policy. I find it a bit misleading. As a matter of fact, the policy has been changed in the sense that the quota for public housing units is being reduced while that for Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) units is being expanded. I simply cannot understand why the Secretary still insisted that the policy had not been changed. What is even harder to understand is, if the Administration has consulted the staff as mentioned by the Secretary a moment ago, I believe it should know that the staff and currently requesting for an identical number of public housing units under the quota, rather than increasing the number from 1 700 to 1 900. In regard to maintaining the same number of public housing units under the quota, why did the Secretary not consult the staff and respect their demand?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Mr President, I believe the most important point is whether we have withdrawn or changed such welfare. I am absolutely sure that such welfare has not been changed. The present change is made only in light of the current production of housing units and the various kinds of problems, such as the clearance of the Temporary Housing Areas, which confronted the Housing Authority. I think it is reasonable and acceptable for the Housing Authority to allocate more HOS units to make up for the shortfall if it thinks the production this year will not be able to meet the quota of 1 300 rental units for the civil servants. Although I understand that the staff would like to have more rental units, the HOS units do have their market too. As to the Home Purchase Loan Scheme I just mentioned, this kind of benefits was not available to the civil servants in the past. This is what we have fought for and secured. In regard to the question of whether this scheme has any market, I think we should not jump to a conclusion so soon.

Turning to negotiations with the staff representatives, we have definitely negotiated with them a number of times before. We should, however, understand that the number of "cakes" is fixed. Very often we would still be unable to achieve our ideal target regardless of the numerous negotiations. After all, we have to strike a proper balance between the civil servants enjoying this welfare and the members of public queuing up in the general public housing waiting list. It is because civil servants are accorded priority in the allocation of public housing under this scheme. Moreover, Members should also bear in mind that a number of MOD 1 staff are given housing units after waiting for just seven years. What is more, the units are located in the urban areas. Besides, we only take into account their personal income, instead of their gross family income, in calculating their income. If we look at the existing income limit as well as the figures I just mentioned, we should know what is what.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, after listening to what the Secretary said, I would like to raise a few questions. Yesterday, the Secretary for Housing told this Council that the production target for the next six years would be 141 000. We asked the Secretary then whether the production could meet the Government's target, that is to say, to shorten the waiting period from seven years to five years by the year 2001. We raised this query yesterday because we reckoned that such housing production would not be able to meet the Government's target. After listening to what the Secretary for the Civil Service said today, I realize that the number of public housing units for civil servants has also been reduced, with the Government failing to meet the civil servants' demand. In light of the huge demand for public housing units from all sides, should the relevant branch secretaries concerned discuss with the Secretary for Housing and press home their demands instead of using the number of "cakes" as an excuse and leaving the problem as it is?

PRESIDENT: Miss CHAN, you are straying away from the original question and answer, but I am quite sure the Secretary for the Civil Service would be happy to discuss with the Secretary for Housing.

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE: Mr President, I confirm.

Primary Health Care Centres Serving AIDS Patients

3. MR CHAN KAM-LAM asked (in Cantonese): Some residents of Richland Garden have expressed discontent with the Government's recent plan to construct a primary health care centre in Kowloon Bay which will also provide services for persons infected with HIV. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the number of similar primary health care centres operating in the territory and the present level of demand for their services;
  2. of the criteria adopted in planning the location of such centres; and
  3. whether it will consider relocating the Kowloon Bay Primary Health Care Centre to a more suitable site nearby?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President,

  1. There are at present 69 primary health care centres in Hong Kong. Of these, nine operate social hygiene clinics for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection, together with other services such as out-patient and family health services.

    General out-patient clinics are provided in accordance with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines of one to every 100 000 persons. In the case of Kwun Tong, the current population of about 520 000 is served by four clinics only. There is a case for an additional clinic in the Kwun Tong District.

    As for the demand for services of our social hygiene clinics, total attendance increased by some 14% (from 140 000 to 160 000) in the past four years. New attendance also increased by some 40% from 10 500 to 14 900 in the same period. The total number of HIV infection has also increased from 206 in 1990 to 520 in 1994, and the number of AIDS patients from 44 to 130. It is estimated that there are 3 000 HIV carriers in Hong Kong, rising to 6 200 by 1998. There is clearly a demand for this particular service.

    The Kowloon Bay Clinic Project is planned to cope with the demand for various primary health care services including general out-patient and services for persons with sexually transmitted diseases including HIV infection.

  2. In planning the location of primary health care centres, accessibility is an important factor seeing that they provide the first point of contact between individuals and the health care system. Our health centres are usually located within walking distance from local residence and served by public transport. In fact, most of our health centres are situated in close proximity to residential areas. The provision of a wide variety of services within one centre is also in line with international development in primary health care which emphasises a single-stop delivery of a comprehensive range of activities under one primary health care setting.
  3. The site for this project was selected after thorough consideration by various departments. The Government did consider various other locations in the vicinity but could not identify one that is more suitable. The project was upgraded to Category A in the Public Works Programme in July this year, and work will commence in November and completion is scheduled for the end of 1997. Any relocation will mean a delay of at least two years, with adverse implications for the introduction of various services including out-patient, social hygiene, and student health services, in addition to those provided by a nursing home for the elderly.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to the ratio referred to by the Government, there should be a clinic for every 100 000 persons. As a matter of fact, although the population of Kwun Tong District was already close to 700 000 as early as 1984, there have been only four general out-patient clinics in the district. This means that the Government has been under-providing the residents of Kwun Tong District for 11 whole years. As for the primary health care centre the Government is now planning to set up in Kwun Tong District, the consultation work concerned has been inadequate, especially in respect of the choice of location, which is far from conveniently accessible. The site concerned was originally planned for the building of a school and a community centre. Just now, the Secretary said that the Government could not find any other suitable locations for the clinic. However, last week, we had a discussion with the relevant officials from the Planning Department. Residents also put forward some suggestions to the Kwun Tong District Board (KTDB). The District Board accepted these suggestions, and subsequently passed a motion at its last meeting, demanding the Government to choose another site which is closer, more convenient and more spacious. I hope that the Government can give a detailed account of its refusal to consider the suggestions put forward by residents of Kwun Tong District and their District Board.

PRESIDENT: May I please remind Members to keep their supplementaries, particularly the preambles, short.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have carefully considered the alternative location proposed by some residents of Richland Garden. The location has been set aside for use as the headquarters of the Auxiliary Police, and building works will start soon. In regard to the other two locations, one is a sitting-out area near the Kowloon Bay Park, which is not designated for Government/Institution/Community (GIC) use. The other is a commercial lot, not suitable for GIC use either. We have also given consideration to the present choice of location, and we understand that the traffic flow through the vehicular entrance/exit will not cause any inconvenience to Richland Garden residents.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, a moment ago, some Richland Garden residents approached Members outside the Legislative Council Building, asking us to refer their questions to the Secretary for Health and Welfare. Basically, their prime concern is that when they purchased their flats at Richland Garden, the photographs they saw depicted that the site in question was planned to be used for the construction of a community centre and a primary school. Now the Government is going to use the site for a clinic. Did the Government consult Richland Garden residents before it decided to change the use of the site? Why has the Government chosen a site so close to local residence--- a site which is virtually next door? In view of the large supply of available land, why not build the clinic further away from local residence?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): When the Government decided to select a site for building a clinic and a primary health care centre, it conducted a thorough consultation exercise among the residents of the area on several aspects, and as far as works projects are concerned, we have been providing information to the residents of the area on a yearly basis. The last detailed consultation was conducted in 1990. Furthermore, in September and October this year, we conducted another detailed consultation exercise. The residents were initially worried about HIV and other diseases that can be transmitted through sexual contacts. However, following the painstaking clarifications made by my colleagues in the Department of Health, some residents have started to understand more, and their anxieties have been allayed accordingly.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): My question was: In addition to changing the use of the site concerned, why has the Government chosen this site, which is so close to local residence that there is virtually nothing in between?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): In my main reply, I already pointed out that an important factor determining the choice of location of a health care centre is residents' convenience of access. All our primary health care centres must be so sited that residents find them easily accessible, and some individual health care centres must also be easily accessible by means of public transportation. That is why some health care centres are located in close proximity to local residence, or even inside housing estates. The clinic in question is not the first of its kind that we build. We have set up other clinics and health care centres in urban areas and in close proximity to people's homes.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, while we all realize that the Disability Discrimination Ordinance has not yet come into effect, it has been passed by this Council. Could the Administration inform this Council whether the request for relocation of this centre, which also provides for the care of patients infected with HIV, and I stress, it also provides care for people with HIV, contravenes this Ordinance? To me, this is a blatant act of discrimination.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, I believe there may be contravention of the Ordinance if the request for relocation is indeed made for that reason.

MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, the main question mentions specifically that the provision of services by the centre to patients infected with HIV has led to discontent among some residents in its neighbourhood. Will the Government inform this Council whether their discontent is the result of misunderstanding or discrimination? Is the Government aware that the representation submitted by a Kwun Tong District Board member to the Governor mentions that the clinic will have adverse effects such as virus infection, environmental health problems and deteriorating law and order? Since all these are misconceptions stemming from an improper understanding about AIDS, will the Government inform this Council what it will do to put right such misconceptions?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, initially, residents did have many worries about the matter. However, following our detailed clarifications, they have come to know more about AIDS and other diseases transmitted through sexual contacts. We have also explained to them that AIDS cannot be transmitted easily. The disease can be contracted only through blood or sexual contacts, and air or everyday life contacts will not cause any infection. We will continue to strengthen our work on educating people and promoting their understanding about AIDS.

MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, in view of Richland Garden residents' reaction, has the Government reviewed whether the $400,000-odd used in 1995 by the AIDS Trust Fund (the Fund) on education and publicity has been spent appropriately? I ask this question because everyone knows very well, as the Secretary for Health and Welfare also said in her reply, that AIDS is in fact not easily transmitted, and staying close to an infected person will not cause infection either. Therefore, as far as the setting up of the centre is concerned, the best public relations effort to gain support should be educating the public. Has the Government reviewed the situation to see whether the funds available are adequate, or whether the money has been spent appropriately?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, the use and adequacy of the Fund is subject to our frequent review. In fact, reports on all activities or applications for funds have to be submitted to the Fund on a regular basis. In addition, on completion of each activity or compaign a detailed report will be compiled to assess its effectiveness. We will continue such a practice.

MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question, which was: Has the money in question been used appropriately to achieve the intended objectives?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Every time we conduct an assessment, we need to find out whether the money has been effectively used to achieve the intended objectives.

DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, in addition to the representation from the District Board member concerned, the pile of letters we have received from the residents also express the worry that the clinic will subject the residents to virus infection, nuisance and harassment. It is obvious that they lack a proper understanding about AIDS, and, basically, they are biased against AIDS patients in much the same way as people were prejudiced against lepers in the old days. Can the Government confirm to us that: first, many people infected with HIV are in fact ordinary people like housewives and haemophiliacs; second, HIV is not an airborne disease and cannot be contracted through ordinary contacts; and third, people infected with HIV do not have the tendency to cause nuisance and harassment to others. Having done so, will the Government promise us that it will not, for reasons of discrimination, stop providing medical services to all Hong Kong residents in need, and will provide such services promptly and adequately irrespective of the kinds of diseases they are suffering from?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, I can assure the Honourable Member that we will continue to provide comprehensive services to persons with various kinds of virus infection, persons infected with HIV included.

MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, my question is largely similar to the one raised by Dr HUANG. The Secretary mentioned just now that services would continue to be provided. However, past experience shows that whenever some residents raised objections to certain service establishments, the Government would often postpone the provision of the services concerned. Will the Secretary tell us whether she has sufficient confidence and determination to continue to provide the service as scheduled?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, my answer is in the affirmative. We will proceed as scheduled.

Conduct of Medical Practitioners

4. MR IP KWOK-HIM asked (in Cantonese): In view of the fact that the court can reverse the Medical Council's ruling on cases involving breaches of code of professional conduct by medical practitioners, will the Government inform this Council whether it will review as soon as possible the current channels for appeal, and examine the effects on the community arising from conflicting rulings between the court and the Medical Council on such cases, so that appropriate measures could be taken to restore public confidence in the existing mechanism for regulating the conduct of medical practitioners?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, section 26 of the Medical Registration Ordinance (MRO) provides that a registered medical practitioner who is aggrieved by any disciplinary order of the Medical Council of Hong Kong may appeal to the Court of Appeal, which may affirm, reverse or vary the order appealed against. And we will once again be introducing the proposed amendments.

One of the proposed amendments to the MRO, which are soon to be re-introduced into this Council, is for the Court of Appeal to be empowered to, inter alia, remit a case back to the Medical Council for a re-hearing. The composition of the Medical Council is also proposed to be expanded to include more lay members.

To further enhance the transparency of its operation, the Medical Council now announces the reasons for its decisions at the conclusion of an inquiry. It is hoped that by so doing, all parties concerned will be better informed of the Medical Council's decision. I hope these measures will be able to meet the Honourable Member's concern. We will, of course, continue to keep this issue in view.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): It is not a question of meeting my personal concern. It is the public's concern that matters. My question principally relates to the restoration of public confidence in the existing mechanism to monitor the conduct of medical practitioners. It is because there is currently an imbalance between the public and medical practitioners in terms of access to information. Members of the public do not know if a medical practitioner has breached the code of professional conduct. However, the Medical Council knows clearly in what respect a medical practitioner's conduct has breached the code. Yet the Medical Council is capable of reaching a decision inconsistent with that of the court. Therefore, would the Secretary for Health and Welfare give a precise answer as to how public confidence can be restored in this regard?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): I said in my main reply that the Medical Council has adopted a new measure to announce the reasons for its decisions at the conclusion of an inquiry. It used not to do so. Now the giving of reasons will enable the public to know on what grounds the Medical Council bases its decisions. I hope that this will make it possible for members of the public to have access to more information with regard to the decisions of the Medical Council.

Secondly, in the Bill soon to be presented to this Council, we will seek to increase the number of lay members on the Medical Council so that there will be more members to assist the council in monitoring the conduct of medical practitioners.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, while I entirely respect the independence of the Judiciary, the fact remains that the court bases its decision on points of law while the Medical Council, which is a professional body, bases its decision purely on a peer assessment basis. Could the Secretary inform this Council how this difference could be bridged so that the convictions and penalties imposed by the Medical Council, which is a professional body, would be given the respect and consideration due and that this professional body would not be made a mockery of? The Secretary just replied that the Medical Council could inform the public why it makes its decision and that the Medical Registration Ordinance could be amended to increase the number of lay members. But that will not bridge the gap and that would still fail to get the court to agree with the decison of the Medical Council.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, a moment ago I also mentioned another change which is that we are seeking to confer by statute a new power on the Court of Appeal. At present, the Court of Appeal only has the power to affirm, vary or reverse the order appealed against. If the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill is passed into law, the Court of Appeal will be empowered inter alia to remit a case back to the Medical Council for a re-hearing. This will also enhance the functions and powers of the Medical Council. Secondly, the Medical Council is now announcing the reasons for its decisions which it used not to do. This will be of immense help to the Court of Appeal.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, many of the decisions of the Medical Council were overturned or reversed by the Court of Appeal mainly on the ground that there had been procedural irregularities or that the decisions were manifestly unfair.

I think the Secretary failed to answer the question asked by Dr LEONG Che-hung a moment ago. Two different standards are involved here. Generally speaking, in a hearing before the Medical Council, the party concerned would argue his case through Queen's Counsel and, when the matter comes before the Court of Appeal, there would also be full legal representation to challenge the decision under appeal. Would the Secretary strengthen the legal team supporting the Medical Council? Nowadays, the respondents would very often engage Queen's Counsel while the lawyers providing support to the council have only a few years' experience, not to mention that they would be replaced after serving for a period of time. Therefore they might not have an adequate grasp of the issues involved or be capable of giving sound legal advice. Very often, lack of support in this regard would lead members of the Medical Council, without their being aware of it, into reaching decisions which were unfair because of procedural irregularity. And such decisions were subsequently overturned.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Medical Council have legal advisers. If support in this regard need to be enhanced, I can take up the matter with the Attorney General.

MISS MARGARET NG: The Secretary had just reiterated the second paragraph of her answer in response to Dr LEONG Che-hung's question which I understand was in the following terms. He wants the Secretary to assure him that there are measures to get the court to agree with the decision of the Council. Is the Secretary telling this Council that this is a measure to get the court to agree with the decision of the Medical Council?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): The Medical Registration Ordinance provides for an avenue of appeal. We should respect this appeal channel to preserve the right of appeal of every person. We should not interfere with the legal process.

MR ERIC LI: Mr President, can the Secretary further elucidate on the precise form of the announcement of the Medical Council? Will it be in the form of short statements made simply to inform the public of the sentence reached, or will it consist of a detailed description of the nature of the complaint, the full fact findings and all the pertienent legal arguments in support of the Council's decision?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): The Medical Council will decide whether its announcement at the conclusion of an inquiry will be detailed or brief. Of course, the council will make a detailed announcement if it thinks there is such need.

PRESIDENT: Dr LEONG Che-hung, I also have Mr James TO's name on my list, and you both have already asked two supplementaries. If there is no urgency in the supplementaries, may I propose that we get on with the remaining questions?

Theft of Container Tractors

5. MR CHENG YIU-TONG asked (in Cantonese): Mr President, in view of the fact that the problem of theft of tractors of container vehicles which has become rather serious at present, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. whether the department concerned is aware of the problem and what measures does it have to tackle it; and
  2. of the statistics of the theft of tractors of container vehicles over the past two years?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, the department concerned has kept separate statistics on stolen container tractors since October 1994. Before that, it was grouped under the category of goods vehicle. As such, I can only provide the figures related to the theft of tractors for the past 12 months. During that period, a total of 441 container tractors were stolen, of which 112 (or 24.5%) have been recovered. These 441 stolen contianer tractors represent 9.3% of the total of 4 725 vehicles stolen during the same period.

The theft of container tractors is the latest trend in vehicle theft. Indeed, the number of cases of theft of container tractors had increased from 92 in the fourth quarter of 1994 to 162 in the third quarter of 1995. We are, of course, concerned at the upsurge of this type of crime. We have reason to believe that the criminals involved are the same groups of people involved previously in the theft of luxury cars. The Organized Crime and Triad Bureau (OCTB) has been tasked with the investigation of these syndicates and at least ten key figures of such syndicates have been arrested and prosecuted since July this year. The OCTB also maintains close liaison with the Chinese Authorities to identify the major figures in these syndicates and the recipients of the stolen vehicles in China.

Very often, the tractors are driven across the border within the shortest time after being stolen. Certain black spots where theft of container tractors occurs have been identified by the police, and frequent spot-checks by road blocks are conducted at strategic times and locations to interdict the delivery of the stolen tractors.

The Crime Prevention Bureau is also in close contact with insurance companies and relevant haulage and drivers associations to heighten their awareness of the crime so that proper precaution measures, such as the installation of anti-theft devices, can be taken to reduce the cases involving the theft of tractors.

MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): The Administration point out in the main reply that the theft of container tractors has become the latest trend. I would like to ask the Administration whether, other than China, these tractors are being dismantled and then sent to other countries. Has the Government ever discussed with these countries and arranged to return those stolen tractors which are recovered to the owners in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to my knowledge, almost all the stolen tractors in Hong Kong are sent to China. Of course, I cannot say that there is absolutely no tractor being dismantled and sent to other places. As regards liaison with the relevant authorities of China, the Police Force of Hong Kong maintains close contact with the Public Security Bureau of China and relevant information which includes information about stolen tractors has been given to them. Of course, we have also give information about other stolen vehicles to them. We know that the Public Security Bureau of China is carrying out investigations. I hope their investigation work will be successful.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, there has been a period of time when many luxury private cars in Hong Kong were stolen and shipped to China. When calculating the insurance claim, the owner of the stolen car has to bear part of the loss and this is the so-called "loading charge". Now the same thing also happens to cases of theft of container tractors. However, some of the contact truckers may not be able to pay the "loading charge". In the last paragraph of the main reply, the Secretary for Security mentioned that the Administration had discussed with insurance companies and relevant institutions as regards how to prevent this problem. Would the Secretary for Security inform this Council whether an inter-departmental committee will be set up to curb such cases of theft so that operation of the whole container industry will not be affected by the fact that people in the industry cannot afford to pay the loading charge?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, I believe that precautionary measures may not be necessarily carried out by an inter-departmental committee. The Crime Prevention Bureau of the Police Force can contact the relevant bodies directly. For example, they can contact the labour unions of the container industry, container companies, truck companies and truck driver associations, discuss with them directly and provide information to them. Moreover, the precautionary measures are not necessarily difficult to implement. These measures include parking the tractors in better managed carparks, the installation of anti-theft devices such an anti-theft alarm, gear lock and steering lock. Anti-theft tracing system may also be installed. In fact, there are measures to curb the occurrence of these cases and it is not difficult to implement them. Although extra cost may incur with the adoption of additional anti-theft measures, as container tractors are very expensive vehicles, I think it is worthwhile for safety's sake or for the sake of ensuring that the tractor will not be stolen.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is mentioned in the main reply that 112 container tractors have been recovered. Would the Secretary for Security inform us whether it is the Chinese authorities who have made the arrangement to return these 112 tractors to Hong Kong? In addition, it is mentioned in the second paragraph of the main reply that the OCTB has maintained close liaison with the Chinese authorities. The Secretary for Security also mentioned in his reply just now that almost all of the stolen tractors were driven across the border into China. Why is it that there is only close liaison and communication is not further enhanced and co-operative action or measure to tackle the problem is not taken after this latest trend has emerged?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mrs Miriam LAU has asked two questions. The first question asks whether the 112 tractors which have been recovered as mentioned in my main reply have been returned to Hong Kong by the Chinese authorities. The answer is no. All of these 112 tractors were recovered in Hong Kong. As regards the second question, Mrs LAU asked for the reason why only close liaison is maintained under the circumstances that so many cases of theft of tractors have taken place. Of course, the Hong Kong Police Force is maintaining close liaison and exchanging information with the Public Security Bureau of China through a proper channel. In such a way, investigation work of the relevant Public Security Bureau in the mainland can be facilitated. However, the investigation work concerned is of course the business of the Public Security Bureau of China. I do not want to comment on this here. I believe that the Public Security Bureau of China has begun to investigate into these cases and I hope that their investigation work will lead to satisfactory results very soon.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr President, since the Secretary for Security has mentioned that most of the tractors are driven across the border immediately after being stolen, has the Police Force or the relevant department ever considered issuing special documents and when tractors are being driven across the border, certain documents have to be produced before the tractors are allowed to pass so that such cases of theft can be reduced or prevented?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Mr President, it may not be necessary for us to do so. We are now considering the feasibility of a measure with the colleagues from the relevant departments, including the Legal Department. The measure concerned is that if drivers are found to be involved in the theft or vehicles, we may consider revoking their Closed Road Permit, that is, the so-called "closed area permit", after they are prosecuted and convicted.

Suicide among the Elderly

6. DR JOHN TSE asked (in Cantonese): As the problem of old people committing suicide in the territory has become more serious in recent years, will the Government inform this Council whether there are any services provided to prevent old people from committing suicide, and what long-term policy and measures will be adopted by the Government to solve the problem?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, suicide is a complex problem. It can be prompted by a wide range of causes --- emotional depression, declining health, terminal illness or a feeling of loneliness, of being abandoned. Given timely assistance and counselling, suicide can be avoided in most cases.

To reduce the risk of elderly people attempting suicide, it is necessary to provide a range of services designed to help them feel that they are continuing to participate in and contribute to the community. We are doing this through an ongoing major expansion of social centres and multi-service centres for the elderly.

In addition, in a bid to strengthen the functions of multi-service centres and to widen their contacts, the older volunteer and the volunteer workers programmes have been launched in ten multi-service centres for the elderly since October this year. These programmes are designed to fosters links between elderly people and the community in which they live. The older volunteers programme, in particular, provides for elderly people who are still active to reach out to other elderly persons to provide help.

In addition to these preventive measures, outreaching and crisis intervention services are provided. Community based geriatric and psychogeriatric teams as well as the family services centres and psychiatric social workers under the Social Welfare Department (SWD) all provide professional guidance and counselling. Elderly people and the public can also call the Social Welfare Department for information and assistance when necessary.

As a long-term strategy, the Government will continue to strengthen the existing and newly provided services, and promotional and educational activities will be organized at district level. The Government, family members and the public, play an important role in tackling the problem. Family members and neighbours should show greater concern for the old people around them and pay more attention to their daily lives. If there are elderly persons in need of help, the SWD or relevant non-governmental organizations can be contacted. The services are there --- the major challenge is to ensure that who most need them are brought into contact with them. The active participation of the public can help us in doing this task.

DR JOHN TSE (in Cantonese): Mr President, according to government statistics, the yearly successful suicide rate among old people is at least 200 to 300. Obviously, these figures show that the services provided for the elderly in Hong Kong need to be improved. The principal purpose of social centres and multi-service centres for the elderly is to provide community and recreational services rather than counselling or suicide prevention services. While the staff of social centres have the most direct contact with elderly people, home helpers are also in frequent contact with them. However, both these staff and helpers have not received any training in suicide prevention. Thus, neither the counselling service for the elderly nor the suicide prevention service is adequate in terms of both quality and quantity. Would the Government inform this Council whether or not the staff establishment for the counselling of elderly people would be enhanced and whether the outreaching service would be strengthened in the near future so as to address the problem of suicide among the elderly?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, enhancing the staff establishment or even expanding the outreaching service to help elderly people in need is an effective means. While the concept of an outreaching service suits the problem and the service itself can be delivered in many ways, we have to study in more detail to find out the most effective way to reach out to the elderly people because we need to know where these people live and what kind of services they need. Therefore, only when we have in place a larger liaison network can we provide more effective services. I agree that we need to consider in this respect how we can provide more services for the elderly, in particular outreaching services.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am glad to hear the Secretary mention outreaching service to which my question will be related. We in the Welfare Services Panel have asked the Government time and again to expand as soon as possible the outreaching service for the elderly people. But we have never had any positive response from the Government. Those elderly people who have suicidal tendency are, in comparative terms, an alienated group of society as they seldom take part in the activities of social centres for the elderly. Therefore, outreaching service is a direct and effective means to help elderly people who are living alone or comparatively alienated, hence reducing the incidence of suicide. Unfortunately, to date there are only two outreaching teams territory-wide, which are essentially unable to solve the problem at all. Therefore, I have this question for the Secretary: Given her recognition of the effectiveness of the outreaching service, why are there only two outreaching teams after these years and to date? When can a decision be expeditiously made to expand the existing two outreaching teams?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have to consider a number of aspects on the question of the mode of making contact with the elderly people. Outreaching service is a workable mode, but we need to study how resources can be effectively utilized. We shall continue to study in detail the best way to contact the elderly people as well as facilitating the elderly people's contact with social workers and other organizations, so that the latter will know what services are needed.

PRESIDENT: Not answered?

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): I think the Secretary has not answered my question. My question is indeed very simple. Why are there to date only two outreaching teams given that the Secretary agrees that this is a very effective method? When can a decision be made to enhance this service? I think this question should be answered in detail and in clarity.

PRESIDENT: I think the Secretary has answered your question.

MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, as our colleague has said, the yearly average number of suicide among elderly people is over 200 and this figure has persisted over the past several years --- a fact which seems to contradict the Secretary's point that more and more services are continuously being provided --- and the suicide figure is still very high.

Mr President, in the first paragraph of her main answer, the Secretary mentioned that suicide is a complex problem. She has also cited some causes, including emotional depression, declining health, terminal illness or chronic diseases, a feeling of loneliness and so on. Most of these problems are closely related to the physical health and mental state of elderly people. The best sentence in the Secretary's answer reads "Given timely assistance and counselling, suicide can be avoided in most cases." Just as many of our colleagues have asked in their follow-up questions, services provided in health care and psychiatric counselling are very inadequate and added to this is the fact that there are only two outreaching teams and few psychiatrists. Publicity or recreational activities, however much enhanced, will not help these elderly people. In spite of the many follow-up questions, the Secretary has not made any commitment to better help the elderly in this aspect and to provide them with suitable assistance and counselling.

Does the Secretary agree that the Government is leaving the elderly in the lurch since she is unwilling to make any commitment and says that continuous study is necessary, despite the presently insufficient provision of services?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, perhaps I can provide some information for Members' reference. Apart from the above-mentioned services, we have some other services. These include hotline services which are also adopted by many countries and places. The Social Welfare Department has a hotline service, and a similar service is also provided by other organizations to facilitate timely intervention if necessary. At present, such hotline service is also available in social centres for the elderly and elderly service centres, providing information on mental health and counselling service in addition to other items of information which elderly people need to know. Besides, some hotlines operate on a 24-hour basis. Furthermore, family service centres of the Social Welfare Department also provide quite many counselling services. Therefore, we are not relying on two outreaching teams only in the provision of these services.

PRESIDENT: I have three more names and I propose to draw a line there.

DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Has the Secretary noticed, from suicide among the elderly in recent years, that the upward trend in suicidal tendency among this group of people has been due to financial difficulties and unemployment?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, our information makes no detailed analysis of the causes of suicide among the elderly. But in my main answer given just now, I did mention that the main causes can be emotional such as emotional depression, health, a feeling of loneliness, or feeling of being abandoned. Studies conducted by other countries also point to similar causes, and in many cases it can be prompted by emotional or mental causes such as the loss of family members, family troubles, disappointment and despair. However, we do not know whether they committed suicide because of other causes such as financial difficulties or unemployment.

DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Secretary mentioned quite a number of different services which can help the elderly people, such as hotline services. Can the Secretary inform this Council of the number of elderly people who were intent on committing suicide but sought assistance through these services? What is the figure for last year? Are these services effective? On the other hand, the Secretary said that she has not conducted any analysis of the causes of elderly people committing suicide. Can she then undertake to ask the Department of Health to investigate into this aspect with a view to working out more effectively a preventive strategy?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, unless the elderly person calling us categorically tells us over the telephone his intention to commit suicide, we may have no means of knowing his emotional problem. But I can look up our information in this respect and, if such information is available, I shall provide the Honourable Member with a reply in writing. (Annex) As to the second question, I agree that we need to conduct more analysis on this in order to understand better the contributory causes for suicide among the elderly or even the causes of other suicide cases.

MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, just now it was mentioned that elderly people in need and those interested parties may call the Social Welfare Department hotline for any assistance and information they need. It was also mentioned that very often some of the major contributory causes of suicide among elderly people could be emotional. Obviously whenever emotional problems arise, assistance has to be provided immediately. Unfortunately, under the guidelines for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme, elderly people, unless disabled, living alone or having proved their special need, cannot apply for assistance to have a telephone installed. In other words, elderly people who are not living alone, disabled or who do not have a special need may not even have a telephone at home. So, how can an elderly person call the Social Welfare Department hotline when he feels depressed, supposing he knows the hotline number?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Mr President, as for the provision of a telephone, we understand that both the Hong Kong Council of Social Service and the Hong Kong Telephone Company Limited have agreed to provide free telephone installation service to elderly people who live alone. Secondly, the Honourable LAW Chi-kwong is right in saying that elderly CSSA recipients living alone should each be provided with a telephone the monthly charges of which are paid for. If other people should need to install a telephone, we can also find assistance from some welfare funds for such installation.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Release of XI Yang

7. MISS EMILY LAU asked (in Chinese): Regarding the imprisonment of Mr XI Yang --- the Ming Pao Daily News reporter --- in China, will the Government inform this Council of the measures taken by the Hong Kong Governments in the past year to seek his early release and whether it has any information on whether the British Government has taken similar or other measures to obtain the release of Mr XI Yang?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, the British and Hong Kong Governments remain concerned about the case of Mr XI Yang. Both Governments have raised this case on many occasions with the Chinese Government, and at very high level. We have conveyed our concern, and that of Hong Kong people and his family, about Mr XI, and urged that clear guidelines be produced for journalists working in China. In April 1995, Mr XI’s case was raised by the then Secretary of State during his meeting with Vice-Premier QIAN Qichen in New York. In June, at the request of the family, the Hong Kong Government made representation to the Chinese authorities concerning the welfare of Mr XI. Earlier this month, the Secretary of State, during his meeting with Vice-Premier QIAN Qichen in London, also expressed the concern of the British and Hong Kong Governments, Hong Kong people and Mr XI’s family about his circumstances including his health. The Hong Kong Government will continue to keep in close touch with the family and render whatever assistance is appropriate.

"Rat Accounts"

8. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): Most members of the Stock Exchange and the Futures Exchange are very dissatisfied and displeased with the term "rat accounts", and they consider that the term severely degrades the status of their industry. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the Government's interpretation of the term "rat accounts" as well as its analysis of such a practice; and
  2. whether it is aware that stock and futures brokers as well as their staff are forbidden to match orders with their clients; if so, whether such restriction is in violation of the policy of free trades?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Mr President,

  1. "Rat trading" is a term which has been used for many years in the Hong Kong securities and futures markets. It is a generic term covering a wide range of malpractices by brokers or their staff (staff) trading dishonestly, to the disadvantage of clients. This trading invariably results in material benefits to brokers or their staff at the expenses of unsuspecting clients, by not giving clients the best execution of their orders. This is usually achieved by delaying notification of trade executions so as to take advantage of short-term swings in the purchase and sale price of the transaction and by interposing an additional transaction by themselves between the client and the market. As a result, the clients will almost inevitably receive an inferior price in the execution of their orders. In an effort to mask delays and identities of trading activities, the staff will often open an account (that is, a "rat account") either with the broker with whom the staff work or, more commonly, with another broker.

    To the extent that brokers or their staff engaging in "rat trading" will not be acting in the best interests of their clients as required by the Rules of the Exchange, neither the Government nor the Securities and Futures Commission would condone such practices.

  2. The Securities and Futures Commission and the two exchanges have established rules and codes of conduct which a broker should follow when dealing in transactions either for his own account or for his clients. The objective is to protect the interests of investors and to ensure that the broker conducts his business in a manner which contributes towards the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.

    These rules and codes of conduct do not forbid brokers and their staff to match orders with their clients as such. Rather, they spell out clearly the principles and practices which a broker shall follow when carrying on cross trading between clients and between the client and the broker (or staff). Among other things, client orders should receive the best available execution and be given precedence over house orders. Moreover, before entering into such transactions, the broker must disclose to his client the fact that he has a material interest in the transactions and receive the client's consent either orally or in writing. The broker also must take all reasonable steps to ensure fair treatment of the client.

    We are aware also that as part of their internal control measures, the better managed brokers have rules requiring orders to be time-stamped so as to provide an audit trail. Indeed, some brokers go to the extent of prohibiting their staff from matching their own orders with those of clients or dealing through other brokers.

Consultancy Studies on Reclamation and Redevelopment

9. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: In regard to major consultancy studies relating to reclamation and redevelopment, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the terms of reference, cost and completion date in respect of each of the studies undertaken since 1993; and
  2. whether consideration is being given to undertaking similar studies in the near future; if so, what are the objectives and cost estimates of such studies?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, consultancy studies relating to reclamation and redevelopment include strategic planning studies, preliminary project feasibility studies and detailed project engineering studies.

Details of major consultancy studies undertaken by the Government since 1993 are at Table 1.

Details of other major consultancy studies which are tentatively planned to start before 1997 are at Table 2.

Table 1 : Major consultancy studies conducted since 1993

Study

Start/ Completion Dates

Terms of Reference

Costs

($/M)

Hong Kong Island West Development Statement

Jan 1993

to

late 1995

Formulate overall planning framework, urban renewal framework and land use sectoral action plan and, examine the institutional arrangements and resource implications for implementation of the proposal in various sections of Hong Kong Island

4.9

Wan Chai Reclamation Phase I

Jun 1993

to

Nov 1993

Study the viability of, and determine the extent and amount of infrastructure and associated cost for the reclamation

3.5

Green Island Public Dump

Aug 1993

to

Sep 1995

Assess the environmental and traffic impacts

5.5

Pak Shek Kok Reclamation

Sep 1993

to

Apr 1994

Assess the environmental impact and road access

2.3

Lantau Port Development Stage I - Design of Reclamation for Container Terminals 10 and 11 and Back-up Areas

Jan 1995

to

Dec 1995

Study the detailed engineering design of the reclamation and edge structures for the container terminals

22.0

Central Reclamation Phase III

Feb 1995

to

Mar 1997

Study the detailed design and site investigation

65.0

Tsuen Wan Bay Further Reclamation

Jun 1995

to

Mar 1996

Conduct engineering, planning and environmental investigations

10.0

Kowloon Point Development Feasibility Study

Aug 1995

to

Nov 1996

Study the feasibility of the development

32.0

South East Kowloon Development Feasibility Study

Sep 1995

to

May 1997

Study the feasibility of transforming the South East Kowloon Development Statement into action plans for implementation

85.0

Table 2: Major consultancy studies planned between now and 1996

Study

Tentative Start/ Completion Dates

Terms of Reference

Estimated Costs

($/M)

Green Island Stage I

Apr 1996

to

Jul 1998

Conduct review studies, and study the detailed design and site investigation

64.0

Wanchai Reclamation Phase II

Apr 1996

to

Sep 1997

Detailed design and site investigation

140.0

Tsuen Wan Bay Further Reclamation

Jun 1996

to

Jan 1999

Study the detailed design

13.0

Tseung Kwan O Area 131

Aug 1996

to

Dec 1997

Analyse and select a layout for the development of the area for mid-stream cargo handling facilities, a concrete batching plant and a barging point

13.0

Illegal Occupation of Government Land

10. MR FRED LI asked (in Chinese): Recently, many slopes located on Crown land have been opened up illegally, mostly for farming purposes, and the situation is getting increasingly serious. In Kwun Tong District alone, such activities are known to have taken place on a number of slopes. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the number of slopes located on Crown land in the territory which have been illegally opened up for farming;
  2. whether the illegal opening up of slopes for farming will increase the risk of landslips; and
  3. what interim and long-term measures does the Government have to prevent Crown land from being occupied and used illegally?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President,

  1. we regret that we have not kept specific statistics on the number of sites situated on hillsides located on government land which has been illegally opened up for farming. Undertaking such a survey is very resource intensive and not possible in the time given to reply to the question. The Lands Department’s practice is to act on complaints received on illegal occupation or use of government land. We shall be very happy to act on the cases mentioned by the Honourable Fred LI if he can provide some information to us.
  2. the opening up of hillside for farming may under certain circumstances increase the risk of landslips. It is not possible to generalize the situation as many determining factors are involved, such as the scale, size and nature of the farming activities, the original condition and margin of stability of the hillside in question, and the impact of the former on the latter.
  3. the Government has power under the Crown Land Ordinance (Cap. 28) to take action against unauthorized occupation of government land. We will continue to respond to reported cases of illegal occupation of government land as well as cases detected during patrols made by district land staff.

Pollution in Victoria Harbour

11. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): In view of the worsening pollution problem in the Victoria Harbour, will the Government inform this Council of :

  1. the number of large-scale reclamation projects which have been approved along the harbour front; and
  2. the measures taken to prevent these projects from causing pollution to the harbour?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, seven reclamation projects have been approved in the Victoria Harbour. They are Central Reclamation Phase I, Central Reclamation Phase II, Wan Chai Reclamation Phase I, Aldrich Bay Reclamation, Belcher Bay Reclamation, West Kowloon Reclamation, and Stonecutters Island Naval Base.

Reclamation projects by themselves are not the cause of pollution. However, they could affect the hydrology in the harbour which might have an impact on water quality. Measures have therefore been taken at both the planning and implementation stages to ensure that any impact is kept within acceptable levels.

At the strategic planning level, the cumulative hydrological and water quality impacts resulting from reclamation projects have been assessed in the context of Territorial Development Strategy, Metroplan and Port and Airport Development Strategy. Engineering hydraulics studies have been undertaken to study the effects of reclamation projects and other harbour engineering works on tidal flows, wave propagation and sediment deposit. A large scale physical tidal model has been built to facilitate in-depth investigation of the hydraulic effects of such coastal developments.

At the project design level, detailed engineering studies and environmental impact assessments are conducted before the projects are implemented to ensure that the water quality impacts during and after construction do not exceed acceptable limits.

Careful construction programming and monitoring also ensure that any water quality problems caused by the reclamation works is kept to the minimum. Wherever necessary a seawall is first constructed at the perimeter of the reclamation. A carefully planned, controlled, and supervised dredging and in-filling operation then takes place behind the seawall to prevent floating refuse from reaching the harbour and minimize turbidity problems caused by siltation. Furthermore, a comprehensive monitoring programme for each reclamation is established with well-defined action levels for key water quality indicators such as suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and temperature. If monitoring results should indicate action levels are in danger of being breached, the site staff would alert the contractor and require him to tighten the environmental mitigation measures in accordance with the contract specifications.

The main source of pollution in the Victoria Harbour is sewage discharges. This problem is being tackled by actions to declare the Harbour as a Water Control Zone and by the construction of Phase I of the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme which when completed in 1997 will improve the water quality of the Harbour by 70%.

