OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Saturday, 17 May 1997
The Council met at half-past Nine o'clock

THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG SIU-YEE

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE EDWARD HO SING-TIN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND HO CHUNG-TAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING

PROF THE HONOURABLE NG CHING-FAI

THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU

THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS PEGGY LAM, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HENRY WU

THE HONOURABLE NGAI SHIU-KIT, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YUEN MO

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HON-CHUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE MRS TSO WONG MAN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHUN-YING, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE LEONG CHE-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHOI-HI

THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM

THE HONOURABLE CHENG KAI-NAM

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE

THE HONOURABLE KENNEDY WONG YING-HO

THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHARLES YEUNG CHUN-KAM

THE HONOURABLE YEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM

THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE BRUCE LIU SING-LEE

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH

THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LAU HON-CHUEN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHOY KAN-PUI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG

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

THE HONOURABLE KAN FOOK-YEE

THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING

THE HONOURABLE MS MARIA TAM WAI-CHU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS SOPHIE LEUNG LAU YAU-FAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TSANG YOK-SING

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WONG WANG-FAT, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHENG MING-FUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING

DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK

CLERK IN ATTENDANCE:

MS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH

CLERK TO THE PROVISIONAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

PAPERS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good Morning, Honourable Members. This Council Meeting will now commence. First, the Honourable IP Kwok-him will address this Council on the Report of the Working Group on Administrative Matters. According to Rule 21(5) of the Rules of Procedure, no debate may arise on the address, but I may in my discretion allow short questions to be put for the purpose of elucidating matters raised in the course of his address. Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, on behalf of the Working Group on Administrative Matters (Working Group), I now submit its report on the provision of secretarial support to the Provisional Legislative Council on and after 1 July 1997. The report, which outlines the outcome of the Working Group's discussions, has been distributed to Honourable colleagues for perusal.

Currently, the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat (the Secretariat) is mainly composed of 18 officers. All of them are former employees of the Legislative Council Secretariat who joined the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat after resigning their office in the Legislative Council Secretariat. The purpose of this arrangement is to ensure the continuity in secretarial support for the future legislature after 30 June 1997. Members of the Provisional Legislative Council have also agreed that staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat should continue to serve the legislature after 30 June 1997. In view of this, the PLC has to make some arrangements for the merging of the two Secretariats on 1 July 1997.

Currently, the operation of the Legislative Council Secretariat is subject to the supervision of the Legislative Council Commission, which is a statutory body formed under the Legislative Council Commission Ordinance (Cap. 443). The main functions of the Legislative Council Commission are to provide through the Legislative Council Secretariat administrative support and services to the Legislative Council and to supervise the operation of the Legislative Council Secretariat (including the appointment of Secretariat staff). The Legislative Council Commission is currently composed of 11 members, namely, the incumbent President of the Legislative Council, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the House Committee and eight other members elected by and from amongst the Members of the Legislative Council.

The Working Group noted that according to Article 8 of the Basic Law the laws previously in force in Hong Kong shall be maintained, except for any that contravene the Basic Law, and subject to any amendment as may be deemed necessary. As a result, the Legislative Council Commission Ordinance shall be maintained after 30 June 1997, and the Commission shall remain the statutory body responsible for supervising the operation of the Secretariat. However, in order to make sure that the Ordinance can comply with the Basic Law and that the Commission can continue to operate on and after 1 July 1997, the Working Group deems it necessary to introduce amendments to some provisions in the Ordinance:

As for the names of "管理委員會" and "立法局秘書處", the Working Group has noted that once the aforesaid amendments have been introduced, it will be necessary to change them to "立法會行政管理委員會" and "立法會秘書處" respectively. The Working Group also views that during the existence of the Provisional Legislative Council, the Commission should be named as "Provisional Legislative Council Commission". In view of this, the Working Group opines that the Ordinance has to be amended to achieve such a purpose. Besides, all amendments should take effect as from 1 July 1997 so as to enable the Commission to operate on and after this very day.