Expenditure on Public Dental Services

12. DR LEONG CHE-HUNG asked: With regard to dental services financed by public funds, will the Administration provide this Council with the annual breakdown in respect of the following areas in the past five years:

  1. overall expenditure;
  2. expenditure on direct services;
  3. expenditure on staff training;
  4. expenditure on public education; and
  5. the staff establishment and strength by major ranks for providing such services.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the annual breakdown of dental services financed by public funds in the past four years is as follows:


1992-93

$M

1993-94

$M

1994-95

$M

Approved

Estimates

(Note 1)

1995-96

$M

(a) overall expenditure

258.2

298.9

334.6

361.8

(b) expenditure on direct services, that is, services provided to government servants/dependants of government servants, primary school children participating in the School Dental Service Scheme, special needs group as well as emergency treatment and in-patient dental treatment as an essential part of medical treatment

236.3

273.0

307.9

333.4

(c) expenditure on staff training, that is expenditure on the Dental Therapists Training School and expenses under departmental training vote for dental and para-dental staff

16.1

16.8

17.2

18.3

(d) expenditure on public education

5.8

9.1

9.5

10.1

The required information for the year 1991-92 has not been provided. It is because with a change in the programme management structure in 1992-93, the two sets of figures cannot be directly and meaningfully compared.

Note (1): 1995 salary revision has not yet been taken into account under this column

(e) The staff establishment and strength providing dental services by major ranks as at 1 September in the past five years are as follows:


1991

1992

1993

1994

1995


E

 S

E

S

E

S

E

S

E

S

Consultants

8888981081110
Principal Dental Officers1111112111
Senior Dental Officers38333836383541334333
Dental Officers134130134135140138151159158167
Tutor Dental Therapists4444444444
Senior Dental Therapists1919191719191919191917
Dental Therapists/ Students DTS270253270258270260270255270263
Dental Hygienists8384868698
Senior Dental Surgery Assistants34273432343040394237
Dental Surgery Assistants166158167169179170186175

Governor's District Visits

13. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG asked (in Chinese): Regarding the Governor's visits to various districts of the territory since his assumption of office, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the districts which the Governor had visited and the respective dates of those visits;
  2. of the districts in which special "whitewashing" works, such as repainting, extension or reconstruction and extra cleansing, were carried out by the Government departments concerned before the Governor's visit, as well as the districts in which he was requested to visit only those units that had been varnished over in advance; and the expenses involved in each of those special "whitewashing" works;
  3. whether the Governor knew and approved of these "whitewashing" works carried out by the departments concerned beforehand; and whether, whilst visiting the districts, he has heard of complaints from the public about their dissatisfaction with Government departments putting up facades and hiding the truth; and
  4. whether the Government considers that the extra "whitewashing" works carried out before the Governor's visit would conceal the actual situation of those districts, resulting in the Governor not being able to understand precisely the living standard and actual situation of the people; and whether it will review the existing practice of carrying out "whitewashing" works before the Governor's visit, so that he can truly understand the livelihood, feelings and grievances of the residents?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President, my reply to the question is as follows:

  1. Since arriving in Hong Kong in July 1992, the Governor has made 40 district visits as part of a continuing programme to familiarize and update himself with district issues and personalities. A detailed list of the districts visited is at Annex. The Governor has also made other theme visits and unannounced visits for specific purposes, such as seeing for himself living conditions in Temporary Housing Areas (THA).

b. and c.

One of the main aims of the Governor's visits is to enable him to see for himself what places are like in the normal course of events. It is not usual practice for government departments to undertake redecoration or improvement work specifically for visits by the Governor. All government departments are aware that they should not go beyond normal cleansing or maintenance of public facilities or venues which the Governor would be visiting and that they should resist any temptation to provide an unnaturally favourable impression. Indeed, the Governor has asked specifically that this should not be done. The only exception should be where it is relevant to demonstrate a revised standard. This was the case with the recent visit by the Governor to a THA where one of the several units seen by the Governor had been refurbished. This was done, with the knowledge of the Governor, to demonstrate the improved refurbishment standard which will be applied by the Housing Department.

The costs of routine cleansing and maintenance are absorbed as part of normal department expenses.

  1. The Governor makes a point of talking to as many people as possible during his visits to help give him a better understanding of the feelings and aspirations of the residents. Very often the Governor achieves this by detouring from the suggested routing and visiting facilities not on the suggested programme. For the same reason, the Governor undertakes unannounced visits to see first-hand the situation on the ground and to talk directly to residents and members of the public.

Annex

The Governor's Visits to Districts

1992

1994

Date

District

Date

District

10 July

Mongkok

28 Jan

Southern

2 Sept

Sham Shui Po

2 Mar

Tai Po

23 Sept

Islands

16 Mar

Wong Tai Sin

14 Oct

Southern

13 April

Sha Tin

28 Oct

Tsuen Wan

4 May

Wan Chai

4 Nov

Central and Western

1 June

Tuen Mun

2 Dec

Tai Po

19 June

Kwai Tsing

9 Dec

Wong Tai Sin

12 Oct

Yau Tsim Mong

16 Dec

Kwai Tsing

20 Oct

Sai Kung



30 Nov

Kwun Tong

1993


1995


Date

District

Date

District

6 Jan

North

12 Jan

Yuen Long

13 Jan

Wan Chai

15 Feb

Kowloon City

24 Feb

Sha Tin

3 Mar

North

3 Mar

Yau Tsim

15 Mar

Central and Western

10 Mar

Tuen Mun

14 June

Eastern

17 Mar

Central and Western

19 July

Tsuen Wan¡@

24 Mar

Sai Kung



28 April

Yuen Long



14 May

Eastern



26 May

Kowloon City



3 June

Kwun Tong



30 June

Mongkok



29 Sept

Mongkok



13 Oct

Sham Shui Po



8 Dec

Islands



Total number of visits : 40

Open-air Bus Stops

14. MR CHAN WING-CHAN asked (in Chinese): Regarding the open-air bus stops of the three franchised bus companies, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the number of open-air bus stops that are provided with shelter and the respective number of such bus stops owned by each of the three bus companies;
  2. whether any government department is responsible for regulating and overseeing the provision of bus stop facilities; and
  3. whether consideration will be given to requiring bus companies to provide shelters for all their bus stops in future, so as to make it more comfortable for passengers to wait for buses?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,

  1. There are 5 214 bus stops. 1 570 of these have shelters. Details are annexed.
  2. The bus companies have an on-going programme to provide new shelters. These programmes are monitored and approved by the Transport Department in consultation with interested parties including District Offices with regard to priority, site suitability and local acceptance. The design and construction of bus shelters have to be approved by the Highways Department.
  3. Our policy is to encourage franchized bus companies to provide bus shelters where possible. However, there are locations where shelters cannot be constructed because of the narrow width of pavement, engineering problems or local objections.

Annex

Company

No. of bus stops provided

No Of bus stops with shelters

Kowloon Motor Bus

3 714

1 322

China Motor Bus

788

123

Citybus

587

50

New Lantao Bus

125

75

Total

5 124

1 570

Regulation of Residential Homes for the Elderly

15. MRS ELIZABETH WONG asked (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council :

  1. of the progress regarding the implementation of legislation governing residential homes for elderly people in the territory; whether any problems have been encountered, and if so, what are these problems; and
  2. whether, arising from the case of an outbreak of fire in a private home for elderly people in North Point, there is any intention on the part of the Government to amend the safety aspects of the relevant legislation to protect the interests of elderly people residing in these privately run homes?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Mr President, the reply is as follows:

  1. the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance and Regulation came into effect on 1 April 1995 (except for Section 6 of the Ordinance). Relevant application forms and other documentation were then distributed to the operators of all residential care homes for the elderly. As at 17 October 1995, a total of 259 applications (from 44% of the total number of known residential homes) had been received of which, 185 came from private homes, 62 from subvented homes and 12 from self-financing non-profit-making homes.

    Four teams of inspectors covering social work, building safety, fire safety and health, have started inspection visits to residential care homes to vet their applications for licences or certificates of exemption. We expect the first batch of licences and certificates to be issued at the end of this month.

    We have encountered some problems at this early stage of implementing the legislation. For example, some residential care homes have been found to be operating out of non-domestic premises. This is not strictly in accordance with planning and building requirements, but the Social Welfare and Buildings Departments have agreed that a flexible approach should be adopted in such cases provided that fire precaution measures are up to standard and the homes do not have any unauthorized building works. Private homes which were found to have serious safety problems have, on the advice of our inspectors, either already been reprovisioned elsewhere or have had the necessary remedial changes carried out to make them acceptable.

    The shortage of nursing staff in all residential care homes and health care staff in private homes has been another major problem. Additional funding has been secured to expand the training of health workers from 400 places to 1 200 places by March 1997.

  2. Even before the introduction of this new legislation, it was standard practice of the Fire Protection Bureau of the Fire Services Department to pay visits to newly established residential care homes for the elderly to explain the fire prevention measures needed. Staff of the Social Welfare Department have also regularly reminded home operators to follow the advice of the Fire Services Department in this respect and have issued letters regularly advising on the need to pay attention to fire safety measures.

    With the introduction of the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance, all residential care homes for the elderly are now under a statutory obligation to comply with fire services requirements. Senior Station Officers of the Licensing Office of Residential Care Homes for the Elderly give in-depth guidance and advice on fire precaution measures to operators of residential care homes for the elderly when processing their applications for licences or certificates of exemption.

    The fire which occurred recently in a private residential care home for the elderly in North Point was a minor incident caused by an electrical malfunction in a wall-mounted fan. Although this home had not yet submitted its application for a licence or certificate of exemption, the home was equipped with the basic fire services equipment and the operator possessed adequate knowledge about fire fighting. As a result, the fire was put out immediately.

    This fire was a relatively minor and isolated incident which does not point to any inadequacy in the safety aspects of our legislation. Indeed, the fire was dealt with effectively and the electrical fault which caused it would have been difficult to detect whatever statutory requirements had been in effect at that time.

University Hostel Provision

16. MR WONG WAI-YIN asked (in Chinese): It is learnt that some students of the University of Hong Kong residing in Yuen Long, Tuen Mun and the Northern District have not been allocated hostel accommodation in the current academic year, resulting in these students having to travel long distances. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. whether the Government, in allocating funds to the universities for providing student hostel places, has imposed conditions requiring the universities concerned to accord priority to students living in remote areas in the allocation of hostel accommodation; and
  2. what assistance the Government will render to students living in remote areas who have not been allocated hostel places; and whether consideration will be given to providing them with a rent or travelling allowance?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER: Mr President,

  1. Under the existing policy, the tertiary institutions funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC) are provided with capital subvention to cover at most 75% of the total construction costs of the approved hostel places. They are required to meet at least 25% of the total construction costs from private donations and also the recurrent costs of the hostels. In allocating the capital grants to the institutions, the Government and the UGC do not stipulate the conditions for the allocation of the hostel places. It is up to the institutions to allocate the hostel places to their students. Nevertheless, it is understood that the student's travelling time between home and campus is one of the main criteria used by the institutions for allocating hostel places to students.
  2. Students living in remote areas who have financial difficulties may apply for financial assistance under the Local Student Finance Scheme (LSFS). Under the LSFS, grants are provided to eligible students to cover their academic expenses, that is, tuition fees, student union fees and other academic expenses whereas loans are provided to cover their living expenses which include expenses on accommodation and transportation. Recognizing that students residing in hostels and rented accommodation have a greater financial burden, student accommodation expenses are allowed to be deducted as necessary household expenses in the calculation of annual disposable income (ADI) for determining the level of grant and loan starting from the 1993-94 academic year. In addition, the expenses of the applicants' siblings on hostel fees or rented accommodation are also included as necessary household expenses in the calculation of the ADI in the 1995-96 academic year. These improvements have increased the amount of financial assistance available to tertiary students living in hostels or rented accommodation near their place of study.

    Apart from the grant and loan under the LSFS, students living in remote areas may also apply for the Student Travel Subsidy Scheme. Under the Scheme, full-time students aged between 12 and 25 who have not completed their first degree courses and who have passed the means test are provided a travel subsidy to cover part of their travel expenses for education related trips. In general, students residing farther away from their institutions will be entitled to higher rates of subsidy. The level of subsidy will be updated annually to take into account the latest revision of public transport fares. The subsidy for each university student in 1994-95 varied between $570 and $5,500 per annum.

Election Complaints

17. MISS EMILY LAU asked (in Chinese): In the Legislative Council election held on 17 September 1995, some members of the public complained that their names had been removed from the register of electors without prior notification. Discrepancies between the voter turnout figure and the number of votes cast as well as miscalculation in the votes cast also occurred in the process of votes counting. In view of this, will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the causes of the above-mentioned incidents; and
  2. how it can ensure that the results of the election have not been affected by such incidents?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, the Legislative Council elections held on 17 September 1995 were a great success all round. The electoral arrangements were open and fair, and a record number of electors took part in the elections. Overall, the elections were conducted smoothly and in an orderly manner.

The incidents mentioned in the question relate to:

  1. some people having been unable to vote because their names were not found in the register of electors;
  2. discrepancies which had been identified during the process of vote counting, that is those between the summary ballot paper accounts and the actual number of ballot papers found inside the ballot boxes; and
  3. a miscalculation in the number of votes counted in the process of vote counting.

Regarding (a), immediately following the elections, the independent Boundary and Election Commission conducted a thorough investigation into these incidents. The investigation in respect of the New Territories Northwest and New Territories North Constituencies, where two candidates involved also voiced criticism, has been completed. According to the Commission's findings announced on 12 October 1995, out of the reported cases in the two constituencies, about 30% to 40% are former electors whose names had been deleted from the register of electors as a result of the annual vetting exercise. The rest are either electors who are still on the register but had gone to the wrong polling stations, or persons who have never been registered as electors.

The vetting exercise, conducted by the Registration and Electoral Office every year to ensure the accuracy of the register, is essential in maintaining the credibility and integrity of our electoral system. The elaborate vetting procedures are designed to ensure that no electors would be deleted from the register lightly. There is also an appeal mechanism already built into the existing arrangements to guard against wrongful deletion. The Commission's findings confirm that the vetting arrangements had been carried out in accordance with the law.

Regarding (b), a summary ballot paper account was prepared in respect of each polling station at the close of poll. The discrepancies which occurred between the accounts and the actual number of ballot papers found inside the ballot boxes could be caused by miscalculations by polling staff in compiling the accounts. In all cases, the discrepancies had been verified by the relevant returning officers in the presence of the candidates and agents present at the count.

Regarding (c), there was a miscalculation of the number of votes counted in the Kowloon Southeast Constituency. The Commission found that this was due to a clerical error in that extra votes had been inadvertently added to the total number of votes received by the losing candidate of that constituency. However, the election result for this constituency had not been affected.

Following the discovery of the above error, the Registration and Electoral Office conducted a thorough check of the available counting records in respect of all the other constituencies and all relevant calculations have been found arithmetically accurate. The Commission is therefore satisfied that the discrepancy found in the Kowloon Southeast Constituency was only an isolated incident.

Results of the Commission's investigations into these incidents have been made known to the public. They have not altered the fact that the arrangement for the September Legislative Council elections were open and fair. However, if any candidate or electors (10 or more) feel aggrieved by the election results, the avenue is open to them to consider presenting an election petition to the High Court within two months of the publication of the result of the elections in accordance with the provisions laid down in the legislation.

Heavy Vehicle Traffic at Cross Harbour Tunnel

18. MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): In view of the frequent traffic congestion at the Hong Kong entrance to the Cross Harbour Tunnel, will the Government inform this Council of the following:

  1. whether it is stipulated that buses and heavy vehicles must use the left carriageway at the entrance on Hong Kong Island; if so, what the reasons are;
  2. if the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, whether it has reviewed such a requirement to ensure that it will not cause confusion to the motorists; and
  3. whether it will study the feasibility of changing such a requirement?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Mr President,

  1. it is stipulated in Bylaw 13 of the Cross Harbour Tunnel Bylaws that buses and other heavy vehicles must use only the left hand lanes in the tunnel, except when otherwise directed by uniformed tunnel staff. The purpose is to keep slower moving vehicles in the inside lane for traffic management reasons and for safety reasons. For example, this would facilitate bus passengers alighting on the kerb side in case of emergencies.
  2. The requirement for heavy vehicles to use the left hand lane is sign posted at the tunnel entrances. This practice is well-known and has not caused any confusion to motorists. The main cause of traffic congestion at the Hong Kong entrance to the Cross Harbour Tunnel is not the movement of heavy vehicles to the left hand lane, but the fact that the tunnel itself is operating far beyond its designed capacity.
  3. The Transport Department and the tunnel operators regularly review the traffic flow system in the tunnel and its approaches, and they are satisfied that the current arrangements are the most practical and are justified on traffic management grounds and for safety reasons.

Consultancy Study on Container Port Industry

19. MISS CHRISTINE LOH asked: The Government has indicated that it will soon invite tenders for a multi-million dollar consultancy study on the container port industry and its effects on the long-term sustainability of economic activity in the territory. This study will propose an economic development plan for the territory's port and port-related service sector industries for the next decade and beyond. Will the Government inform this Council:

  1. of the detailed objectives and cost estimate of the upcoming study; and
  2. whether this study will incorporate the rapid development of manufacturing and port services in the Pearl River Delta Region?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Mr President, the Government has no plans for a specific study as described in the question but is exploring ideas for a study of sustainability and development for Hong Kong in the 21st century, including issues relating to the port, developments in the wider region, and other development issues. We have not yet finalized the scope and costs of the study.

We expect to be able to include information about the study in the third Review of the White Paper on the environment, to be published in the next few months.

Freedom of the Press

20. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG asked (in Chinese): In view of the imprisonment of Mr XI Yang, a Hong Kong newspaper reporter, by the Chinese Government and the recent cases in which a number of Hong Kong journalists met with obstruction while making coverage in China (notably the incidents resulting in the detention of the reporters of Television Broadcasts Limited and the Next Magazine), will the Government inform this Council:

  1. what follow-up action has been taken by the Hong Kong Government, and whether it is aware of any action taken by the British Government in connection with these incidents; and
  2. what measures are in place to effect and protect freedom of the press and to prevent the occurrence of the above incidents in the territory?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Mr President,

  1. We have conveyed to the Chinese authorities the widespread concern in Hong Kong, both in media circles and more widely, about the case of Mr XI Yang and the need for clearer guidelines for journalists working in China. In Mr XI's case, we have raised the case on many occasions with the Chinese authorities and our efforts were reinforced by the British Government. Mr XI's case was raised by Mr Douglas HURD during his meeting with Vice-Premier QIAN Qichen in April 1995 and also by Mr Malcolm RIFKIND during his recent meeting with Mr QIAN in London. The Hong Kong reporters involved in the two recent incidents were detained only briefly. Neither their families nor their employers asked us to intervene. Nonetheless, we monitored the developments closely and were pleased to note that the matters were resolved rapidly in each case.
  2. Freedom of the press is a vital part of Hong Kong's way of life. It is protected and guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. The Government is fully committed to the principle of press freedom. This commitment is backed up by a comprehensive review of legislation with the aim of identifying provisions which might infringe press freedom or conflict with the Bill of Rights. Our review has covered 53 provisions in 27 Ordinances. To date, we have dealt with 43 provisions, including 31 provisions which have been amended or repealed. We have, for example, swept away old and excessive regulations to deal with emergencies while preserving the means to act swiftly to protect public safety in an emergency in ways which are consistent with the Bill of Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In other areas, we have scrapped powers to pre-censor TV and radio broadcasts, relaxed police powers regulating public meetings and processions, restricted the powers of law enforcement agencies to enter premises to search for and seize journalistic materials, and given the press more freedom to report and comment upon court proceedings. Action is in hand to complete work on the remaining laws.

BILLS

First Reading of Bills

LEGAL AID SERVICES COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL

PREVENTION OF BRIBERY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (NO. 2) BILL 1995

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENTS) BILL 1995

GAS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995

BANK NOTES ISSUE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995

BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1995

AIR PASSENGER DEPARTURE TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995

TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995

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

Second Reading of Bills

LEGAL AID SERVICES COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL

THE CHIEF SECRETARY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to establish the Legal Aid Services Council and for related matters."

She said: Mr President, I move that the Legal Aid Services Council (No. 2) Bill be read the Second time. The Bill provides for the establishment of an independent Legal Aid Services Council to oversee the publicly-funded legal aid services operated by the Legal Aid Department and the Duty Lawyer Service. Members will recall that this Bill was introduced into this Council on 22 February, but the Council was unable to accord priority to it, as there were other more pressing commitments at that time, so that it lapsed at the end of the 1994-95 session.

The establishment of a Legal Aid Services Council was one of 25 recommendations made by a Working Group whose report was approved by the Executive Council and published in July last year, and which took into account the comments received on proposals set out in a public consultation paper released in April 1993. The other areas covered by the report involved improvements to the scope and operation of the legal aid scheme. These improvements were implemented via the Legal Aid (Amendment) Ordinance 1995, which was passed by this Council on 15 June and commenced operation on 28 July.

Let me make it clear at the outset that the Administration does not at present interfere with decisions made by the Legal Aid Department or the Duty Lawyer Service on the granting of legal aid. The Director of Legal Aid has a statutory obligation under the Legal Aid Ordinance to consider applications before her independently; and the Duty Lawyer Service is administered jointly by the Bar Association and the Law Society. However, the Administration recongizes that the status of the Legal Aid Department as a government department may create a perception problem in some quarters. We have therefore accepted the recommendation of the Working Group that an independent statutory Legal Aid Services Council should be set up.