It is noted by the Working Group that the employment contracts signed between the current employees of the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat and the Chief Executive will all expire on 31 July 1997. Nevertheless, since the Commission will take over these employment contracts by way of legislative amendments, these employees will be automatically employed by the then merged Legislative Council Secretariat (or the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat) up to 31 July 1997. As for the arrangements related to the continued employment of these employees, the Working Group views that, at the earliest possible opportunity between now and 1 July 1997, these employees should be notified that the authorities concerned intend to retain their services with the Secretariat after 31 July 1997. Since the current Legislative Council Secretariat will usually issue a notice of contract renewal to an employee six months before the expiry of his or her contract, the aforesaid arrangement is in line with the practice adopted by the current Legislative Council Secretariat. The Working Group also opines that, after the Legislative Council Commission Ordinance has been passed and put into practice, these employees should be given formal offers of continued employment as quickly as possible. Besides, they should be offered the same posts which they held in the Secretariat of the current Legislative Council, as if there has been no interruption in their service.

Madam President, when considering the related issues, the Working Group issued a consultation document to the House Committee, and during the House Committee meeting on 3 May 1997, Members' opinions were sought.

Following consultation with the House Committee, the Working Group agreed that I should, on its behalf, submit a report on the outcome of its discussions to this Council. Later at this meeting, I will move a motion to request this Council to adopt the report. I will also invite the Chief Executive's Office to put forward the legislative amendments required for the implementation of the proposals set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report.

Madam President, I so report. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I want to seek clarification on one of the points made in the Honourable IP Kwok-him's address just now. When he mentioned the names of "立法會行政管理委員會" and "立法局秘書處", he said that during the existence of the Provisional Legislative Council, the Commission should be named as "臨時立法會行政管理委員會" and the Secretariat as "臨時立法會秘書處". Am I correct in thinking that following the legislative amendments this time, the authentic name in law will be "臨時立法會行政管理委員會"? Is it correct to say that no further amendments are required upon the setting up of the first Legislative Council, as continuity is already implied?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. The answer is "yes". The name shall be "立法會秘書處". When the first Legislative Council is set up in the future, no further amendments are required because the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat is already covered. I believe that this can answer Mr IP Kwok-him's question. Thank you, Madam President.

BILLS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First Reading of Bills.

First Reading of Bills

URBAN COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

REGIONAL COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

DISTRICT BOARDS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

CLERK (in Cantonese): Urban Council (Amendment) Bill 1997

Regional Council (Amendment) Bill 1997

District Boards (Amendment) Bill 1997

Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997

Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997

Second Reading of Bills

URBAN COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

REGIONAL COUNCIL (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

DISTRICT BOARDS (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

PUBLIC ORDER (AMENDMENT) BILL 1997

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Reading of Bills. Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second reading of the Urban Council (Amendment) Bill 1997. Since this Bill and two other Bills, namely, the Regional Council (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the District Boards (Amendment) Bill 1997, are similar to one another in terms of background, factors for consideration and proposed contents, I would like to seek your approval for me to discuss these three Bills altogether here.

The formation and composition of the existing Urban Council, Regional Council and District Boards in Hong Kong are provided for in the Urban Council Ordinance (Cap. 101), Regional Council Ordinance (Cap. 385) and District Boards Ordinance (Cap. 366) respectively. These Ordinances confer statutory powers upon these district organizations, lay down their functions and terms of reference in respect of municipal services and district administration, and prescribe the methods and rules for their formation.

Moreover, the Urban Council and the Regional Council also exercise the powers conferred upon them by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance, Dutiable Commodities Ordinance and Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance and so on.

On 31 August 1994, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) adopted a decision which states that:

On 23 February 1997, the 24th Session of the 8th NPC Standing Committee also adopted the proposal that since the electoral provisions in the Urban Council Ordinance, Regional Council Ordinance and District Boards Ordinance were in contravention of the Basic Law, they should not be adopted as part of the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administration Region (SAR).

In view of the fact that it is not feasible to achieve timely establishment of the first district organizations of the SAR with their members returned by elections on 1 July 1997, and that the terms of the existing Urban Council, Regional Council and district boards will expire on 30 June 1997, it is only appropriate to fill the resultant vacuum by setting up provisional district organizations, namely a Provisional Urban Council, a Provisional Regional Council and Provisional District Boards, in the SAR. More importantly, this arrangement is crucial to the effective operation of the SAR.

After considering various factors and consulting district figures, we have drafted the Urban Council (Amendment) Bill 1997, the main features of which are outlined below:

The other clauses are consequential and technical in nature.

Madam President, I am sure that this Bill will receive the widespread support of the community. I also hope that this Council will pass this Bill as soon as possible.

With these remarks, Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Urban Council (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read the Second time. In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Regional Council (Amendment) Bill 1997.

Since I have already discussed the background and factors for consideration related to this Bill, I would not repeat them here. As for its main features, they are outlined below:

The other clauses are consequential and technical in nature.

With these remarks, Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Regional Council (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read the Second time. In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the District Boards (Amendment) Bill 1997.

Since I have already discussed the background and factors for consideration related to this Bill, I would not repeat them here. As for its main features, they are outlined below:

The other clauses are consequential and technical in nature.

With these remarks, Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the District Boards (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read the Second time. In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997.

The content of this Bill embodies the outcome of the consultation exercise conducted by the Chief Executive's Office over the past few weeks. Members of the public have responded enthusiastically to the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order, evident in the fact that we have received more than 5 000 representations so far. Last Saturday, when the motion debate on the Consultation Document was conducted in the Provisional Legislative Council, Members expressed support for the fundamental principles of the Consultation Document, and they also urged us to listen seriously to and accord due respect for public opinions. I am sure that Members, having read the Bill put before them today, will all agree that we have in fact considered the views of the public very seriously, and that appropriate amendments and clarifications have been made with respect to those controversial areas covered in the Consultation Document.

Clause 4 of the Bill requires a local society to apply to the Societies Officer for registration or exemption from registration within one month of its establishment. In order not to inconvenience the operation of a society as a result of this requirement, the Bill sets out two other provisions. First, a society may operate and continue to operate until it is notified that the Societies Officer has refused its application for registration or exemption from registration. Second, in accordance with clause 16, a society which has notified the Societies Officer under the existing Societies Ordinance before 1 July 1997 is taken to be a registered society when this amendment Ordinance takes effect, and is thus exempt from re-applying for registration.

Clause 4 further provides that the Societies Officer may, in consultation with the Secretary for Security, refuse to register or exempt from registration a society in the following situations:

The aforesaid situations also apply when the Societies Officer makes recommendations to the Secretary for Security on banning the operation or continued operation of a society. Taking account of public views, clause 3 of the Bill provides for concrete definitions of "national security", "political bodies", "foreign political organizations", "political organizations of Taiwan" and "connections". "National Security" means the safeguarding of the territorial integrity and independence of the People's Republic of China. A "political body" means only a political party or an organization that purports to be a political party, while non-political parties or organizations the main objective of which is not to take part in elections to the three tiers of government will not be regarded as "political bodies". The definition of a "connection" is solely targeted at the direct or indirect connection with "foreign political organizations" or "political organizations of Taiwan". Connections not involving "political organizations" will not be placed under the ambit of this Ordinance.

The Bill also retains the existing appeal mechanism and other amendments not of a significant nature, and since a societies registration system is to be restored, a number of consequential amendments have been made.

The Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 and the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997, for which I will move a Second Reading later at this meeting, both illustrate that the SAR Government is determined to safeguard human rights on the one hand and social stability on the other. As I said last week, I hope that Members can support these two Bills with a positive and pragmatic attitude.

With these remarks, Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Societies (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read the Second time. In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Policy Co-ordination.

SECRETARY FOR POLICY CO-ORDINATION (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997.

I have just stated that we have amended the proposals contained in the Consultation Document on Civil Liberties and Social Order in the light of public comments. Let me now outline the main provisions of the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997. The Bill seeks to introduce the following amendments to the arrangements for public processions:

The Bill also sets out some transitional arrangements and consequential amendments. Besides, the existing appeal mechanism and other amendments not of a significant nature are retained.

With these remarks, Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Public Order (Amendment) Bill 1997 be read the Second time. In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' Motions. The first motion: That this Council adopts the report of the Working Group on Administrative Matters. Mr IP Kwok-him.

ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the motion as set out under my name on the Agenda be approved, and that is: That this Council adopts the report of the Working Group on Administrative Matters presented on 17 May 1997 and that the Chief Executive's Office should introduce such legislation as is necessary to implement the proposals set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report.

In the report made before this Council earlier in this Meeting, I have outlined the arrangements worked out by the Working Group on Administrative Matters for the provision of secretarial support services to the Provisional Legislative Council in the future, and I have also outlined the various proposed amendments to the Legislative Council Commission Ordinance.

In order to ensure the continued application of the Legislative Council Commission Ordinance on and after 1 July 1997, the Working Group deems it necessary to amend some specific provisions in the Ordinance. Such amendments can ensure continuity in the services provided to the future legislature after the merging of the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat and the Legislative Council Secretariat on 1 July 1997. The proposed amendments are set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report.