To safeguard the independence of the Legal Aid Services Council, clause 3 of this Bill establishes it as a body corporate which can take action to enforce its legal rights or can be sued for breach of its legal duties. It will not be an agent of the Crown and will therefore not enjoy any status as such. Clause 15 also adds the Council onto the Schedule of public bodies under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.

Clause 4 of the Bill sets out the functions of the Council clearly. Its main function will be to oversee the Legal Aid Department and the Duty Lawyer Service, although it will not interfere with their handling of individuals cases. The Council will also act as the Government's advisory body on the formulation of policies relating to legal aid and on the funding proposals/requirements of its executive agents.

Clause 5 of the Bill states that the Legal Aid Services Council will be chaired by a non-official who is independent of both the Government and the legal profession. Its members will include four lawyers and four lay persons, in addition to the Director of Legal Aid and the Administrator of the Duty Lawyer Service who are directly responsible for the provision of legal aid services. Members of the Legal Aid Services Council are required by clause 8 to disclose any interests that they may have in matters being considered by the Council. On the other hand, clause 7 protects individual members who act in good faith from civil liabilities for any act or omission of the Council.

Clauses 9 to 13 of the Bill deal with the modus operandi of the Council. To enhance its accountability, the Council will be required to submit an annual report to the Governor, and to table its report before this Council. The accounts of the Legal Aid Services Council will be subject to examination and inquiry by the Director of Audit.

The establishment of a Legal Aid Services Council will be far from a cosmetic change, as some critics have suggested. On the contrary, it will represent a significant policy change. It will provide a greater and more direct opportunity for public participation in legal aid administration and policy formulation and will therefore enhance the independence of legal aid administration. Some people have argued that we should go further and dis-establish the Legal Aid Department. The Administration is not convinced that this is the best way forward, but we are not ruling it out. Once the Legal Aid Services Council is established, we will ask the Council to examine the feasibility and desirability of this option.

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

PREVENTION OF BRIBERY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (NO. 2) BILL 1995

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to make further and better provisions for the prevention of bribery."

He said: Mr President, I move that the Prevention of Bribery (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill 1995 be read a Second time. This Bill is similar to the Prevention of Bribery (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 1995 that I introduced into this Council in May this year, but which lapsed on the dissolution of the Council in the summer. However, the Chinese text of the current Bill differs from that of the earlier Bill, reflecting the fact that an authentic Chinese text of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance has since been gazetted.

The purpose of this Bill is to make the legislative amendments needed in order to implement the recommendations in the report of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Review Committee. That Committee was established at the beginning of 1994 to review the powers of the ICAC and its accountability in the exercise of its powers. It was chaired by Dr Helmet SOHMEN and included Members of this Council, community leaders and members of the Administration.

The report of the Review Committee was published in December 1994 and contained 76 conclusions and recommendations. Those recommendations may broadly be described as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Members of this Council were given copies of the report, and the Security Panel of the Council discussed the report in January this year, when it expressed strong support for several of the recommendations.

The Administration has announced that, in principle, it accepts the recommendations in the report, although some minor procedural refinements may be required in some cases. Certain of the recommendations can only be implemented by legislation, and that is the purpose of the Bill I am now introducing. In promoting this Bill, the Government's objectives are to strike a balance between two potentially conflicting views held in the community: namely, that the ICAC needs to have sufficient powers to be effective in the continuing battle against corruption; and that it should be more accountable and transparent in the use of those powers.

The Bill proposes amendments to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance and the Magistrates Ordinance. The amendments can be grouped into three categories.

Control by the courts

The first category relates to certain of the powers at present vested in the Commissioner of the ICAC, which are to be transferred to the courts. In particular, court approval will be needed in order for the ICAC to require a person to supply information under section 14 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, to search premises (save in exceptional cases), or to prevent a suspect from disposing of property.

Bill of Rights Ordinance

The second category of amendments are to ensure that the legislation relating to the ICAC is consistent with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. The amendments will provide:

First, that the Commissioner's special powers of investigation arise only if he has reasonable cause to believe that an offence under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance may have been committed;

Second, that the Commissioner's power to apply to a magistrate for a notice requiring a person to surrender his travel documents arises only if he reasonably suspects that person to have committed such an offence;

Third, that a person who has surrendered a travel document has the option of applying to the Commissioner of the ICAC, or a magistrate, or both for its return; and

Fourth, that a statutory declaration or written statement made in compliance with a requirement under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance will be admissible in evidence against the person who made it only if he gives evidence that is inconsistent with it.

Provisions in the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance that create a presumption of corruption and allow a court to comment on the failure of an accused to give evidence are to be repealed.

The opportunity presented by the Bill is taken to amend section 10(2) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance in order to ensure that it is safe from challenge under the Bill of Rights Ordinance. Section 10(1) makes it an offence for a Crown servant to maintain a standard of living above that which is commensurate with his official emoluments, or to be in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to those emoluments. The importance of section 10 was recognized in a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal. I quote from the decision:

"And in case after case over the years, section 10 has proved its effectiveness in the fight against corruption. Although less visible, its deterrent effect must have been even greater. Chapter 201 of the Laws of Hong Kong is rightly named the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. Section 10's worth is well-established."

At present section 10(2) creates a presumption, in a prosecution under section 10(1)(b), that certain assets were in the control of the accused, until the contrary is proved. It is now proposed to amend section 10(2) by replacing the legal presumption with an evidentiary presumption. The effect of this will be that the accused is not required to prove that the assets were not in his control, there merely has to some evidence to that effect in order to displace the presumption.

Miscellaneous amendments

The third category relates to miscellaneous amendments. These include amendments:

  1. to give the ICAC the same access to tax records as exists under the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance and the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance;
  2. to modify the power of the Commissioner of the ICAC to dismiss an officer under section 8(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance;
  3. to make it possible of the ICAC to keep a suspect on bail no longer than is necessary; and
  4. to enable the Commissioner of the ICAC, in discharging specified corruption prevention duties, to gain access to all records, books and documents held by public bodies.

Comment

Mr President, this Bill is an essential step in reaffirming the ICAC's mandate in the light of present day circumstances and the changing expectations of the people of Hong Kong 20 years after the establishment of the ICAC.

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION AMENDMENTS) BILL 1995

THE SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Copyright Ordinance, the Registration of Patents Ordinance, the Trade Descriptions Ordinance and the Trade Marks Ordinance."

He said (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that the Intellectual Property (World Trade Organization Amendments) Bill 1995 be read a Second time.

The aim of this consolidated amendment Bill is to amend the existing local legislation in respect of trade marks, patents and copyright, so that Hong Kong can fully conform to the standards of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement.

Hong Kong is one of the signatories to the WTO Agreement concluded in the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations. The WTO has been established on 1 January 1995, and Hong Kong is one of the founder members. The resident representative of the Hong Kong delegation to WTO was also elected Chairman of the WTO Council on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

One of the main objectives of TRIPS is to reduce trade barriers arising from inadequate protection of intellectual property rights. As a founder member of WTO, Hong Kong must show other WTO members that Hong Kong is determined to discharge its obligations under WTO. Hong Kong whole-heartedly supports the protection of intellectual property rights under a multi-lateral trade system. We are also committed to discharge the obligations under TRIPS. An early enactment of the required legislation would help enhance Hong Kong's reputation as an international trade and service centre, and will also boost the confidence of overseas investors to create, manufacture and distribute in Hong Kong products covered by intellectual property rights. This will promote investment and raise the competitive edge of Hong Kong in the international trading community.

TRIPS sets out standards for compliance by WTO members relating to various types of intellectual property, including trade marks, indications of source, patents, copyright, industrial designs, layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits, the protection of rights of undisclosed information and plant varieties and so on. TRIPS also sets out Customs measures required to enforce intellectual property rights, so that trade mark and copyright holders may sue in civil courts to exercise their rights.

The intellectual property system in Hong Kong has already complied with the TRIPS standards in most aspects. However, it is still necessary for us to make some relevant amendments.

Mr President, I shall briefly mention the main clauses in the Bill and explain how these clauses can enable Hong Kong to comply with TRIPS standards.

For trade marks, TRIPS provides that any sign capable of being represented graphically may be registered as a trade mark. We propose to broaden the scope of registrable trade marks; forms, colours or alphabets of the goods especially, so long as they are distinctive, may be registered as trade marks.

Simultaneously, we must also ensure that WTO members may enjoy the Most Favoured Nation status in respect of priority in trade mark applications. At present, the Governor, when determining the priority of trade mark applications, can only designate in the Schedule to the Trade Marks Ordinance that countries which have acceded to the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (the Paris Convention) may enjoy priority in Hong Kong. We propose that the Governor should also be empowered to designate in that Schedule that WTO members who have not acceded to the Paris Convention may also enjoy priority in Hong Kong.

TRIPS provides for greater protection for trade mark holders, so that they can prevent other persons from using, in relation to the same or similar products or services in the course of trading, a mark identical with or nearly identical with their trade marks without their consent. We propose that the existing provisions be amended so as to ensure that the extended scope of protection be made more clearly.

As provided by TRIPS, indications of sources should be protected. Indications of source are marks or indications used for the purpose of indicating the source of origin of the product or service. We believe that indications of source may be protected by regarding them as certification trade marks under the local Trade Marks Ordinance. In order to enhance transparency and eliminate any legal ambiguity in relation to the scope of protection, we propose to amend the provisions relating to certification trade marks.

Regarding patents, TRIPS provides that only under certain conditions patented inventions may be commandeered by the member governments without the consent of the patent holder. We propose that new provisions be made, so that the Government may use patented inventions without the consent of the patent holder only at time of extreme emergency to secure sufficient supplies and services essential to the life of the community, but the Government must pay fair and reasonable compensation to the patent holders. This is to ensure that the legitimate rights of the patent holders will not be unfairly encroached upon. The proposed new provisions would be similar to the relevant provisions set out in the Layout-design (Topography) of Integrated Circuits Ordinance enacted in March 1994.

With respect to copyright, TRIPS provides that "rental rights" and "rights in performances" should be protected. Hong Kong's existing copyright legislation does not contain any provisions relating to these two types of rights. We propose that clear provisions be added to the Copyright Ordinance so as to provide for these two types of rights.

According to the proposed provisions governing "rental rights", copyright holders of computer programmes, films and sound recordings are entitled to prevent others from renting them without their consent. Any person who rents these copyrighted works without consent constitutes a copyright infringement.

To guard against possible abuse of rental rights, it is proposed to enact a provision authorizing the Secretary for Trade and Industry to decide whether permission of compulsory renting should be granted. Before coming up with a decision, the Secretary for Trade and Industry should take into account many factors including the relative market share of the rental right holder, the evidence of abuse and the nature of copyrighted work or article as well as other factors involving public interests. We also propose to extend the jurisdiction of the present Performing Right Tribunal (to be renamed the Copyright Tribunal) to enable it to determine the reasonable royalty payable to the copyright holder consequent upon the renting of their copyrighted works.

According to the proposed provisions governing the rights in performances, performers of musical, dramatic and literary works are entitled to prevent others from recording and broadcasting of their live performances without their consent, and also to prevent others from the reproduction of such unauthorized recordings without their consent.

Performers who are domiciled or resident in Hong Kong or in any other qualifying country will enjoy rights in performances. The Governor may by regulation designate any WTO member as a qualifying country. The performances of qualified performers staged anywhere in the world, in Hong Kong or any qualifying country are protected. Certain acts, for the example, the private use of recordings of a performer, the use of short excerpts of the contents for the reporting of current events and for the purposes of teaching or scientific research are regarded as non-infringing acts. To define these acts as non-infringing acts is to strike a balance between the protection of public interests and of the legitimate rights of copyright holders.

Lastly, we propose to add new provisions to the copyright legislation and to the Trade Descriptions Ordinance by providing Customs measures to assist copyright and trade mark holders in enforcing their rights through civil courts. Copyright and trade mark holders may apply to the court for an order authorizing the Commissioner of Customs and Excise to detain imported goods, suspected of infringement, subject to the payment of security. The initial detention period is 10 days, but the applicant may apply to the court for approval to extend for another 10 days at the most. They are given the opportunity to inspect the detained goods so as to allow them to sue in the civil court. Where the applicant fails to sue in the civil court during the detention period, the goods would be returned to the importer.

Mr President, the Intellectual Property (World Trade Organization Amendments) Bill 1995 which I introduce into this Council today is a consolidated amendment Bill of an interim nature aimed at enabling Hong Kong to discharge its obligations as a WTO member as soon as possible before a comprehensive review of various intellectual property legislation is completed. Later in this legislative year, the Government will introduce a comprehensive set of legislation of localized Copyright Ordinance, Patents Ordinance and the modernized Trade Marks Ordinance, which will include provisions in this consolidated amendment Bill. We are now in the process of drafting these comprehensive and complicated Ordinances. In view of the fact that the expert sub-group under the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group is now in the course of discussing the localization proposals, and the fact that it is time-consuming to draft these legislation, we have therefore decided to first introduce into this Council this consolidated amendment Bill. We hope that the Bill can be passed as law before the end of this year.

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

GAS SAFETY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995

THE SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Gas Safety Ordinance."

He said (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that the Gas Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995 be read a Second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide, for safety reasons, control on the carrying out of construction work in the vicinity of gas pipes. The Bill was first introduced into this Council on 8 March 1995 but was subsequently deferred to the current Session for re-submission due to pressure of the Council's business.

The Bill has four main provisions. First, it enables the Governor in Council to make regulations to control the carrying out of work in the vicinity of gas pipes.

Secondly, it increases the maximum penalty which may be provided for in regulations made under the Gas Safety Ordinance, that is, this will increase from the existing level of a fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for six months and, in the case of a continuing offence, a daily penalty not exceeding $5,000, to a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for 12 months and, in the case of a continuing offence, a daily penalty of $10,000.

Thirdly, it enables the Gas Authority, that is, the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services, to inspect work in the vicinity of a gas pipe and to require, through an improvement notice, the person responsible for the work concerned to take such measures as the Gas Authority considers necessary for gas safety reasons.

Fourthly, it enables the Gas Authority himself to act for safety reasons, when there is a failure to comply with an improvement notice and provides for recovery of the cost of any precautionary or remedial measures taken by the Authority from the person who has failed to comply with the improvement notice.

If the Bill is passed by this Council, the Government will introduce new regulations requiring that construction work should not be carried out near a gas pipe unless its position has been checked and measures taken by the person concerned to ensure that it will not be damaged by the work.

The new regulations will require, inter alia, that the person concerned should take all reasonable steps to ascertain the location or position of a gas pipe before work is started in the vicinity of a gas pipe. To assist those involved in such work, the Gas Authority will publish, well before the regulations come into effect, a code of practice detailing the steps which he considers reasonable for such persons to take in ascertaining the location and position of a gas pipe.

The new regulations will also require that the person concerned should take reasonable measures to protect the gas pipe from damage which would be likely to affect safety. A person who fails to take such measures will be liable on conviction to the new maximum penalty proposed in the Bill. The new regulations will, however, provide the person concerned with a defence by showing that he has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the location and position of the gas pipe before starting work.

The Bill will be brought into effect six months after enactment to allow time for the new regulations and a code of practice to be issued by the Gas Authority and for the gas supply companies and the construction industry to adjust themselves to the new requirements.

Mr President, these proposals reflect the Government's concern at the frequent damage to gas pipes through careless construction and excavation work. There were 120 such incidents in 1994 and 71 incidents this year up to the end of September. Though the consequence of most of these incidents were thankfully relatively minor, damage to a gas pipe may cause a fire or an explosion, posing risks to workers, the general public and property in the vicinity. The proposals contained in the Bill aim to minimize such potential hazards. I therefore commend the Gas Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995 to this Council.

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

BANK NOTES ISSUE (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995

THE SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Bank Notes Issue Ordinance."

He said (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that the Bank Notes Issues (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read a Second time.

The purpose of the Bill is to modify the legal framework for the issue of legal tender currency notes so that it will be consistent with provisions in the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

The Joint Declaration and the Basic Law explicitly state that the authority to issue Hong Kong currency shall be vested in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government and that the SAR Government may authorize designated banks to issue or continue to issue Hong Kong currency under statutory authority.

The current Bank Notes Issue Ordinances does not provide the statutory power for the Government to issue currency notes. Nor does the Ordinance provide specific power for the Government to authorize designated banks to issue currency notes.

To be consistent with the provisions in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, we consider that the Ordinance should be amended to provide for the following:

  1. the Government has the statutory power to issue currency;
  2. the Government has the statutory power to authorize banks to issue or continue to issue currency;
  3. if the Government issues currency notes, a backing mechanism shall be established; and
  4. the Government has the statutory power to control the arrangements of issuing currency.

We propose that the Financial Secretary be empowered, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to issue currency notes. Consistent with this amendment, the backing mechanism for the issue of bank notes will be extended to the currency notes, if any, issued by the Government.

Notwithstanding the enabling provision, the Government has no intention of taking over the note-issuing function from the note-issuing banks. This amendment is merely to make the Bank Notes Issue Ordinance consistent with the provisions in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.

The Bill also provides an explicit statutory power to the Financial Secretary, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to authorize banks to issue or continue to issue currency. The three existing note-issuing banks will be deemed to have been authorized when the Ordinance comes into effect.

The core features of the present note-issuing regime (that is, the issue of legal tender bank notes by the three note-issuing banks with certificates of indebtedness as backing) will remain intact after the enactment of the Bill. There are just two proposed amendments which should be noted:

  1. the Financial Secretary may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, impose terms and conditions on the note-issuing banks relating to bank note design, denomination and other arrangement for issuing bank notes. The Government does not presently have the statutory power to approve the design of banknotes and control other arrangements relating to currency issue, although the note-issuing banks do consult the Monetary Authority on new bank note designs as a matter of practice;
  2. the fiduciary note issue of The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and Standard Chartered Bank will cease. For historical reasons, a very small amount of bank notes issued by The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited ($60 million) and Standard Chartered Bank ($35 million) is backed by securities held by the Exchange Fund and not by the non-interest bearing certificate of indebtedness. To be consistent with the Basic Law which stipulates that "the issue of Hong Kong currency must be backed by a 100 per cent reserve fund", both banks have agreed to terminate the fiduciary note issue when the Bank Notes Issue (Amendment) Bill comes into effect. The provisions governing such issue in the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited Ordinance will be repealed.

Mr President, the Bill contains a number of necessary amendments to make the Ordinance consistent with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. This should contribute to the smooth transition in 1997. Thank you.

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

BUILDINGS (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1995

THE SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Buildings Ordinance."

He said: Mr President, I move the Second Reading of the Buildings (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1995.

The amendment Bill was first introduced into this Council on 31 May this year as the Buildings (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995. It was not processed for enactment before the expiry of the last Session, owing to the heavy workload of the Council at that time.

During the past few months, the Administration has further consulted concerned bodies on supplementary details. The Bill has been refined in a few areas, in particular as regards the supervision duties of different parties in a building project.

The Bill consists of two parts. One aims at improving the system of registration of building professionals. The other aims at tightening safety control over building works and sites with works in progress.

As regards the registration of Authorized Persons and Registered Structural Engineers, we propose to bring the existing system in line with the provisions of the Architects, Engineers and Surveyors Registration Ordinances.

Under the Bill, only a building professional who is registered under the relevant Registration Ordinance will be allowed to apply to be an Authorized Person or Registered Structural Engineer. Two registration committees will be formed to help the Building Authority examine the suitability of an applicant. Most of the committee members will be nominated by the statutory Registration Boards of the respective professions.

The proposed change will ensure the competence of and help encourage self-regulation by building professionals.

As regards the registration of building contractors, we propose that two types of contractors, general building contractors and specialist contractors, should be registered. A contractor's qualifications, experience and competence will have to be assessed by the proposed Contractors Registration Committee, consisting mainly of representatives of the concerned industry and professional bodies, before registration.

Taking into account the views of the industry, we have refined the original proposal such that companies and partnership will continue to be allowed to register. If the contractor is a company or partnership, the directors, partners or senior staff nominated to act for it for the purposes of the Buildings Ordinance, such as in certifying prescribed documents, will also have to be assessed by the proposed Contractors Registration Committee To remove the existing grey area in terms of statutory responsibility, such nominated directors, partners or senior staff will be subject to discipline on a personal basis. To illustrate this point, if the director of a contractor is convicted of misconduct, he or she will not be allowed to continue to act for another contractor.

Since the collapse of a part of a wall of a building under demolition at Nathan Road in September last year, the issue of construction site safety has raised increased and considerable public concern. Such concern is shared by the Administration. We therefore announced a comprehensive action plan outlining immediate, medium-term and long-term measures to tighten safety control over building and demolition works. The plan included a legislative review. The second part of the Bill is the result of this review.