If the motion is approved by this Council, the Working Group will prepare a set of guidelines for the consideration of the Chief Executive's Office with respect to the specific implementation.

I hope that Honourable colleagues will support my motion.

These are my remarks. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is "That this Council adopts the report of the Working Group on Administrative Matters presented on 17 May 1997 and that the Chief Executive's Office should introduce such legislation as is necessary to implement the proposals set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report. Does any Member wish to speak? If not, I will now put the question to you and that is: That this Council adopts the report of the Working Group on Administrative Matters presented on 17 May 1997 and that the Chief Executive's Office should introduce such legislation as is necessary to implement the proposals set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the report. Will those in favour of the motion please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT ( in Cantonese ): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The second motion. The motion on Increasing the Standard Rate under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme for the Elderly. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for motion debates. Movers of motions will each have 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies, and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendment. Other Members, including the movers of the amendments, will each have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure, I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time limit to discontinue. Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

INCREASING THE STANDARD RATE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANCE SCHEME FOR THE ELDERLY

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I beg to move the following motion:

To begin with, the motion I have moved today, which proposes to increase the standard rate under the CSSA Scheme for the elderly, is the first motion on the people's livelihood ever debated by the Provisional Legislative Council since its inception. Since the reunification is just less than 50 days away from now, it is only reasonable and natural for this Council, the legislature of the future Special Administrative Region (SAR), to express its concern for social and livelihood issues. The practical needs of the people should not be ignored because of our work on handling the matters related to the transition.

Madam President, for the hundreds of thousands of elderly recipients of CSSA, an increase of several hundred dollars is indeed "absolutely indispensable". Leading a life below the poverty-line, these elderly people are in a state of abject poverty. The CSSA payments they receive can satisfy only their subsistence needs. With barely enough money to buy food, these old people simply do not have any spare money for social activities, let alone entertainment of any kind. If the overall economy of Hong Kong is not in good shape, there may as well be an excuse for the financial hardships suffered by these old people. However, what we have in Hong Kong now is sustained economic growth and huge fiscal reserves which are the envy of many countries. So, the billions of huge reserves in our possession are nothing but a source of embarrassment for us when old people in Hong Kong still die of hypothermia; when the suicide rate among our poor elderly still ranks second in Asia; and, when our elderly CSSA recipients are still leading a life of boredom and frustration marked by worries of not having enough to eat.

Madam President, what role should government reserves play? As savings to provide relief in times of need. And, the fiscal policy of the Government should aim to improve the people's livelihood, narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, and thus stimulate economic growth. Regrettably, the existing Government has become a miser who seeks to save money for the sake of saving. In trying to bring about more growth figures and to satisfy the officials' hunger for "meritorious performance", it has ignored the principle that savings are supposed to provide relief in times of need.

The Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, has appointed the Honourable TAM Yiu-chung to set up an elderly commission with a defined focus of solving the problems encountered by the elderly. As a result, a policy for the elderly has become one of the three policy areas to receive emphasis following Mr TUNG's assumption of office, and the people are expecting breakthrough solutions to the problems faced by the elderly. Of course, it must be pointed out that increasing the standard rate for the elderly is but one of the many ways to raise their standard of living. Besides financial assistance, homes for the aged, medical care, counselling services and so on are also required to form an integrated package of services. But, for those old people who are living in stark poverty, increased CSSA payments will be best able to satisfy their practical needs and to solve the immediate problems they are facing. At present, the standard rate for the elderly is only $2,060 a month, which means an average of $60 a day. On each of the three daily meals, an elderly CSSA recipient can only spend less than $20, and after that he is left with no money. In 1994, the Legislative Council invited Prof Stewart MacPHERSON, Reader of the then City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, to write a survey report on the adequacy of public assistance rates in Hong Kong. Entitled A Measure of Dignity, the report concluded that the standard CSSA rate for the elderly at that time was inadequate even for the maintenance of a decent minimum standard of living. His survey findings indicated that CSSA payments were spent mostly on food, and the elderly people interviewed spent an average of $70 a month on transport, with half of them spending less than $50. The average amount spent on clothing and footwear was $30 per person per month. The average expenditure on fuel, electricity and telephone per person per month was $62. As for the expenditure on personal care products, three quarters of the interviewees spent less than $25 per month, and one quarter of the elderly people spent less than $10 per person per month. The average expenditure on social activities and entertainment was $58, and for half of the elderly people interviewed, there was no expenditure on social activities or entertainment whatsoever.

What problems do these statistics indicate? The answer is: elderly CSSA recipients, who number as many as a hundred thousand, are not leading a reasonable and dignified life. The existing CSSA rates are just able to "keep them alive", but not giving them a dignified standard of living. To put it crudely, the Government is simply treating them like cats and dogs because CSSA payments can cater for their food requirements only, while their other needs are entirely ignored. According to Prof MacPHERSON's survey, even in the case of food consumption, elderly people seldom had any cakes, ice-cream or seafood, and theirs was just a minimum diet which could just meet, or sometimes even fell below, internationally accepted standards. The 1997-1998 Budget has reduced the red wine duty from 90% to 60%. So, while some people spend several thousand dollars or even more than $10,000 on buying a bottle of red wine, elderly people are living off CSSA payments of $2,000 ─ something each has to make do with meagre index-linked adjustments. This contrast is indeed ironic!

Madam President, according to the proposals made by Prof MacPHERSON in 1994, CSSA payments to the elderly had to be increased to $2,300 if a dignified standard of living for them was to be maintained. If we base our calculations on this recommended amount, and if we also take account of the 6% to 8% inflation rates over the past three years, the standard CSSA rate for the elderly now should be increased to a mere $2,900. But, the $600 increase I propose already represents 30% of the CSSA payment which an elderly person currently receives. I am convinced that this is the minimum acceptable amount of increase. This will give the elderly better nutrition and better health, thus reducing their demands for medical care and even the incidence of suicide amongst them.

Madam President, as far as government expenditure is concerned, given the fact that there are currently 100 000 elderly CSSA recipients, an increase of $600 for each of them every month will entail an annual total of $720 million ─ an increase in total government expenditure by less than 0.3% only. As for total welfare spending, the resultant increase will also be less than 4%. For a Government with fiscal surpluses amounting to $359 billion, if it deposits its surpluses in the banking system at an interest rate of 5%, it can already meet the expenditure concerned by drawing on the interests received for half a month. That way, it can at least partially restore the dignity of the 100 000 elderly.

Madam President, in order to build up its authoritative image, the SAR Government should, upon its establishment, immediately increase CSSA payments to the elderly so as to convince the people that as a government, it is sincere in tackling livelihood problems, and that it is ready to act decisively to make decisions on some pressing issues. We also look forward to yet more good news for the elderly from the elderly commission led by Mr TAM Yiu-chung.

Madam President, our elderly people once burnt the candles of their youthful days to lit the path of our development. Should we not then give them some "fuel" in return during their twilight years?

With these remarks, I beg to move.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That with the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) payments to the elderly in the territory barely enough to provide them with a reasonable and dignified standard of living, this Council urges the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to increase the standard monthly rate under the CSSA Scheme for the elderly by $600 immediately upon its establishment.

Members have been informed by circular on 13 may that Mr Frederick FUNG has given notice to move an amendment to this motion. His amendment has been printed on the Revised Agenda. I propose to have the motion and the amendment debated together in a joint debate.

Council shall now debate the motion and the amendment together in a joint debate. I now call upon Mr Frederick FUNG to speak first to move his amendment. After I have proposed the question on the amendment, Members may then express their views on the main motion and the amendment to the motion. Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, despite the fact that the 1997-1998 Budget projects a surplus of $30 billion, the Government has decided to adjust CSSA payments on the basis of the inflation rate only. In other words, the standard rate for single elderly persons will be increased to $2,060 each, and that for elderly people living with their families will be $1,920 each.

The existing CSSA payments are much too low, and they have plunged elderly CSSA recipients into poverty, thus failing to provide them with a reasonable and dignified standard of living. According to a survey conducted by S.K.H. Kei Oi Social Service Centre last year, of all single elderly CSSA recipients, 70% have to live on a diet with a calorie level of less than 852 calories, which is far lower than the daily calorie requirement of an elderly person, that is, 1 200 calories. Furthermore, over 80% of elderly CSSA recipients have to make do with a severe shortage of fruits and vegetables consumption. These findings show that elderly CSSA recipients are in a state of abject poverty, with not even enough food to eat. They have to pinch and save, and they suffer from undernourishment. That being the case, we really think that it is indeed useless talking about leading a life with dignity.