The Bill proposes to enable the Building Authority, for public safety reasons, to:

    - refuse to approve building or demolition plans or issue consent for the commencement or continuation of building works;

    - require proper supervision and safety measures to be provided at work sites; and

    - require the submission of relevant information so that the Building Authority can determine whether adequate safety measures have been implemented.

    To ensure safety, the following will be made criminal offences under the Bill:

    - failure to provide proper supervision of building works in prescribed manner; and

    - non-compliance with the conditions attached to the Building Authority's approval of the building plan or consent to the commencement of building works.

This will cover building owners, registered contractors, site agents, works supervisors, building professionals and construction workers. Their responsibilities will be clearly defined, in the form of a supervision plan to be prepared by the professionals and approved by the Building Authority, which reflects their actual roles on a work site.

The Administration has thoroughly consulted all concerned bodies before finalizing the Bill. I am pleased that all parties share a common objective of improving safety at construction and demolition sites. The concerned industry bodies and the various advisory committees including the Land and Building Advisory Committee have given in-principle support for virtually all of the Administration's proposals.

I have to report that there is some disagreement from some professional institutes regarding the Administration's proposal to make failure to provide proper supervision by Authorized Person and Registered Structural Engineers a criminal offence. But our consensus in other areas far outweighs this difference. As I mentioned earlier, the proposed criminal liability is required to ensure safety. It is in line with sanctions for breaches of other provisions of the Buildings Ordinance and subsidiary Regulations, such as deviation from approved building plans.

The Bill is a reasonable, workable and effective approach in improving building and site safety. I recommend the Bill to Members.

Thank you, Mr President.

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

AIR PASSENGER DEPARTURE TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995

THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Air Passenger Departure Tax Ordinance."

He said (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that the Air Passenger Departure Tax (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read a Second time.

Every airline passenger aged 12 or above leaving Hong Kong by air from the airport has to pay the air passenger departure tax. The airline operators are now responsible for collecting the tax. Air passengers can only pay the tax at the airline check-in counters before departure.

To improve services to passengers, many of whom are tourists, we have examined alternative methods of collecting the departure tax and we now propose to allow hotels to collect the tax by selling tax coupons to their guests. The Bill before Members seeks to enable the Director of Civil Aviation to appoint the hotels for such purpose. This will provide more flexibility in collecting the tax. Overseas visitors staying at hotels will no longer need to worry about keeping local currency for paying the tax at the airport. The amount may also be included in hotel room bills, but the hotels will not levy an additional charge for providing the service. This proposal has the support of the Hong Kong Tourist Association and the Hong Kong Hotels Association.

Another purpose of the Bill is to enable the Director of Civil Aviation to delegate his powers and functions for departure tax collection under the Ordinance and to specify the manner in which the powers and functions delegated shall be exercised and performed. This will allow more flexibility in administering the tax collection work.

Mr President, I commend the Bill to Members.

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1995

THE SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Tax Reserve Certificates Ordinance."

He said: Mr President, I move that the Tax Reserve Certificates (Amendment) Bill 1995 be read a Second time.

Under our salaries tax system, tax is not immediately deducted from income when it is earned and a taxpayer will not have to pay salaries tax, which is assessed on a provisional basis, until at least nine months after the start of the tax year in which the income is earned. The advantage of this system is that taxpayers have the use of their money during the intervening period, but the disadvantage is that some taxpayers may not have set aside sufficient funds to pay their tax and therefore face financial embarrassment when the tax is due. We therefore consider that there is merit in encouraging and assisting taxpayers to save for their tax.

The Bill now before Members seeks to introduce a voluntary Pay-As-You-Earn scheme (or PAYE). It will initially be implemented only on civil servants on a trial basis. The scheme will provide a more convenient and automatic saving alternative for the payment of tax bills.

Under the scheme, a civil servant may elect to authorize the Treasury to deduct from his salary a specified amount each month for the purchase of Tax Reserve Certificates. The Inland Revenue Department will credit each payment received for the purchase to an account held in the applicant's name. To make it more convenient to prospective users and to minimize the cost involved, the scheme will operate in a paperless way whereby no Tax Reserve Certificate will have to be issued for the purchase. Interest will accrue in the normal way as for the ordinary Tax Reserve Certificates. The accumulated amount in the account will be used to settle the applicant's tax liability on its due date and any surplus will be carried forward in the account.

Subject to the enactment of the Bill, we plan to introduce the scheme immediately. We shall review its operation in the light of experience and demands from other sectors, and shall consider whether and when the scheme should be extended in phases to other taxpayers, for example, civil service pensioners both in Hong Kong and abroad.

The Bill also seeks to transfer the power to make rules under the Ordinance from the Governor to the Secretary for the Treasury. This is a minor power and should more appropriately be exercised by the Secretary.

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

Question on the motion on the second Reading of the Bill proposed.

Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A).

MEMBER'S MOTIONS

PRESIDENT: The House Committee has recommended that I exercise my discretion under Standing Order 21(1) to dispense with the notice of Dr LEONG Che-hung's motion seeking to effect further amendments to the Standing Orders of this Council. I have accepted the recommendation because the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders are only technical in nature and should be made at the earliest opportunity.

HONG KONG ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS 1917 TO 1993 (Nos. 1 AND 2)

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG to move the following motion:

"That the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong be amended -

  1. in Standing Order No. 4C(2) -
    1. by repealing "Standing Orders Nos. 1 and 6(1) (Oath or Affirmation), 3 (Presiding in Council and in Committee of the Whole Council), 4AA (Attendance of the Governor), 10 (Quorum), 13 (Petitions)" and substituting "Standing Orders Nos. 1 (Oath or Affirmation), 3 (Presiding in Council and in Committee of the Whole Council), 4AA (Attendance of the Governor), 6(1) (Proceedings at First Sitting of Session), 10 (Quorum), 13 (Presentation of Petitions)";
    2. in the proviso by repealing "paragraph (a) of Standing Order No. 29" and substituting "Standing Order No. 29(a)";
  2. in Standing Order No. 16 (3A) by adding "(Notice of Questions)" after "Standing Order No. 17(4)";
  3. in Standing Order No. 30(6) by repealing "given" and substituting "give";
  4. in Standing Order No. 39(1) by repealing "or a designated public officer" where it secondly appears;
  5. in Standing Order No. 60(2) -
    1. by repealing "members,,"and substituting "members";
    2. by repealing "a chairman,," and substituting "a chairman";
  6. in Standing Order No. 60E(5) -
    1. by repealing "The Panel may also elect a deputy chairman.";
    2. by adding "The Panel may also elect a deputy chairman." after "amongst its members.";
  7. in Standing Order No. 64A(1) by repealing "paragraph (2)" and substituting "paragraph (1A)";
  8. in Standing Order No. 67(3) by repealing "or a" and substituting a comma.

AND FURTHER RESOLVED that -

  1. the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong made by the Legislative Council under clause XXIII of the Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1967 by Resolution made and passed on 9 October 1968 be amended in Standing Order No. 24(3) by repealing "sub-paragraphs (2)(a) or (2)(b) of Standing Order No. 21" and substituting "Standing Order No. 21(2)(a) or (b)";
  2. Standing Order No. 60A made by the Legislative Council under clause XXIII of the Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1977 by Resolution made and passed on 10 May 1978 and amended by the Legislative Council under -
    1. clause XXIII of the Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1983 by Resolution made and passed on 18 July 1984;
    2. clause XXIII of the Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1986 by Resolution made and passed on 15 July 1987;
    3. clause XXIII of the Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1991 by Resolution made and passed on 10 July 1991; and
    4. clause XXIII of the Hong Kong Royal Instructions 1917 to 1993 (Nos. 1 and 2) by Resolution made and passed on 28 July 1995,

    be further amended in paragraphs (1A), (5) and (5A) by repealing "table" and substituting "Table"."

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I move the first motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Standing Orders of the Legislative Council were last amended at the end of the last Session. A number of amendments were then made principally to take account of the new composition of this Council after the 1995 elections and to improve its operation. Since the making of these amendments, it has been found necessary to make some further amendments as a consequence of the last amendment exercise. The proposed amendments to be moved, which are confined within the scope of that pervious exercise consist wholly of technical, drafting and clerical changes and do not introduce any new matter. The proposed amendments have been endorsed by the House Committee.

With these remarks, Mr President, I beg to move.

Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.

PRESIDENT: The House Committee has also recommended that I exercise my discretion under Standing Order 21(1) to dispense with the notice of Dr LEONG Che-hung's second motion which seeks the Council's approval for the manner of election of the members of the Legislative Council Commission and their terms of office. I have accepted the recommendation because after the last dissolution of the Council, members of the Legislative Council Commission have to be elected as soon as possible to consider some urgent business.

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL COMMISSION ORDINANCE

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG to move the following motion:

"That with effect from 18 October 1995 the following shall apply to the determination of membership of The Legislative Council Commission, the election of members thereof and their terms of office:

Membership

1. The number of members referred to in section 4(1)(e) of the Ordinance shall be 8.

Manner of election

2. An election of members referred to in section 4(1)(e) of the Ordinance shall be held at a sitting of the House Committee, the date of which ("election date") shall be appointed by the House Committee.

3. The Legislative Council Secretariat shall issue to the Members of the Legislative Council at least 7 days before the election date, a circular inviting nominations to be made in a nomination form issued by the Secretary General.

4. Each nomination form shall be for the nomination of one member and shall be signed by one member as the proposer, one member as the seconder, and by the nominee member to signify his consent to the nomination.

5. Duly completed nomination forms shall be delivered to the Legislative Council Secretariat at least 3 days before the election date.

6. In cases where the number of nominations received by the Legislative Council Secretariat is less than the number referred to in paragraph 1, further nominations shall be called for and received at the House Committee sitting held under paragraph 2; such nominations shall be proposed by one member and seconded by another, with the proposed nominee signifying his consent to the nomination.

7. In cases where the number of nominations received under paragraphs 5 to 6 is less than or equal to the number referred to in paragraph 1, the Chairman of the House Committee shall declare the nominees duly elected.

8. In cases where the number of nominations received under paragraphs 5 and 6 is more than the number referred to in paragraph 1, a poll shall be taken at the House Committee sitting held under paragraph 2; voting at which shall be by secret ballot and counted in accordance with the simple or relative majority system of election (otherwise known as "first-past-the-post" system of election).

9. In cases where a nominee would have been elected but for there being one or more other nominees having been given the same number of votes, a separate poll shall be taken in respect of that nominee and the other such nominee or nominees in accordance with the system of election mentioned in paragraph 8.

Terms of Office

10. The terms of office of members elected under section 4(1)(e) shall be 1 year or until the next House Committee meeting held for the election of Commission members, or until the next dissolution of the Legislative Council, whichever is the earlier."

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I move the second motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

As stated in section 4(1) and (2) of The Legislative Council Commission Ordinance, the Commission shall consist of, in addition to the President of the Legislative Council and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the House Committee, not more than eight members elected, in such manner as the Council may determine, by and from amongst Members of the Council.

In addition, in accordance with section 5(3) of the Ordinance, the terms of office of members elected shall be such period not exceeding one year as the Council may determine.

I would like to highlight the main proposals with regard to the manner of election of members of the Commission and their terms of office:

  1. Election of Commission members shall be held at a House Committee meeting, the date of which shall be appointed by the House Committee;
  2. Eight members shall be elected to the Commission and their terms of office shall be one year or until the next election, or until the next dissolution of the Legislative Council, whichever is earlier;
  3. A circular shall be issued by the Legislative Council Secretariat at least seven days before the election calling for written nominations. Nominations must reach the Secretariat at least three days before the election. If the number of written elections is less than eight, nominations may be called from the floor at the House Committee meeting at which the election is conducted;
  4. If there are more than eight nominations, voting shall be conducted by secret ballot and counted in accordance with the simple or relative majority system of election; and finally
  5. If the number of nominations is less than or equal to eight, the Chairman of the House Committee shall declare the nominees duly elected.

Mr President, I beg to move.

Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to.

PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debate and Members were informed by circular on 17 October. The mover of the motion will have 15 minutes for his speech including his reply and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendment. Other Members, including the mover of the amendment, will have seven minutes each for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech.

MEMBER'S BILLS

DR PHILIP WONG: Mr President, Standing Order 21 of this Council stipulates notice of 12 clear days in the case of motions to be moved and five clear days in the case of amendments to the motion must be given before the day on which the motion is to be considered by the Council unless you, Mr President, in your discretion, dispense with such notice.

With due respect, Mr President, can you inform this Council of the reason or reasons why you have decided to dispense with such notices considering that none of us has been sworn in for more than seven days.

PRESIDENT: I shall take a brief recess.

5.08 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT: I think Dr WONG was also referring to Standing Order 1(1) which says: "Except for the purpose of enabling this order to be complied with, no Member of the Council shall sit or vote therein until he has made or subscribed an oath or affirmation in accordance with the provisions of the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11)."

The Standing Order simply states that no Member may sit or vote. The question is whether or not a Member who has not taken the oath or made the affirmation is a Member. Section 5B(1) of the Electoral Provisions Ordinance (Cap. 367) states: "Subject to this Ordinance, a member elected to the Legislative Council shall hold office -

(a) in the case of a member elected in an ordinary election held under section 5A, for the period commencing on the appointed date after his election ......" and so on.

And section 5B(3) states: "In subsection (1) "appointed date" means the date appointed by the Governor under section 5(3) of the Legislative Council (Electoral Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 381)".

The Governor had already appointed a date which took effect before this Council began the first sitting. So I rule that the motion is in order.

MR DAVID CHU to move the following motion:

"That Members of this Council should refrain from introducing Member's Bills to amend or repeal laws enacted to implement the agreements reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group."

MR DAVID CHU: Mr President, I rise to move the motion standing in my name in the Order Paper. My motion is: "That members of this Council should refrain from introducing Member's Bills to amend or repeal laws enacted to implement the agreements reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. "

The motion is, as its wording shows, about looking forward and about the exercise of moderation, restraint, and humility in order to achieve a smooth transition. It is not about posturing or about restricting Members' constitutional powers. It is about co-operation between this Council and the present and future sovereigns to ensure a lasting, constructive relationship on which our future success depends. It is about finding practical solutions. It is about putting aside politics for its own sake and about serving the people for their and our sake.

The sovereigns have their own constitutional powers. The interests of all are reflected in agreements reached through the Joint Liaison Group. The Sino-British agreements on defence land treaty, airport financing and the Court of Final Appeal were accepted and welcomed by the Hong Kong people as well as approved by this very Council.

To change laws enacted to implement these agreements will only complicate things and cause unnecessary friction between the sovereigns as well as uncertainty and anxiety for the people. I think we can put our energy to better use.

We should, it is worth repeating, look forward with bold vision, not just talk, to tackle issues which will make Hong Kong great.

The world does not stop turning from 1 July 1997. We cannot solve the problems of the next 50 years in the next 21 months. We have finite resources and must use them wisely. Much work need to be done to pave the way for a smooth transition.

By supporting this motion, we can send the public a clear and powerful message which is: this legislature is committed and willing to help, co-operate and work with the sovereigns. This will also tell investors that the Council is keen to create the right atmosphere for business, business that generates growth as well as jobs. This is what the people of Hong Kong expect of us and we should not disappoint them.

Mr President, I beg to move.

Question on the motion proposed.

PRESIDENT: Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has given notice to move an amendment to the motion. It has been raised with me that Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment to Mr David CHU's motion on Private Member's Bills should not have been allowed presumably on the ground that the amendment will change the scope of the original motion.

Standing Orders of this Council are silent as to what amendments to motions may be admitted. Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice is, however, explicitly helpful and I quote:

"The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.

The latter purpose may be effected by moving to omit all or most of the words of the question after the first word 'That' and to substitute an alternative proposition which must, however, be relevant to the subject of the question. The debate that follows is not restricted to the amendment, but includes also the content of the motion, both matter being under the consideration of the House as alternative propositions."

Mr CHU's motion is about the introduction of Member's Bills (MB's) into the Legislative Council urging Members to refrain from introducing them to amend or repeal laws enacted to implement Sino-British agreements. Mr LEE's amendment is also on the introduction of MB's but requesting the National People's Congress to amend Article 74 of the Basic Law. The amendment clearly changes the scope of the original motion as it proposes an alternative proposition; it is, however, relevant to the subject matter raised in the motion. I have therefore ruled that the amendment is in order. Changing the scope of a motion by proposing an alternative proposition does not render an amendment inadmissible, as long as it is germane.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN's amendment to MR DAVID CHU's motion:

"To add "as" after "That"; to delete "should refrain from introducing" and substitute with "have the right to introduce"; to add "enact," before "amend or repeal laws"; to delete all the words after "repeal laws" and substitute with "relating to the public interest, this Council requests The National People's Congress of China to amend Article 74 of the Basic Law to remove restrictions on the introduction of Member's Bills relating to the political structure, the operation of the Government and government policies by Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region".

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that Mr David CHU's motion be amended as set out under my name on the Order Paper.

Today, the Legislative Council debates on the constitutional rights of Members of the Legislative Council to introduce Member's Bills before and after 1997. The Honourable David CHU's original motion requires Members of the Legislative Council to tie themselves up, surrender their weapons and weakly follow the executive. If the original motion is really carried, government officials can really drink to their good fortune and the Governor would not have to play the "bad guy" to shatter his enlightened image portrayed in his policy address, reveal the true features of the suzerain state of a colony, and prevent Members from introducing Member's Bills by threat. The more dangerous element of the original motion is its logical reasoning. It exaggerates without limit the authority of the Joint Liaison Group's agreements, to such a sacred and inviolable position. This is tantamount to changing the basis of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" from the Sino-British Joint Declaration to the wishes of the Chinese and British Governments.

Annex II to the Sino-British Joint Declaration sets out clearly that the Joint Liaison Group (JLG) is only an organ for liaison and not an organ of power. The agreements of the JLG are not authoritative at all. They are different from the Sino-British Joint Declaration which is a binding agreement between China and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the agreements of the JLG do not necessarily conform to the provisions of the Joint Declaration. The agreement on the Court of Final Appeal is a very good example.

Does Mr David CHU think that this Council should defend the agreements of the JLG instead of the Sino-British Joint Declaration?

If we further extend the logical reasoning of the original motion, Hong Kong will have to change to follow a new guiding principle. That is, after upholding the agreements of the JLG, the decisions of the Preliminary Working Committee (PWC) can also be upheld as the guiding principle and the Member's Bills should not go against the PWC's recommendations. Are we supposed to accept the recommendations of the PWC Legal Subgroup and repeal the laws made by the Legislative Council which are in conformity with the Bill of Rights, to deprive Hong Kong people of their basic human rights?

We hope that our future society will develop in the spirit of "one country, two systems" and a high degree of autonomy with the Sino-British Joint Declaration as the basis, and with the rule of law, human rights, democracy and liberty as the principles; and that we shall build up Hong Kong as a place which is no longer a British colony where the will of the Chief Executive will not be taken as the guiding thought. Therefore, I cannot agree to the original motion and shall move an amendment.

The purpose of my moving this amendment is to reinstate the constitutional rights of Members to introduce Member's Bills so that this constitutional right can straddle 1997 on the through train and that the constraints imposed by Article 74 of the Basic Law can be removed.

According to Article 74 of the Basic Law, bills which relate to public expenditure or political structure or the operation of the government may not be introduced and the written consent of the Chief Executive must be obtained before bills relating to government policies are introduced. Compared with the constitutional rights presently enjoyed by Members of the present Legislative Council, there are three instances of retrogression.

First, bills relating to government policies can be introduced only with the prior written consent of the Chief Executive. This is tantamount to depriving Members of their rights to introduce Member's Bills. Should the Chief Executive consent to the bill, the bill can be introduced by the Government instead of by Members of this Council. Where Members should introduce Member's Bills, it must be that a consensus cannot be reached with the Government. The Basic Law grants this right of approval to the Chief Executive, which means that no Member can introduce a Member's Bill.

The second instance relates to Member's Bills involving public expenditure. At present, we can still move such bills with the Governor's consent despite the great difficulty involved. However, there is going to be a provision in future that Members cannot introduce such bills.

The third instance of retrogression is that bills relating to political structure or the operation of the Government may not be introduced in the form of Member's Bills after 1997. All these instances of retrogression will change the constitutional rights presently enjoyed by Members of the Legislative Council. Obviously, these provisions in the Basic Law are intended to totally deprive Members of the Legislative Council of their powers so that the Legislative Council will be reduced to a "lame-duck" parliamentary assembly. Once Members of the Legislative Council lose the constitutional right to introduce Member's Bills, the Government will change from one of "executive-led" to "executive-hegemony". Come to think about it. What kind of council will this Council become? What kind of government are we going to have?

Mr President, the work of Members of the Legislative Council is to enact laws, monitor the Government's administration and reflect public opinion we represent to some branch secretaries who do not realize the suffering and hardships of the ordinary people. Introducing Member's Bills is a limited legislative right of Members of this Council. Moreover, past experience tells us clearly that introducing Member's Bills can effectively improve existing laws and force the Government to take more extensive account of the interest of the general public instead of the minority when it formulates policies.

I shall move a Member's Bill to put an end to importation of labour. Since the Government is not willing to abolish the labour importation scheme completely, we have no alternative but to move a Member's Bill. Just think about this: If we cannot change government policies by adopting this method in future, there will be very little that we, as Members of the Legislative Council, can do.

What is the rationale behind the retrogressive provisions of the Basic Law? According to Mr XIAO Weiyun who has put forward reasons in his book One Country Two Systems and the Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, these Bills are material issues for the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong which involve scientific, technical and specialized issues; and therefore, it is not appropriate for individual Members to introduce such bills which should indeed be introduced by the authorities or departments concerned. This view has underestimated the expertise of Members in various areas and shows a blind faith in the omnipotence and omniscience of government departments. The truth is rather on the contrary. If we compare the Sex Discrimination Ordinance drafted by the Government and the Equal Opportunities Bill proposed by Ms Anna WU last year, we can see the advantages of a Member's Bill. Therefore, we believe that the real reason is not anything technical but the wish to control the future legislature.

I have heard that some Members oppose to my amendment. They think that if my amendment is passed, this will lead to an early intervention by another parliamentary assembly. I believe their understanding is that my amendment might "invite the wolf into the house". This reminds me of the story of Little Red Riding Hood. The wolf has, in fact, already put on the sleeping gown of Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother and lying in bed, waiting for Little Red Riding Hood to come near to be eaten up. The Basic Law had been drafted under the supervision and intervention of the National People's Congress. What we are doing now is absolutely not "inviting the wolf into the house" but "driving the wolf out of the house". I hope that the National People's Congress would not take offence of my analogy. I am not saying that the National People's Congress is a wolf. I believe Members would understand what I mean. I wish to get a clear message across: Give me back my constitutional rights so that the future legislature can really take up the role of monitoring the Government's policies and thoroughly implement the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, that is, the executive should be accountable to the legislature. Once the right to introduce Member's Bills is lost, there will be no way in which this "accountability" can be realized.

I hope that the Honourable CHENG Yiu-tong, a deputy of the National People's Congress, can help convey this message. Thank you.

Question on the amendment proposed.

CHIEF SECRETARY: Mr President, the motion that Members are debating today needs to be seen in the context of this Council's overall responsibility for the passing of legislation. Our system of government in Hong Kong provides for the executive --- the Administration --- to take the lead in formulating policies, and the legislature --- this Council --- to scrutinize the legislative and financial proposals that we put forward. It has always been the case that the vast majority of Bills considered by this Council are introduced by the Administration.

The Administration's programme of legislation does not come about by accident. It is carefully thought out. Many bills reflect the wishes of Members of this Council, expressed through motion debates, through discussion in Legislative Council panels or through other means. Many others are the result of public consultation exercises, or of recommendations made by our many advisory boards and committees. Still others are initiatives by the Administration, perhaps to give effect to an international obligation that the sovereign power has entered into on our behalf, to update legislation that is now obsolete or to correct some anomaly or loophole in previous legislation.

Every year, Branch Secretaries put forward proposals for legislation in their policy areas arising from all these sources. The Financial Secretary, the Attorney General and I meet several times with the Law Draftsman to consider these proposals very carefully. We have to balance the pressures for change against the resources available, both in terms of the capacity of the Law Draftsman's Division to draft the legislation and of this Council to scrutinize it. Inevitably, we conclude that we cannot include in our programme all the proposals that have been put forward. So we have to set priorities. And we do this, of course, in terms of what we honestly believe to be, the public interest. Our aim is to end up with a balanced programme of legislation that meets, as far as possible, the interests of the various sectors of our society.

So a lot of work goes into the preparation of our legislative programme. And we give it a high priority which I hope is shared by Members of this Council.

Let me state at the outset that the Administration fully respects Members' constitutional right to introduce Members' Bills(MB's), subject to the limitation imposed by Royal Instructions regarding MB's which have the objective effect of disposing of or charging any part of the public revenue. But, as the Governor said in his policy address, we doubt whether the public interest is best served by this Council and the Government operating on parallel tracks rather than moving forward on an agreed basis. Continuing co-operation between the Government and the Legislative Council in the coming Session will surely be the best way to promote the interests of the people of Hong Kong.

It is in this spirit of co-operation that the Governor offered in his policy address to review with Members our proposed programme of legislation for 1995-96. I have suggested to the Chairman of the House Committee that among the issues we need to discuss are whether this programme needs to be adjusted to take account of Members' own priorities, how the Government's legislative programme can be processed most effectively and efficiently, and how MB's can be handled in a way that will not upset the processing of public bills or put a stain on resources in the Administration.

I would like to echo the Governor's call for the Government and the Legislative Council to move forward by consensus wherever possible. Clearly the more we can co-operate on the Government's legislative programme, the less need there will be for Members to put forward their own bills.

I now turn to the more specific issue of MB's which aim to amend or repeal laws enacted to implement Joint Liaison Group (JLG) agreements. Since 1985, the JLG has reached many agreements on a variety of subjects, from the construction of a new airport to the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal, from Hong Kong's membership in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to the future use of defence lands. These agreements have one important point in common: they are the results of joint efforts, by Britain as the current sovereign and China as the future sovereign, to identify solutions for issues which are essential for a successful transition. Together, they provide a framework within which we can work for a secure and prosperous future.

These agreements are not reached lightly. They are invariably the product of careful negotiations. Before the British side signifies its agreement to a particular issue, it will always ensure that:

  1. the agreement is fully consistent with the Joint Declaration; and that
  2. the agreement safeguards the best long-term interests of Hong Kong.

At all stages of the negotiation, the Hong Kong Government is fully involved, as it is in all aspects of the work of the JLG. And in the process, we take full account of views expressed by this Council and the community.

Where the implementation of an JLG agreement requires legislation, draft legislation will of course be put before this Council. And this Council has a well-established track record of performing its scrutinizing role responsibly and with vigour.

But to repeal or make fundamental amendments to laws enacted to implement JLG agreements would have serious consequences. In effect, it would mean negating the work of the JLG, and unstitching the way forward that had been painstakingly agreed on important transitional issues. Progress in the implementation of the Joint Declaration would be severely affected. Indeed, the whole basis for a successful transition would be called into question. All this would be extremely damaging to Hong Kong, and to confidence in Hong Kong, particularly as we enter into the final 20 months of the transition. I am sure Members of this Council would wish to consider seriously the risks involved before going down this road.

At the end of the day, any legislature or executive is credible only if it performs responsibly, and is seen to be acting in the overall interests of the community it serves. As the Governor pointed out in his policy address, the interests of the people of Hong Kong must be paramount. He made it clear that he would not shrink from refusing assent to legislation if it were his honest view that this course of action would be in the best interests of Hong Kong. I very much hope, of course, that we will not get ourselves into a situation where the Governor has to consider making use of his constitutional powers.

Finally, I would like to turn to the amendment proposed by the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan. The first part of this amendment seems to me to do more than state what is generally recognized to be the current constitutional position, subject of course to the limitation imposed by the Royal Instructions. The second part relates to the amendment to the Basic Law by the National People's Congress. This of course is a matter for the Special Administration Region Government and the Central People's Government, not the Hong Kong Government. I therefore do not propose to comment on it.

MR ALLEN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Liberal Party does not support the motion moved by the Honourable David CHU or the amendment moved by the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan.

In regard to the original motion, the Liberal Party considers that to introduce Member's Bills is the power conferred on Members of the Legislative Council by the Standing Orders. Whether and how we should exercise this power depends on the actual need and the judgment made by Members themselves on the premise of taking care of the public interest. The Liberal Party believes that there should be a proper balance in exercising this power. In the event that certain policies and proposals formulated on basis of the interest of the entire community which have not been properly recognized or are delayed in their implementation by the Administration, it is worthy our support when Members introduce Member's Bills which seek to expedite the formulation of these legislations in the interest of Hong Kong. The work in this respect should not be restricted by whether or not agreement has been reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group (JLG) on the issue concerned. Moreover, the JLG would not consult the Legislative Council on the motions before they have reached agreement. If the agreement reached by the JLG cannot most ideally serve the interest of Hong Kong, we see no reason why we should give up fighting for greater benefits and interest of Hong Kong simply because we respect the JLG agreements. Of course, it takes two sides to strike a balance. If a Member of this Council imprudently exercises the power of introducing a Member's Bill simply for increasing his own reputation or political capital, this should be decided by himself and, his performance should be judged by the public.

Members of the Legislative Council are neither the Chief Executives nor administrative officials and they should not replace the Government to formulate policies. Therefore, in respect of this motion, the Liberal Party considers it unnecessary to draw a line beforehand to restrict itself from looking into certain questions. However, Members should have a clear idea in mind that the executive-led mechanism which has been effective so far should not be rashly changed into a legislative-led mechanism. So doing will only result in confrontation between the Government and the legislature. This situation is definitely not a blessing to Hong Kong people.

The Liberal Party likewise cannot support the amendment. We agree to the premise of the amendment, that is, Members should have the right to introduce Member's Bills, which I already explained earlier. However, although this premise is established, many assumptions are required before this premise can be linked up with the conclusion drawn by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan. These assumptions include whether implementation of the policies of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government will go against the interests of Hong Kong as a whole and whether the SAR Government will not heed good advice, and whether the Government is bound to confront the legislature. Is it necessary for us to assume the future executive-legislative relations through our personal views on the future?

The Liberal Party opposes the amendment not for the reason that the provisions of the Basic Law cannot be amended, but for the reason that it is a constitutional instrument which was finalized after many years of consultation, and we should not recklessly ask for amendment on our own assumptions without actual experience. After all, there are also provisions in the Basic Law governing amendment of the Law itself. The legislature of the SAR will not be devoid of any standards or powers to amend the Basic Law. Is it necessary for Members to assess now, according to their own standards, the working ability of the legislature of the SAR which has yet to be set up? Or is it the case that Mr LEE Cheuk-yan believes that only the existing Legislative Council has this ability?

I do not want to be entangled in arguments on ideology and various assumptions. I only wish to point out specifically that the Liberal Party firmly believes that the executive-led mechanism is the basis of social stability in Hong Kong, and we should not change this mechanism. Whether the legislature of the SAR in future finds it necessary to amend the Basic Law will be a matter to be decided by itself. We should not assume the position of a parliamentary assembly which has not yet come into being and determine its future judgment.

Mr President, with these remarks, I oppose the motion and the amendment on behalf of the Liberal Party.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I rise to speak on the subject of Members' Bills. In doing so, I am reflecting my personal view as Chairman of the House Committee on the necessity of MB's, the effect they would bring to the Government, to this Council and to the Legislative Council Secretariat staff, and how, perhaps, MB's could be minimized and adopted with public bills.

Let me state from the outset that MB's are every single legislator's prerogative. The Governor in his policy address said: "That (Members' Bills) is of course within Members' right to decide, provided that their proposals do not have the object or effect of disposing of or charging any part of the public revenue."

Mr President, this Council, composed of fully elected legislators, more than any other Council in Hong Kong so far, represents the views of the people of Hong Kong. This body, and this body in particular, understands more of public needs and interests than any bodies in Hong Kong. It is therefore ironic to hear the Governor, an appointee from Britain, hinting his discontent about MB's and suggesting that he would refuse to assent such legislations using his constitutional powers, and I quote, "I would not shrink from doing so in a particular case if it were my honest view that this course of action would be in the best interests of Hong Kong." The question remains, therefore, "who represent the views and interests of Hong Kong people truly and more."

Mr President, MB's are a mechanism in all democratic institutions to reflect the needs of the people by legislators when government is seen not to satisfy such needs.

That said, Mr President, I am in no way promoting MB's. Instead, I call for legislators to try their best to reflect the views of the public to Government, and at the same time, for the Government to be more sensitive to the public's needs and to enshrine them into government bills and the legislative timetable.

Mr President, in the last Legislative Session, quite a few MB's were introduced which exemplified the above point. Take the example of the Equal Opportunities Bill introduced by Ms Anna WU. This was the result of years of fiasco attempt to move an unbudging government stone wall. At the end of the day, the Government was forced to take its own action by introducing two anti-discrimination bills. The result: those relevant parts from the Member's Bill were suitably withdrawn. I personally attempted to introduce the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill as a Member's Bill, only because of frustration over some three years of government procrastination inspite of promises on speedy action. When ultimately, the Government under pressure introduced the same bill, I did not push ahead.

Mr President, MB's in any significant number do pose many problems. No doubt it would upset the government legislative timetable and that of this Council. Within the House, it also poses the problem of priority in setting up bills committees to study the different bills when both the number of legislators and supporting staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat are limited. Should government bills and MB's be studied in two parallel stream? Or should they all go on the same queue? Which one is more important? Which Member's bill is more important than others? All these questions have to be answered.

We must of course not lose sight of the fact that though MB's are drafted on a private basis, they still strain staff resources of the law drafting department, as well as the legal unit and secretariat staff in this Council.

Yet, Mr President, these should never be the constraints to the introduction of MB's if such are to reflect the public needs. Nor should MB's be "killed" or "guillotined", through intense negative lobbying by the Government, let alone refusal to assent by the Governor after the bills were passed by this Council.

The way to balance MB's and government bills must be through co-operation between this Council and the Administration and through better hands-on understanding of public's needs by taking suggestions of their representatives elected to this Council.

With goodwill, this can be done through various kinds of mechanism. One way is for the Government to come forth early with a list of bills they intend to introduce and invite Members to add in areas on those proposed bills which are deemed deficient. Another way is for panels or "select committees", if these are to be set up, to discuss all policies or directions of bills in the pipeline with the relevant government Branches starting from their embryonic stage.

In short, better rapport between the Legislative Council and the Administration throughout the formation of policies and bills could enable government bills to cope with public needs, making MB's less needed.

There are of course others. I am sure the House will discuss in details how this could be brought about and bring home better relationship or partnership with the Government in the same light as expressed by the Chief Secretary.

Now turning to the motion and the amendment, Mr President, in the same way, it would be very difficult for me to accept this idea that Members cannot reflect the views of the public through introduction of MB's on issues agreed in the JLG as it is obvious that in many areas, discussion in the JLG has not completely taken Hong Kong people's wishes into consideration.

Mr President, it is a blessing that the Basic Law empowers the future legislative to introduce MB's. Yet there are too many constraints and many areas of doubt on the interpretation. An early amendment to facilitate ways to reflect public needs and interests is therefore a good move.

Thank you very much.

DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, 1995 is a momentous year in the history of the political development of Hong Kong. This year, all Members of the Legislative Council are elected. It is also the first time that all Members choose to swear allegiance to the people of Hong Kong and to serve Hong Kong. We should always bear in mind the role of the Legislative Council and the undertakings we have given to Hong Kong and the general public.

Firstly, the legislative objectives of the Legislative Council are to facilitate the development of Hong Kong, improve social administration and raise the quality of living of the Hong Kong people. The value of the existence of the Legislative Council lies in its ability to represent the people of Hong Kong and arrive at decisions which are in the best interest of Hong Kong in the process of achieving these objectives. This is the primary role of the Legislative Council. Therefore, I am extremely puzzled by the Honourable David CHU's proposal of imposing restrictions on legislating by means of Member's Bills in order to "refrain from amending or repealing laws enacted to implement the agreements reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group".

I do not know whose stand does Mr CHU represent in putting forward this proposal. Is it the stand of the district board members in the Election Committee? Or that of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group? Or the Preliminary Working Committee of which Mr CHU is a member? All I know is that under this proposal, the primary function of the Legislative Council is not to serve Hong Kong and the value of the Legislative Council of representing the interests of the people of Hong Kong is negated. Moreover, the target of allegiance has been assumed to be the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, instead of the people of Hong Kong. This is a proposal which abandons the interest of Hong Kong!

Secondly, during the transition period, the people of Hong Kong have insisted that both the Chinese and British sides must abide by the undertakings given to the people of Hong Kong in the Joint Declaration. The Joint Declaration is an important basis on which we judge whether the Chinese and the British Governments have honoured their undertakings to ensure a high degree of autonomy for Hong Kong and the principle of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. Now Mr CHU is asking to lower the standard, by basing the standard on the agreements of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, and not the Joint Declaration. This is absolutely unacceptable to Hong Kong.

In recent years, the Chinese and British Governments have contravened the Sino-British Joint Declaration in many respects. Last year, the Legislative Council held a motion debate and expressed the great concern of this Council on the distortion and breaking of the Joint Declaration by the Chinese and British sides. The motion was carried with supported by a majority of Members at the time. Besides, in 1991 the Joint Liaison Group reached an agreement on the Court of Final Appeal which was in violation of the Joint Declaration and a further agreement was reached in the middle of this year. Subsequently, the Hong Kong Government tabled a bill in accordance with the agreements which was severely criticized by all sectors of the community. Such being the case, how can we ever expect the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group to implement in earnest the undertakings in the Joint Declaration to defend the interests of the people of Hong Kong?

Thirdly, we must remember that Members of the Legislative Council have the constitutional power to introduce Member's Bills. The legislatures of many countries in the world are vested with the power to initiate the tabling of bills as a means to perform the constitutional functions of legislatures, and to monitor the operation of governments. In many countries, restrictions are imposed only on draft legislation relating to public expenditure by requiring prior consent of the administration or the endorsement by a certain number of members. Some countries have even no such restrictions. Therefore, the introduction of Member's Bills by Members of this Council is in line with commonly accepted constitutional arrangements. If the right to introduce Member's Bills is confined to not seeking to amend the agreements of a working group of two Governments, it is definitely unprecedented if not at all without parallels in future.

In fact, the Basic Law and the Preliminary Working Committee in recent years have respectively made provisions and proposals to diminish the powers of the legislature such as disallowing the early implementation of full direct election, introducing the system of proportional representation, formulating a "bicameral" voting procedure, setting up a wholly appointed provisional legislature and so on. All these are aimed at dividing and weakening the legislature in order to pave the way for the so-called "executive-led" dictatorial rule by the Chinese side. Article 74 of the Basic Law has even imposed more restrictions on Member's Bills. Apart from bills relating to public expenditure, prior consent of the Chief Executive must be obtained for all bills relating to "political structure or the operation of the Government". Under these provisions, I believe that there will be nothing which does not require the prior consent of the Chief Executive. In this connection, Mr President, may I ask how can the legislature exercise its legislative function effectively and to monitor the operations of the Government? Is it that the legislature can only play the role of a real rubber stamp by then? Is this something Hong Kong people wish to see? Or is this something Members of this Council wish to see?

Therefore, the Democratic Party strongly opposes the proposal made in the original motion which further restricts the Legislative Council's legislative power unreasonably. The Democratic Party supports the amendment of the Basic Law to remove the restrictions under Article 74 on the introduction of Member's Bills relating to the political structure or the operation of the Government. Therefore, we support the amendment of the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan.

Mr President, these are my remarks.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Mr President, despite the good intentions of the Honourable David CHU, his motion is unnecessary.

One of the constitutional roles of Legislative Council Members is to monitor the Government in its implementation of the policies and this should not be under any control or restriction for whatever reasons. As Members of this Council, on detection of any maladministration of the Hong Kong Government, we should take the interests of the people as a priority concern and move, where necessary, Member's Bills at the Legislative Council to rectify the mistake. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) hopes that Members will not table proposals with implication of debilitating the Legislative Council's power of monitoring the Government at a time when the Legislative Council has just had its "kick-start". I am concerned that once this precedent is set, other forms of constraints will follow suit one after another.

The signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 marked the commencement of the transition period of Hong Kong. The Sino-British Joint Liaison Group was set up to work for the smooth transition of Hong Kong. Over the years, many laws of Hong Kong have come into force through agreement with the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group and so far these laws have been in normal operation. This shows that the agreements reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group in the past decade accorded with the aspiration for a smooth transition of Hong Kong as well as the interests of the people of Hong Kong.

Mr President, since the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group is working for the smooth transition of Hong Kong, the agreements it has reached are naturally conducive to the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. All Members of the Legislative Council of the current session have sworn allegiance to the people of Hong Kong and I believe that all Members will certainly work whole-heartedly for the well-being of the people of Hong Kong. I do not feel that the objective of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group is in conflict with the objective of Members of this Council, which is to facilitate a smooth transition of Hong Kong. Instead, they are mutually complementary.

Although the agreements of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group were reached by the States of China and Britain, very often it is only through local law that they can be enforced and implemented by the Government. If the agreements of the Joint Liaison Group fail to obtain concurrence from the community and the Legislative Council, Members of the Legislative Council should point them out and perform their function of monitoring the Government through legitimate and proper channels. The right to move Member's Bills is a right to which Members are entitled. As long as a bill does not involve any financial implication on the part of the Government, this right should not be subject to any condition or restriction.