According to the Report on the Adequacy of Public Assistance Rates in Hong Kong written in 1994 by Prof MacPHERSON of the then City Polytechnic at the invitation of the Legislative Council, CSSA payments must be sufficient to meet the minimum acceptable standard of living in the context of Hong Kong. The existing rates of CSSA are in fact in serious breach of the principles recommended by Prof MacPHERSON for the setting of CSSA rates. When elderly CSSA recipients do not even have enough food to eat, how can it be said that CSSA payments are able to meet the minimum acceptable standard of living? As recommended in Prof MacPHERSON's report, the standard rate for a single elderly person should be $2,300 in 1994. This recommended rate is far higher than the rate set by the Government for 1997, thus showing that existing CSSA payments are indeed much too meagre.

Last year, the Caritas Community Centre conducted a survey on the expenditure patterns of single elderly persons in Hong Kong. According to the survey report, in 1996, the average monthly expenditure of a single elderly person was $2,247. However, the basic CSSA rate for elderly people in 1996 was just around $1,900, which means that, in 1996, a single elderly CSSA recipient had to face either a deficit or a shortage of $300 every month. For the 1997 financial year, CSSA payments are just adjusted on the basis of the inflation rate. As a result, in 1997, elderly CSSA recipients will still face a deficit problem related to their living expenses. They must pinch and scrape in order to reduce their expenditure.

In order to tackle the deficit problem faced by elderly CSSA recipients, I urge that as soon as possible after its establishment, the SAR Government should review its social welfare spending and increase the standard rate for elderly CSSA recipients by no less than $300, so that these elderly people will not fail to make ends meet and fall into stark poverty. At the same time, it must be pointed out that an increase of no less than $300 in the standard rate for elderly CSSA recipients is in fact a consensus reached among the major political parties of Hong Kong, and is also a strong demand of the various sectors of the community. Of course, a still better alternative is the rate recommended by Prof MacPHERSON, that is, a standard monthly rate of $2,700 rate for elderly CSSA recipients in 1997. All along, the Association for Democracy and the People's Livelihood has been demanding that the standard rate for elderly CSSA recipients should be set at one third of the median wage, that is, around $3,100. To sum up, in order to solve the deficit problem faced by elderly CSSA recipients, I recommend that CSSA payments to the elderly should be increased by no less than $300 per month.

In 1997, there are about 150 000 elderly CSSA recipients. An increase of $300 in the standard rate for them will lead to an expenditure of $500 million only, a sum which the Government is absolutely affordable. I am now holding a list, a list of 63 organizations including elderly centres, homes for the aged and political parties which have expressed support for this motion on increasing the standard rate by $300. The political parties which have expressed support are the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, the Liberal Party, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, the Association for Democracy and the People's Livelihood as well as the Democratic Party. The 123 Democratic League has not expressed support. But, it has not expressed any opposition to this increase of $300 either. Some recent criticisms have dismissed the motion today as failing to attend to the proper business, and Mr CHAN Choi-hi and I have become the scapegoats because individual Preparatory Committee members and the mass media have said that our motion today is not of an urgent nature. In fact, I really want to ask the critics why they have not criticized the Chief Executive's Office. I want to ask this question because Mrs Fanny LAW of the Chief Executive's Office has moved a motion herself. Her motion involves the Budget, which was endorsed by the Legislative Council in March this year, and, basically, the provisions of the Budget have not been declared null and void, meaning that they can straddle the handover. So, since there is already a precedent of a motion with no binding power, and since there is such a demand in the community, it is only natural that Members would want to move a motion to discuss or amend the Budget. Therefore, I would say that it is absolutely necessary for us to put forward our views today that the SAR Government should provide for an increase of $300 in the Budget. Besides, this amount of increase is actually the consensus reached by senior citizens, elderly welfare organizations, elderly centres and political parties during our discussions on the Budget in February and March this year. I hope that the motion today will gain the support of Members. We also hope that this Council can put forward this request to the Chief Executive's Office, in the hope that our senior citizens can have the means to meet their basic living expenses. These are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Frederick FUNG be made to Mr CHAN Choi-hi's motion. Council shall now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr NGAI Siu-kit.