I must point out that the DAB will oppose any bill that is detrimental to a smooth transition, no matter whether it is a Government's Bill or a Member's Bill. The DAB will certainly not support any Member's Bill moved by any Member to amend or repeal any legislation which comes into effect through the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group.

Based on the confidence placed on elected Members of the Legislative Council, the DAB firmly holds on to the commitment of Members to monitor the Government administration and believes that Members will not indiscriminately move bills which will lead to constitutional crisis. For these reasons, the DAB considers Mr CHU's original motion unnecessary and therefore, the DAB will vote against his motion.

The DAB cannot agree to the amendment motion moved by the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan. The DAB is of the view that if changes the necessity to propose to the Basic Law should be raised by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Article 159 of the Basic Law provides: "Before a bill for amendment to this Law is put on the agenda of the National People's Congress, the Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall study it and submit its views." The said Committee will comprise 12 members, half of whom are citizens of Hong Kong jointly nominated by the Chief Executive, the President of the Legislative Council and the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. Therefore, while the prescribed mechanism for amending the Basic Law will come into effect only after the implementation of the Basic Law, there will still be a very large degree of participation for the people of Hong Kong in the amending process. In this connection, it is unnecessary to make urgent calls for amendments at this point of time. Therefore, the DAB will also oppose the amendment moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan.

On behalf of the DAB, I make these remarks.

MR MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, Hong Kong has all along followed the "executive-led" mode of administration. Members of the Legislative Council can only influence government policies through a few channels. The right to move Member's Bills is one of the rights conferred on Members of the Legislative Council by the constitution. I am of the view that Members of the Legislative Council have every right to move any form of Member's Bills when upholding the principle of safeguarding the interests of the people. There is no reason for us to give up the principles and stand we have always adhered to, just because it may not be accepted by the Government or it does not have the consent of the Chinese side, or to restrain or cripple ourselves before any problem has arisen, otherwise, it will be difficult for us to fully discharge the duties of elected Members.

The public may know that Member's Bills which some Members of this Council are now planning to draft are based on safeguarding the interest of the people. For instance, the "Fair Competition Bill" which the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) is considering to table at the Legislative Council in this Session is one of the Bills drafted to safeguard consumers' rights and promote fair economic and commercial activities. Besides, given the rejection of ADPL's amendments to the Court of Final Appeal Bill in July, we shall consider tabling amendments to the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance at the Legislative Council again, requesting that a provision be made in the Ordinance that the term "acts of state" should be interpreted according to the principle and spirit of common law. Some may think that such a move of the ADPL is contrary to provisions of the Sino-British agreements, but ADPL firmly believes that these are necessary amendments to maintain the confidence of the public in the territory's judicial system and keep the existing legal system unchanged. The bills pertaining to labour policy to be drafted by other Members also seek to safeguard the rights and welfare of workers. To sum up, Members of the Legislative Council have the duty to amend or supplement the existing legislation with a view to protecting the rights of the people. Drawing a conclusion from the foregoing, ADPL will vote against the Honourable David CHU's motion.

ADPL supports the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment in principle. Article 74 of the Basic Law explicitly imposes unnecessary restrictions on members of the legislature in 1997. The role of the Legislative Council itself is to monitor the operation of the Government and formulate legislation. If Members are not allowed to table bills to the Government, the powers of the Legislative Council, which is already very limited, will undoubtedly be undermined. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to amend this provision. In fact, it is not the only unreasonable and relatively ambiguous provision in the Basic Law. Article 23 is another obvious example which must also be amended. Therefore, ADPL supports amending certain inappropriate provisions of the Basic Law.

Whilst ADPL supports Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment, I have to make the position of ADPL clear here. ADPL thinks that the proposed amendments to the Basic Law must be made in accordance with the official legal procedures after 1997. We must realize that if we amend the Basic Law before 1997, this is tantamount to allowing the National People's Congress to amend the Basic Law of its own accord before 1997, and ADPL finds this unacceptable. If the National People's Congress can amend the Basic Law of its own accord before 1997, this will be highly detrimental to the high degree of autonomy of Hong Kong. Amendments to the Basic Law will have to be made after 1997 through the channels prescribed in the Basic Law, that is, amendment bills shall be submitted to the National People's Congress with the consent of two thirds of the Special Administrative Region's deputies to the National People's Congress, two thirds of the Members of the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive. We should not seek temporary achievements whilst crushing the great wall ourselves.

Finally, ADPL urges all Members of the Legislative Council to call for the repeal of some unreasonable provisions of the Basic Law after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997.

With these remarks, I oppose Mr David CHU's motion and support Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment.

MR LEE KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am against the Honourable David CHU's motion relating to Member's Bills because it infringes the legitimate powers of Members of the Legislative Council. In case a bill is passed which happens to violate the agreements reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, the Governor is entitled to exercise his constitutional power to refuse to assent. It is unnecessary for Members of this Council to shoulder this responsibility.

I support the first part of the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment, but have reservations on the part pertaining to amending the Basic Law, because according to the provisions of the Basic Law, the procedure of amending the Basic Law is very complicated. At present, this Council is still unable to meet those requirements. I have therefore decided to abstain from voting on the amendment.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, today's motion debate touches upon a subject which is how this Council sees its role and position before and after 1997. The key point of this matter is entirely related to how we are going to handle the following two kinds of relationships:

First, Hong Kong's relationship with the two sovereign powers before 1997, and with the Central People's Government after 1997;

Second, this Council's relationship with the Government before 1997 and with the Chief Executive of the future Special Administrative Region (SAR) after 1997.

In handling these two kinds of relationships, what fundamental principles and stand should we adopt? This will decide our specific approach and course of action.

Mr President, if we, as a matter of fundamental principle and stand, have any faith in the Joint Declaration as an important and essential foundation for the implementation of "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy", and if we are determined to safeguard it, then it is absolutely impossible for us to support the Honourable David CHU's motion, nor do we have any reasons at all to do so. Under no circumstances should we accept, unconditionally and in full, the laws formulated for us by the Chinese and British Governments through the agreements reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group (JLG). The first reason, very obviously, is that according to Annex II of the Joint Declaration, the JLG is not an organ of power, and is not supposed to take part in the administration of Hong Kong or the future SAR, nor is it even supposed to play a supervisory role. If we accept the JLG's agreements unconditionally and in full, are we not in effect elevating the JLG's status to that of a super-legislature and a super-organ of power? This is clearly against the Joint Declaration. If we respect the rule of law, we must never accept such a motion.

Second, in the discharge of its duties, the JLG, for very obvious reasons, must be subject to the Joint Declaration. Therefore all the agreements reached by the JLG must never deviate from the spirit and principles of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hence, I must emphasize that for all government bills based on JLG agreements, if this Council has sufficient reason to believe that they are in breach of the Joint Declaration, or have deviated from its spirit, we are duty-bound to move amendments to ensure their compliance with the Joint Declaration, or even to refuse to pass such bills which contravene the Joint Declaration. This is a moral, legal and political responsibility. That being the case, how can we possibly accept the motion moved by Mr David CHU, unless we think that the JLG is entitled to alter or interpret the Joint Declaration as it wishes, or unless we find ourselves lacking both the courage and the ability to uphold the Joint Declaration?

Mr President, when considering the amendment moved by the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan, we are of course very clear about the role this Council should play and execute before and after 1997 ---one which concerns not only the reflection of public opinions, but also the enactment of laws for Hong Kong on the basis of upholding justice and public interests. We should also check and restrain the Government by exercising our powers through the mechanism of questioning and monitoring its finances and so on, so that it can become an accountable government with a high degree of transparency. Unfortunately, however, Article 74 of the Basic Law runs completely counter to the goal and direction I have just pointed out. This specific article deprives members of the future legislature of their constitutional right to introduce bills, thus subordinating the whole future legislature to the Chief Executive. In fact, it is now very clear that the political blueprint in the Basic Law is an "executive-led administration" in the absolute sense, which may even become an "executive autocracy", under which the right of members of the legislature to introduce bills is controlled or even taken away. We can also see that in the Basic Law, the procedure of "voting by groups" will be adopted in the legislature. Hence, matters which can otherwise be decided by a simple majority vote of all the members present will have to be decided by group voting, under which a simple majority vote of each of the two groups of members present is required to pass a bill. Moreover, the Chief Executive will be able to exercise his "veto" twice, and when he exercises his "veto" the second time, even a bill passed by a two-third majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council can be vetoed. In fact, it can be said that the Basic Law is setting road-blocks everywhere aimed at restraining the powers of the legislature. Now that even the last remaining right to introduce bills is to be taken away, how can we possibly implement the principle laid down in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, under which the executive is to be accountable to the legislature?

What is most absurd is that the Chief Executive's prior written consent has to be obtained before a bill relating to government policies can be introduced. But, are there any policy which does not involve government policies? In case the Government or the Chief Executive expressly refuses to support a bill, is this not in itself already a government policy? If so, will all bills require the consent of the Chief Executive? At this juncture, we must pluck up our political courage and act with our social conscience to defend the Joint Declaration and to uphold the concepts of "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy". I urge Members to oppose the motion moved by Mr David CHU and support the amendment of Mr LEE Cheuk-yan.

Thank you, Mr President.

6.10 pm

PRESIDENT: It appears that the grounds for my ruling on Dr Philip WONG's point of order are dubious. I must apologize to Honourable Members for having to take a second break in order that I can take further advice from our Legal Adviser. This time it will perhaps be a bit longer.

6.53 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT: Honourable Members, I have taken further legal advice. The appointed date on which a Member commences his office as Member of the Legislative Council is the date appointed by the Governor for the commencement of the Legislative Council Session. So from a technical point of view, the mover of the motion had not begun his office as a Legislative Council Member when he gave notice on 2 October 1995.

The point taken by Dr the Honourable Philip WONG is an intriguing one. However, public officers are not constrained in the same manner regarding the giving of notice as there is no question of their commencing their public offices on the appointed date. To deprive Members of the right to move motions, motions to amend and motions to adjourn, before they commence their tenure of office, would result in an anomalous situation. Furthermore, Members have been informed of the terms of the motion and the amendment in good time. I consider that I should exercise my discretion under Standing Order 21(1) to dispense with the notice requirement.

By the same token, I would also exercise my discretion under Standing Order 9(6) to dispense with the notice of motion on the adjournment that Mrs Elizabeth WONG will move at a later stage.

I therefore retract my previous ruling.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the only advantage about today's motion debate is that it can give the newly elected Members a chance to rehearse before the debate scheduled on 25 and 26 October on the Motion of Thanks on the Governor's Policy Address. This is like a practice session before a soccer match.

Mr President, we understand that the operation of our Government is executive-led, which is the best assurance to our Policy Secretaries. Had it not been an executive-led Administration, I believe that many civil servants would consider to retire, however favourable their remunerations and benefits may be. This is because if Members of the Legislative Council are given excessive powers one day, they may introduce tens or even hundreds of Members' Bills, and these bills may ultimately restrict our executive-led Government and its work. This is a fact. Of course, as far as the existing political system of Hong Kong is concerned, the colonial system is making way for reversion to Chinese sovereignty in future. This is also a fact. As participants in politics, we must endeavour to strike a balance between these facts, and reach decisions which are in the interests of the people of Hong Kong, instead of wrangling over various issues or harbouring unnecessary fantasies for the sake of party interests.

Some people have told me that the best candidate for the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) would be the Honourable Martin LEE. I personally agree that if Hong Kong were independent, he who could canvass sufficient votes would be elected. This is the case with the President of South Africa, Mr Nelson MANDELA. He was once jailed, but was elected President with sufficient votes after his release. This is an undeniable fact. However, Hong Kong will not become independent. Though it is true that the term "colony" is not used in the United Nations Charter, we cannot deny that we are now a colony under British rule; and, we shall become a Special Administrative Region of China after 1997. Many political parties and participants in politics therefore lead the public in advocating that Hong Kong belongs to Hong Kong people and that we want a high degree of autonomy. Very often, the people of Hong Kong are unnecessarily misled by such noises. We must appreciate the fact that Hong Kong does not necessarily belong to the people of Hong Kong. Hong Kong belongs to China, and, in addition to the people of Hong Kong, there are many more different ethnic groups and people in China. We must clearly understand this point.

Regarding today's motion debate, Mr David CHU may find out later that there are only one or two votes in favour of his motion. Whatever the number of supporting votes, he is bound to become "One Shot Chu", becoming famous on firing one shot. Failure to gain support is a fact which, however, does not matter at all. This is politics and we need not take it too seriously. This is just a debate and one should not be two down-hearted even if one loses. However, the question is that the amendment moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan may have rather serious and adverse consequences. We all know that many participants in politics do things to show that they are accountable to the voters. When there is an opportunity to show one's ability, why let it slip by? All consequences are matters for the future, and they will just bet all they have. Is not Governor Chris PATTEN also adopting the same attitude? Therefore, I can personally understand and appreciate the spirit behind Mr LEE's amendment and what he has done.

However, we must understand that the Basic Law has already set down clear provisions on the matter. Before 1997, if a Members' Bill passed by the Legislative Council is contrary to the Sino-British Joint Declaration or even the interests of the two countries, the Governor is absolutely entitled to exercise the powers conferred on him by the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions to block or refuse the bill concerned. Therefore, Mr David CHU needs not worry about this spirit either now or in the future. The Basic Law has also set out clearly that even after 1997, the Chief Executive of the HKSAR can exercise his powers, similar to those currently enjoyed by the Governor under the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions, to achieve the purpose of administering Hong Kong. In other words, the fact is very simple: after 1997, the Chief Executive of the HKSAR will represent the Central People's Government of China. At the same time as he takes into account the interests of the people of Hong Kong, he also has to take into account the interests of the Central People's Government. It is pure fantasy that there can be a two-third majority against the Chief Executive to compel him to refuse the Legislative Council's decision twice in succession.

Therefore, either participants in politics, or anyone else for that matter, must not forget that we are just holding a debate and we are engaged in verbal politics only. In the past, Chinese leaders practised a kind of politics with heads as stake, which is not on par with our verbal politics, therefore the two defy comparison. We may discuss and we may show our ability but we should never be too serious. We must let the public see clearly that while we may voice our views and fight for our aspirations, eventually, sorry, we cannot do it. This is because before 1997, the Governor acts in the interests of Britain and after 1997, the Chief Executive acts in the interests of the Central People's Government of China.

Mr President, regarding today's motion debate, I will first oppose Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment and abstain on the original motion. I hope very much that in future, whether before or after 1997, Hong Kong will still adopt executive-led administration. And, at the same time, I also hope that Policy Secretaries and Members of this Council can have better communication so that legislators do not have to resort frequently to Members' Bills as a means to achieve their purposes.

Mr President, these are my remarks.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I firmly believe that no matter whether Mr David CHU's motion or Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment is passed by this Council, it will not bring any change to the matter itself. Even if Mr LEE's amendment were passed, still the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress will not amend Article 74 of the Basic Law. And to those Members who are used to exercising "self-restraint", they will automatically avoid referring to any Member's Bills in breach of the agreements of the Joint Liaison Group anyway, regardless of whether this motion exists or not.

On the other hand, even if Mr David CHU's motion were carried, my colleagues in this Council, especially those who have all along been dissatisfied with the agreements reached by the Joint Liaison Group and who are fighting with all their might for the high degree of autonomy for the Hong Kong people after 1997, would still follow their conscience to fight for the citizens at this critical juncture in the latter part of the transition period and will definitely not budge or shrink because of Mr CHU's motion.

Nevertheless, I still support Mr LEE's amendment and object to Mr CHU's original motion for the following two reasons:

1. Unlike Member's Bills, the motion has no real effect.

Since elected seats were introduced into the Legislative Council in 1985, the Government has more often than not ignored the motions moved by Members even though some of the motions have the support of the majority of Members.

I recall that this Council moved a motion debate in the last session to call upon the Government to freeze tuition fees of tertiary institutions immediately and to review the tuition fees policy. Although the motion was eventually carried by the majority of Members, the Government's attitude remained unchanged. Tuition fees were raised as planned and the policy has still not yet been reviewed.

From these we can see that motions have actually been reduced to a group of discussion topics with neither force nor real effect.

However, since the introduction of Member's Bills by Members of this Council in the last Session, the Government has changed its attitude. On the one hand, it has shown more initiative to respond to issues with which we are concerned; on the other hand, it was forced, in its helplessness, to move consequential bills in order to recover its prestige. Hence, Member's Bills have also brought some improvements to the community. Had it not been for the pressure exerted by Member's Bills during the last session, for instance, the Government would not have taken the initiative to propose the Code on Access to Information and enacted legislation to ban discrimination against sexes and the disabled.

Therefore, if Article 74 of the Basic Law imposes restrictions some day to disallow Members of the Legislative Council to propose Member's Bills in three respects, that is, the political structure, government operation and policies, it will be tantamount to stripping the Members of their full powers. Likewise, elected Members will become "clawless crabs" and the Legislative Council after 1997 will revert to its "rubber stamp" era.

2. Making good use of Member's Bills enables Hong Kong people to exercise a high degree of democracy and autonomy

Actually, on the eve of the return of sovereignty of Hong Kong to China, an increasing number of so-called "agreements" also implies that more and more of Hong Kong people's interests are being betrayed.

It is evident to all that in the new agreement reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group on the Court of Final Appeal, two points, that which relates to the description "act of state" in the Basic Law, and that the Chief Executive could preside over the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission to appoint the Chief Justice, have long been denounced by the Executive Council as contrary to the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law; meanwhile, the British side has forsaken the flexibility in the ratio of appointing judges and reduced the number of overseas judges to one, in its effort to trade in for an earlier setting up of the Court of Final Appeal.

Hence, in this final stage of transition between the Chinese and the British sides and in the days ahead, it may give rise to more chances and situations for people to betray our interests as and hand over our interests as conveniently as offering flowers to worship the Buddha.

At this critical moment, if we, as elected Members of the Legislative Council, cannot move Member's Bills through effective channels to safeguard the interests of the public and improve the society as a whole, but can only reflect public views by moving motions which are almost like empty talks, then we would allow the Government to indulge itself to "receiving public views while keeping policies unchanged". By then, I am afraid that all of us will have become "Hong Kong people talking to themselves", meaning that any understanding gained by Hong Kong people will only be understood among themselves, and the genuinely high degree of autonomy will be turned into a myth and it will fall short of implementation.

To safeguard the real interests of Hong Kong people, therefore, Members of the Legislative Council should have the right to move Member's Bills to enact, amend or repeal Bills concerning public interests. Finally, I would like to solemnly call upon the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to listen to our views and to amend Article 74 of the Basic Law.

Mr President, with these remarks, I support Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment and oppose the original motion.

MR PAUL CHENG: Mr President, as a matter of principle, I fully agree that every Member of this Council has the right to introduce MB's as a legitimate part of the legislative process. However, I also believe this right should be used sparingly on issues of vital concern to Hong Kong and where other weapons in the legislative armoury have failed to make an impact on our executive-led Government.

The Hong Kong Administration has a difficult enough task ahead in the run-up to 1 July 1997. All parties should now focus on how to work in partnership to help ensure a smooth and stable transition. The process for amending the Basic Law is clearly outlined in the Basic Law itself, and it is a matter for the National People's Congress and the Government of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. As Members know, the HKSAR is some 600 days away before it is established.

The Basic Law was formulated with the best interests of Hong Kong people in mind and provides a solid framework for our future. To press now for amendments to the Basic Law may trigger others to amend other articles as well. Where would that lead us? Would it really be in the interests of the people of Hong Kong? Would it promote stability? I think not.

As for the original motion, I believe it is too restrictive in its wording. Mr President, I can support neither the amendment nor the original motion.

MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, for the first time in Hong Kong's history, we have a fully elected Council, elected as people's representatives in service to them. Yet, it is ironic, is it not, that in our very first motion debate, we are debating whether we should shut up in respect of MB's, instead of speaking up, in the interests of Hong Kong people to whom we have sworn allegiance only last week and in whose interests we serve.

In my opinion, a MB's is an effective measure to monitor the action of the Government, and in the good words of a former Legislative Councillor, Ms Anna WU, "a Private Member's Bill is a constitutional check against the delinquencies of the Government."

It would be, I suggest, delinquent of us to refrain from introducing MB's simply to avoid trespassing on the sacred terrain of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group.

Thus, dare I say that to accept the original motion is tantamount to reducing this Council of people's representatives to a Council of sheep or scapegoats, whichever you prefer?

It could also be argued with equal conviction that voluntary restraint in some cases is as good, or as bad, as committing constitutional harakiri.

Let us not forget that we owe it to the people of Hong Kong to do what is right and not to do --- what we are told --- to be right.

That said, I think a person of reason and common sense, and a person of humility should, in order to effect a smooth implementation of any bill, on a realistic basis, discuss the subject matter first with government officials, to see in what way the issue could be satisfactorily resolved in an acceptable manner. It would be better still for the official to be persuaded to take up the issue as a government measure.

I think it is only proper and right that we do so if we are really serious in not only introducing a bill, but also in having the bill implemented.

However, if we fail to reach an agreement with the officials, and as a matter of last resort, and in honourable demonstration against either the ineptitude, or the intransigence, or sheer stupidity, of the Government, I, for one, would contemplate introducing MB's for a public good, even if I were to run the risk of having the bill vetoed by the powers that be.

Here I would admonish against any veto which will be draconian both in nature and in effect and might trigger off a constitutional crisis which would not be in the best interests of Hong Kong.

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

PRESIDENT: Mr David CHU, do you wish to speak? You have five additional minutes to speak on the amendment.

MR DAVID CHU: Mr President, I regret that the Honourable Mr LEE was using the language of war. He obviously does not understand my motion. It is not about fighting, it is about moderation and co-operation so that we can have smooth transition. Hong Kong people want peace, not war. Regarding the second part of his amendment, I have three points.

First point, Mr LEE's amendment is written in the present tense. In other words, he is asking that the Basic Law be changed now, almost two years before its implementation. This is unrealistic. The first amendment to the American constitution was made three years after the charter's implementation.

Second point, one should not change the Basic Law so lightly. This is not good for the rule of law or for confidence.

My third point, this amendment is not realistic because the suggested change is totally against the principle of executive-led government, the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration.

Thank you, Mr President.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS: Mr President, as the Chief Secretary said earlier, the agreements we have reached in the Joint Liaison Group (JLG) are the results of joint efforts, by Britain as the current sovereign and China as the future sovereign, to identify solutions for issues which are essential for a successful transition. Together, they provide a framework with which we can work for a secure and prosperous future for Hong Kong and its people.

I only wish to reiterate that to repeal or make fundamental amendments to laws enacted to implement JLG agreements would have serious consequences. Progress in the implementation of the Joint Declaration would inevitably be severely affected. What possible benefits could this have for the people of Hong Kong? It would affect confidence in our future, both locally and overseas. This would certainly not be conducive to a smooth transition.

As the Governor pointed out in his policy address, the interests of the people of Hong Kong must be paramount. Like the Chief Secretary, we very much hope that we will not get ourselves into a situation where the Governor has to consider making use of his constitutional powers to refuse assent to legislation. I therefore hope that Members of this Council will proceed with great care, and act in the long-term interests of the community, when contemplating the introduction of MB's, whether they are related to JLG agreements or not.

As regards the part of Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment relating to the Basic Law, our position has always been that any proposal to amend the Basic Law, which will not come into operation until 1 July 1997, is a matter for the Special Administrative Region Government and the Central People's Government, not the Hong Kong Government.

Question on Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment put.

Voice vote taken.

PRESIDENT: Council will proceed to a division.

PRESIDENT: Will Members please first register their presence and then cast their votes?

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, would you please tell the new Members clearly as to how they should press the buttons, just in case they get it wrong.

PRESIDENT: I think all Members are acquainted with the voting machine.

PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: I am not a mathematical genius, but if you look round it seems to me that there must be more than 38 Members present. I do not know whether there is anything wrong with the machine. It would not be the only thing going wrong tonight.

MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, the real cause is they do not know how to press the buttons. It is therefore better if you could explain it once.

PRESIDENT: I have decided to reactivate the voting machine. Will Members please first register their presence by pressing the first button, and then vote by choosing one of the three buttons below the first button?

PRESIDENT: Any queries? Before I declare the result, will Members please check their votes? The result will now be displayed.

Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHEUNG Bing-leung, Mr HO Chun-yan, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr TSE Wing-ling, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.

Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Hon-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.

Mr LEE Kai-ming abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 23 votes in favour of the amendment and 25 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT: Mr David CHU, you are now entitled to reply and you have 11 minutes 15 seconds out of your original 15 minutes.

MR DAVID CHU: Mr President, if my Honourable Colleagues think that I am here today to seek their "yes" vote, they are wrong. I am here today to give them a chance to say to the people of Hong Kong that they are for moderation, for co-operation, and that they will do their best to achieve practical solutions for a smooth transition.

Therefore, Mr President, I do not mind at all if the only vote I get is that of my own. This way, the people will at least know that there is one person in this legislature who is not afraid to exercise moderation. There is at least one person in this legislation who is not afraid to say that he is for co-operation. I do not mind being alone on this because when you know you are right, you do not mind being alone.

May I give an analogy. All of us are flying in the same airplane, on a heading pre-programmed by history, towards a destination where no one has ever been. We, the Members of this first totally elected legislature, are in the cockpit and the people who voted for us are all seated behind. It is understandable that Members have different ideas about how to prepare for the arrival. We can settle our differences by either confrontation or co-operation.

But regardless of the choice we make, we have to land this aircraft in 21 months' time. Whether we have a smooth landing or a crash, it is up to us. I have made my choice and now it is your turn.

Thank you, Mr President.

Question on Mr David CHU's motion put.

Voice vote taken.

PRESIDENT: I think the "Noes" had it.

Mr David CHU claimed a division.

PRESIDENT: Council will now proceed to a division.

PRESIDENT: Will Members please register their presence and then proceed to vote?

PRESIDENT: Any queries? Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their votes. The result will now be displayed.

Mr David CHU voted for the motion.

Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Mr Eric LI, Mr Fred LI, Mr Henry TANG, Mr James TO, Dr Samuel WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr James TIEN, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Bing-leung, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr HO Chun-yan, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted against the motion.

Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Hon-chuen and Mr LO Suk-ching abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that there was one vote in favour of the motion and 42 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

ADJOURNMENT

MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President, I move that this Council do now adjourn to enable me to raise a public matter for which the Government is responsible, with a view to eliciting a reply.

PRESIDENT: Members may wish to be reminded that in an adjournment debate there are 45 minutes for Members to speak. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee that the 45-minute speaking time be equally apportioned amongst the six Members (including Mrs Elizabeth WONG) who have given prior notification to the Clerk of their intention to speak. As Members were advised by circular on 17 October, Members who have given prior notice to speak, including the proposer for the subject, will each have seven minutes 30 seconds for his or her speech. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his or her speech. At the expiration of the 45-minute period or after all the Members wishing to speak have spoken, whichever is the earlier, I will call upon the Secretary for Education and Manpower to reply.

The Importance of Encouraging Broad Education and Modern-day Literacy (for example, Computer Literacy) in Hong Kong

MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Mr President,

Introduction

I believe there have been no adjournment debates for at least two years in this Council. As a new comer to this Council, I feel I should practise the art of thinking on my feet so as to prepare the way for many marathon debates of the kind in the good days to come.

The subject of today's adjournment debate, which I sponsor, was prompted by the recent spate of suicides amongst teenagers which is really heart-rending. Some of these suicides were described as due to pressure from school work.

All this, I think, is a sad indictment of our society! Hence debate.

Without attributing or wishing to attribute, and without having any pretensions to either being a philosopher, or an intellectual, or even an educationalist, I hope that through this debate and collective wisdom, and through the voice of those who care in this Council, we can give the right message to the Hong Kong people about this very important broad area of education.

I would like to say that true broad education is not just about facts or theories or laws or about book-learning. Mere accumulation of information by stuffing the memory is not education, but instruction or indoctrination.

Education is really about opening up minds, not to take things for granted in the same way as we do not take the Standing Orders for granted. Education widens our horizons, and awakens in us a natural curiosity in things. It is about how to think for ourselves. More importantly, it is about how to cope with life and making the best of life itself.

Just as civilization is the result of the accumulated art and experience of survival, so education should teach us the skills of survival in an ever changing world.

The modern dilemma we face, I think, is how to achieve a balance between the demands of mediocrity and the pursuit of excellence; between pedantic book-learning and developing individualism.

We live at a time when the average individual has to know several times as much as his ancestors. In order to keep informed, in Hong Kong for instance, we are told that we should speak Cantonese, we should speak English and we should speak Putonghua --- and, goodness me, these are only just starters!

No wonder our kids are under tremendous pressure.

The measure of progress of the world is not about how many A's student gets, or how many languages he speaks. What about the dumg and deaf? They also have something to offer to our society. What about how the young person can cope with life itself and, can survive in this complex world?

In these critical days, the requirement for knowledge covers such enormous grounds that no single person can be expected to be good at all the subjects; but some might be good at some of the subjects. That is to say, not all the people are talented in the same subject, but in all the subjects there must be some talented people.

Therefore, it is important through education to make for individuality: individual superiority of achievement rather than collective mediocrity.

It is in the discovery of the strengths in a person that parents and teachers alike must work together to detect, cultivate and bring about the best talent in that person: be the talent in music, in cooking, in dancing, in sports, in mathematics, whatever.

But to cope with modern hi-tech, we require a new approach to education. Technological changes should bring about the need for an understanding of the new literacy, including computer literacy, so that we can cope with the influence that new technology can bring. Computer literacy should not just start in the secondary schools --- it is a bit too late for that --- but much earlier in primary schools. Elsewhere, it is in the kindergartens. Kids should know how to punch into the computer. There is no doubt that we live in evolutionary times with a need to setting codes of ethics, so that we know the ground rules of communication through faceless, heartless machines. Young people would be lost without new road maps for travelling on the internet or in cybernetic space.

If we look into the future, we should prepare our children to become good citizens not only in Hong Kong but in the new world order. If we do not enrich their minds with knowledge or in-build their hearts with love or truth and the duty of international citizenry, we are doing an injustice to our next generation because the world is getting very much smaller than you and I think.

So, I recommend the Government, parents and teachers should work together in tapping the individual talent, in providing more choice of subjects, in providing better-paid expert teachers, in promoting literacy in the arts, in music, in science, whatever the young people are good at individually, to identify new opportunities in Hong Kong's economic structure and enhance less pedantic book-learning, in enhancing vocational training, and in promoting the understanding of new ethics in the use of computer.

When we spend one third of our lives in academic studies, let us at least try to make education both fruitful and enjoyable. Let us encourage modern day literacy.

Thank you, Mr President.

MR MARTIN LEE: I do not think we have a quorum.

PRESIDENT: I direct that Members be summoned.

MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is shocking that only at the beginning of the new school year, a number of tragic suicides committed by school children have taken place one after another. Why had they chosen the road of no return? Why did they have no hope in life? Why was there nothing to cherish in these young hearts?

As representative of the education sector in this Council, besides feeling extremely sorry for those children who have either given up their lives or have inflicted physical harms to themselves, I think the situation also reflected the inadequacies of the modern society and the education system today. Modern society puts much emphasis on material things at the expense of spiritual pursuits, leaving little room for love and care. The scientific way of life is unidirectional and isolated. It has created a polluted and ice-cold environment. Do school children have the ability to free themselves from isolation and eliminate the coldness? Should today's education respond to the situation and work out a remedy to address the problem?

I agree that we should debate on the motion moved by the Honourable Mrs Elizabeth WONG and I also agree that the implementation of modern and comprehensive education should be encouraged. However, on this topic, we should, first of all, give modern and comprehensive education a positive meaning and a full content before we determine the objectives and direction. Only in this way can we have a meaningful discussion.

Comprehensive education necessarily involves the balanced development of the five aspects, that is, morality, intellect, health, social skills and aesthetic ability. Education involves the nurture of human beings and human beings are not objects. Hence, an education system should not be rigid in the first place, and should cater for the differences of the people and emphasize individuality of each and every student. Intellectual performance is only one aspect of education, not its entirety. Outstanding academic results should not be regarded as the only goal to pursue. If education only emphasizes intellectual development and neglects the development of morality, health, social skills and aesthetic ability, it will not be comprehensive and will therefore be inadequate.

The nurture of human being implies the cultivation of all-round persons. Knowledge is certainly important. However, in this society in which things are ever changing drastically, learning is certainly an endless process. However, has today's education equipped school children with knowledge which will be useful for the rest of their life? Has it provided guidance to them so that they can have a proper outlook on life, so that besides protecting the interests of the community, appreciating the importance of human rights, democracy, freedom, the rule of law, integrity and environmental protection, they have the ability to appreciate the good things in life and create a better world? Successful comprehensive education is actually "education of the whole person" which will equip everyone who receives it with the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, good and bad, beauty and ugliness, also to build a righteous and unyielding character.

Although people are different and their quality may vary, the aim of comprehensive education must not be screening out the weak from the strong so that some will be predestined to fail while others take pride in their superiority. Hence, the development of comprehensive education should be diversified, and should cater for different abilities and different needs of school children and taking into account the development trend of the society. The curricula should be properly designed and updated to suit the different aspirations of school children, so that they can receive their education happily, through which their interests are aroused and they are able to improve.

Marching towards the modern world, the industrial society is transformed into an information society. The training of professionals of high technology and computer science is certainly important, but at the same time, modern education should enable people to master technology and to use the computer, and not to encourage materialistic pursuits or even make people become slaves of materialism. The major mission of education must not be simply the pursuit of technological advancement but also to teach students how to face and to overcome the problems of isolation and indifference in the modern society, and to accommodate and adapt to the ever-changing and unidirectional nature of the scientific way of life.

Mr President, with these remarks, I hope that our next generation can receive modern and comprehensive education in a free, spacious, warm and open environment and I wish that tragedies of self-destruction and suicides committed by school children will not be repeated.

MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Mr President, when education in Hong Kong is mentioned, many people would complain, examples are:

Complaint 1: The headmaster of a secondary school has complained that some Form I students admitted by his school do not even know all the 26 English alphabets.

Complaint 2: A reporter said, "In a questionnaire survey conducted on a group of university students, when asked who was CAO Xueqin, some students retorted: is she a contestant in the Miss Asia Pageant this year?"

Complaint 3: An employer said after interviewing nearly 100 university graduates that he found it hard to identify even one suitable candidate!

All these are not jokes.

I understand that manpower is the only resource of Hong Kong. If the drastic decline in educational quality is allowed to continue, I daresay that by the 21st century, Hong Kong would have no cause to be proud any more.

With the approach of the 21st century, the challenges Hong Kong students face will be international in nature. Countries like Japan, the United States, South Korea, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and so on are much more generous than Hong Kong in devoting resources to the education of their students. University students of China are certainly the elite of the country's population of one billion. "How can Hong Kong students in future stay on a par in the international market?" has become an issue of paramount importance today.

I very much hope that the working group, the establishment of which was announced by the Education Commission earlier this year, can re-orientate Hong Kong's education, at a time when the territory's politics and economy are marching towards the 21st century.

The road of improving Hong Kong's quality of education can be described as both long and groping. In fact, as early as 1982, the Visiting Panel appointed by the Government, when presenting its recommendations, had done a comprehensive review of Hong Kong's education system. Unfortunately, after more than 10 years, the systematic and far-sighted advice has been turned into piecemeal reforms characterized by "doing something but not others, performing a part but failing to perform another part".

Years back, the Visiting Panel criticized Hong Kong's education system as examination-oriented, very much dominated by the examination system. Today, this criticism is still valid because no improvement whatever has been effected. Students study for examinations; teachers teach for examinations; and syllabi are designed for examinations. The Government talks in grand style about improving the quality of education. But is it easy to enhance the quality of education if this most structural problem remains unresolved?

Mr Chris PATTEN takes pride in being able to provide every secondary school student with a computer. However, if teachers' quality, support, accommodation and all matching facilities are lacking, a computer will remain ultimately just a computer!

To spend $10 million each year to strengthen Putonghua training is surely something to be commended. When some students cannot even speak proper Cantonese, what are they going to do?

Education is important, so we need planning.

Education is fragmented, so we need co-ordination.

Education is fundamental, so we need starting from basics.

Education is long-term, so please start working from today.

MR ANTHONY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Honourable Mrs Elizabeth WONG said just now that the Legislative Council sitting today is the first in this Session, and so this adjournment debate is intended to give us an opportunity to practise our speaking. However, I do think that her putting forward this debate motion on broad education is extremely timely.

At this critical moment when Hong Kong is undergoing the transition to 1997 and marching towards the 21st century, although some Members just now chose to refer to student suicides as the trigger point, I think that we should look at the issue of broad education with a more positive and active attitude.

In recent years, there have been more discussions in the Hong Kong community about the prospects of education, the school curricular, the quality of education, and so on. The community has also reached a consensus that there should be universal education. I think it is high time we begin to look squarely at the issue of promoting broad education, or "all-round education", on the basis of universal education, with a view to enriching the essence of our education.

Just now, the Honourable CHEUNG Man-kong referred to "moral, intellectual, physical, social and aesthetic " development as a description of the contents of broad education. Let me perhaps explain the notable features of "all-round" education by using a different set of terminology, relating to what I would describe as body language (to be distinguished, however, from the kind of body language used in the legislatures of some neighbouring regions). I shall talk about the five aspects relating to the eyes, the ears, the mouth, the nose and the hands.

The eyes. I think we should teach our students and young people to acquire far-sighted visions and broad perspectives. They should have an adequate understanding of the environment, people and development in neighbouring regions. Obviously rooted in the Asia-Pacific region, Hong Kong's economy has, at the same time, become increasingly interlocked with the economic developments in mainland China. After 1997, Hong Kong will be returned to China, which means that our young people and students must acquire a proper China perspective. On the other hand, since Hong Kong has an externally-oriented economy, apart from focusing on China and Taiwan, we should enhance our students' knowledge on the history, geography, socioeconomics and politics of neighbouring countries such as Japan, Korea, and other Southeast Asian countries. In the past, the so-called international outlook of Hong Kong people was biased towards areas such as the United Kingdom and the United States. In the contemporary context, I think we should form a balanced rather than biased international outlook when Hong Kong is heading towards the 21st century as part of the Asia-Pacific region.

The ears. We should cultivate our students' willingness to listen to others with concern and care for others, tolerance and respect of the human rights and freedom of others.

The nose. By this, I refer to the sense of smell. We should teach our students to be sufficiently sensitive to the community and social groups, which include sensitivity to the circumstances and wants of minority races, and people of the opposite sex, with different sexual inclinations, religious beliefs, and of different ages without discrimination. Our civic education should achieve this objective.

The mouth. We should develop the language competence of our students. By this, I do not mean only the "three spoken and two written languages", as we in Hong Kong must be able to write English and Chinese, and to speak Cantonese, Putonghua and English. We should encourage students to use a variety of languages. To them languages should not be a source of pressure but as media of communication which they are happy to use. I understand that the Education Commission Report No. 6 will discuss the issue of language teaching. I hope that eventually I can see in the report a clear and comprehensive account of how to achieve the objective of making Hong Kong a multi-lingual community.

The hands. In the past, our school education placed greater emphasis on traditional academic disciplines or "book" knowledge, so to speak. Apart from book knowledge, we should allow our students to engage themselves in various other pursuits, because academic learning should not be restricted to academic subjects alone, but should include techniques as well. Through curriculum development, we should break the boundaries imposed by traditional academic disciplines. Just now, Mrs Elizabeth WONG mentioned the computer. Indeed, audio-visual arts, and even dancing, drama, and so on should also be incorporated into our mainstream school education so that students who take subjects other than traditional ones will not be regarded as second-class students. We should diversify our curricula for the sake of an all-round development of our students, and stimulate their thoughts.

Mr President, life should be rich and colourful. Through the process of education, students should learn how to value life and how to get along with others, with social and historical awareness, respect of others and appreciation of every thing in life. They should cultivate a positive outlook of life and feel that their destiny is in their own hands.

When it comes to comprehensive education, schools should face the problems squarely, and the community as a whole should also work hard together.

Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion to adjourn.

MR MARTIN LEE: We fall short of a quorum again.

PRESIDENT: I direct that Members absent be summoned.

8.07 pm

DR SAMUEL WONG (in Cantonese): Is it stated in the Standing Orders as to how long the Council has to wait before there can be an adjournment?

PRESIDENT: May I read to Members Standing Order 10(2): "If the attention of the President is drawn to the fact that a quorum is not present, he shall direct the Members to be summoned. If after fifteen minutes have expired he is satisfied that a quorum is not present, he shall adjourn the Council without question put." This could be interpreted to mean that the 15-minute period started from the time when my attention was drawn by Mr LEE to the fact that a quorum was not present.

DR SAMUEL WONG (in Cantonese): Almost 15 minutes have elapsed.

NEXT SITTING

PRESIDENT: Members, 15 minutes have elapsed. In accordance with Standing Order 10(2), I now adjourn the Council without question put, until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 25 October 1995.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Eight o'clock.

Note: The short titles of the Bills listed in the Hansard, with the exception of the Legal Aid Services Council (No. 2) Bill, Prevention of Bribery (Miscellaneous Provisions) (No. 2) Bill 1995, Gas Safety (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995, Bank Notes Issue (Amendment) Bill 1995 and Air Passenger Departure Tax (Amendment) Bill 1995, have been translated into Chinese for information and guidance only; they do not have authoritative effect in Chinese.

Last Updated on {{PUBLISH AUTO[[DATE("d mmm, yyyy")]]}}