MR NGAI SIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Madam President, this motion involves the issue of CSSA, which is an extremely important and complex problem. Here, I do not want to debate with Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr CHAN Choi-hi on the urgency or otherwise of this matter because they have put forward many arguments and I think that this issue really involves many technical and policy considerations which are interrelated. The work of the Provisional Legislative Council, as Mr Frederick FUNG has rightly put it, should focus on the scrutiny of a large number of absolutely indispensable bills, and I am sure that bills of this kind will certainly be put before us in large numbers one after another. So, I hope that priority can be accorded to these absolutely indispensable bills. So, I hope that the two Members who have attempted to "steal a march" would remain calm, and consider the possibility of withholding the debate until more time is available. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure, I move that the debate be now adjourned. These are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure reads: "A Member who has risen to speak on a question in the Council may move without notice that the debate be now adjourned. Thereupon the President shall propose the question on that motion." Therefore, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I now propose the question to you and that is: That the debate on Mr CHAN Choi-hi's motion be now adjourned as moved by Mr NGAI Siu-kit. Council shall now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, point of order.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please wait, Mr CHAN. Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): How many minutes of speaking time does each Member have for this debate? Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If we follow the time limits set by Members themselves in the House Committee, which I announced before this debate. Any more points of order? Mr MOK Ying-fan.

MR MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, point of order. Is the motion moved by Mr NGAI Siu-kit seconded by any Members?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan, the Rules of Procedure does not require such a motion to be seconded. If there are no further points of order, I will now call upon Mr CHAN Choi-hi to speak.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I think that for our discussions on livelihood issues, we should not use 1 July as a dividing line. This means that we should not say that some issues should be discussed before 1 July while others have to be discussed after that date. The issue of CSSA payments to the elderly has been a subject of discussions in our community for a long time, and a mainstream viewpoint has long since emerged. I do not quite understand the so-called technical and procedural problems which Mr NGAI Siu-kit referred to, and I think that references to any such problems are absolutely unreasonable. What is most important is that we should abide by our Rules of Procedure. I do not think that my motion is in any single way in breach of the Rules of Procedure. I have acted in strict accordance with the Rules of Procedure. So, my regrets if Members do in fact have such an opinion. This is the first point. Second, I have heard many gossips in which this question is invariably asked: "Are you people trying to curry favour with the voters by doing something out-of-line? If not, why raise such issues now?" I really have to say that such comments are indeed beyond reasonable comprehension, and should thus be ignored completely. The role we are playing now gives us the job to raise such issues, and in so doing, we are simply discharging our duties. If people criticize us for discharging our duties, I really have nothing more to say.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.

MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion that the debate be now adjourned. Since the job of the Provisional Legislative Council is to handle those matters which are absolutely indispensable for the establishment of the SAR Government, the motion debates held by this Council should focus on these matters. Although there may not be a clear-cut definition on which matters are absolutely indispensable for the setting up of the SAR Government, it is obvious that increases in CSSA payments or otherwise will have no bearing on the establishment and operation of the SAR Government. As a result, this issue should not be classified as absolutely indispensable for the establishment of the SAR Government. What is more, the Legislative Council has repeatedly debated the issue of welfare services for the elderly; the Chief Executive of the SAR, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, has already stated clearly his concern over this issue, and has even appointed the Honourable TAM Yiu-chung, concurrently an Executive Council Member, to study and deal with this issue. In view of the aforesaid reasons and on behalf of Honourable colleagues including Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr HUI Ying-fat, Dr LEONG Chi-hung, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Eric LI , Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mrs Elsie TU, I hereby rise to speak in support the motion that the debate be now adjourned. We all think that discussions on elderly welfare can be deferred until the SAR Government is set up. These are my remarks. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to the Rules of Procedure, a Member is free to move a motion in any Meeting of the Provisional Legislative Council. So, I fail to see how the motion today is in any way in breach of the Rules of Procedure. Some Members say that they are too busy to have any time for this motion. But, the time now is just 10.25 am. Do they want to adjourn the Meeting now? Even if they have to discuss one more motion, how will they possibly become so busy that they will have no time for bills? The bills are put before this Council just today, and this means that they will not be discussed until after today. As a matter of fact, do they intend to adjourn this motion debate until next week, or June? In June, this Council will have an even busier time. So, the adjournment motion is really meant to "kill" the motion debate.

Second, about what I have just said on the allegation that we are not attending to our proper business, actually, the motion to be debated on 7 June is submitted by the Chief Executive's Office itself. Since we are not supposed to move any amendments to it, our only alternative is to move another motion for the purpose of discussing the matter concerned. Why is it absolutely necessary for us to do so? It is because we want the 1997-1998 Budget to provide for this expenditure of $300. Of course, even without any message to this effect from this Council, the Chief Executive's Office may still try to tackle the matter itself, and this is perfectly all right. However, as a legislative assembly, we should realize that we have a duty to make such a proposal ─ a proposal which is also a consensus of the Hong Kong people. As I have just said, the proposal contained in the motion is supported by a total of 63 organizations, including elderly centres, organizations for the welfare of the elderly, voluntary agencies and political parties.

Madam President, I think that adjourning the debate now will "strangle" two matters. First, this will "strangle" the demand put forward by the elderly, elderly centres and homes for the aged over the past few months. As Members of this Council, it is our duty to reflect this demand to the Chief Executive's Office. So, adjourning the debate now will "strangle" the opportunity for us to reflect our opinions. Second, the massive Members' support for the adjournment of this motion can actually show that a tacit agreement has been reached amongst them before the Meeting. This will also "strangle" the opportunity for minority Members of this Council to put forward their views on this matter to the Chief Executive's Office. One of the important elements of democracy is freedom of speech. A great philosopher once said, "Though I may not agree to your opinions, I will fight for your right to express them with my own life." However, not only are Members of this Council not prepared to die for my right of free speech, they are even trying to strangle me. That Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion is supported by Members en masse is, in my view, simply a kind of "coercion of the majority" which aims to deprive the minority in this Council of their right to express their views. To this, I want to register my strongest dissatisfaction.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I very much appreciate that at this time when the Provisional Legislative Council commences its work, some of our Honourable colleagues are adopting a pro-active approach in getting more benefits for the elderly. On the issue of increasing the CSSA payments to the elderly, the position of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, like those of many other political parties, is extremely clear. We hope that all our senior citizens can receive better care and thus enjoy a good time in their twilight years. However, since time is really precious to this Council, and since we are thus hard-pressed by time, we also hope that we can make good use of our time by doing more concrete work in respect of those issues which must be handled by this Council. Today, two more bills have been put before us for scrutiny. This means that, together with the bill put before us last week, we now have three bills to deal with, and all these bills will require us to spend a lot of time on serious scrutiny. On Mr Frederick FUNG's allegation that we are applying a kind of "coercion of the majority", I must say that this is not the case at all because we simply want to take account of the realities and handle the issues which must be handled now. So, we should consider how best to spend our time on doing the work which must now be done. Madam President, I support Mr NGAI Siu-kit motion's that the debate on the CSSA question be now adjourned.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Chun-ying.

MR LEUNG CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to speak in support of Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion that the debate be now adjourned. The issue of the elderly is one of the livelihood problems faced by the community, and the Chief Executive has already expressed his serious and unambiguous concern for it. Two months ago, the Chief Executive took actions to show his concern; Mr TAM Yiu-chung, an Executive Council Member, was given the task of conducting a comprehensive and in-depth exploration and study aimed at identifying long-term strategies. Over the past two months, Mr TAM has engaged himself in extensive contact with elderly welfare organizations, and individuals who want to express their views on this issue, or who are interested and knowledgeable in the issue, have also been approached for comments. According to the Chief Executive's instruction, Mr TAM is to complete the relevant study and submit a report on it before June. It is hoped that this will enable the SAR Government to make long-term and important policy decisions on this issue in the early days following its establishment.

That being the case, whether or not the Provisional Legislative Council is going to debate the motions moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG or any other Members on this issue today will have nothing whatsoever to do with the concern or otherwise of this Council or the community at large for this issue. Instead, the important point is that we must consider the issue of the elderly and all other livelihood issues, including education, housing and so on, with an integrated and balanced approach. We also hope that as soon as the SAR Government is set up on 1 July, the relevant recommendations can be implemented as soon as possible. I understand that, in the weeks ahead, Mr TAM will continue to contact and discuss with the relevant organizations and individuals, including Members of this Council who have shown concern for this issue. Therefore, I support Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion that the debate be now adjourned. These are my remarks. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KAN Fook-yee.

MR KAN FOOK-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I support the motion moved by Mr NGAI Siu-kit. I believe that, as a legislator, one should be able to distinguish between what is urgent and what is not in the exercise of one's duties. As we all know, there is really not much time left between now and the establishment of the SAR Government. So, while I care a lot about the issue of the elderly, I must still point out that we do have other more important matters to deal with for the time being. I will support Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion, in the hope that we will really make the best use of our time before 30 June. The motions today remind me of the motion endorsed by us last week concerning our position on the Diaoyutai Islands. Shortly after the endorsement of the motion concerned, just one or two days ago, we learnt that a member of the Philippines Congress had attempted to set foot on a tiny island in the South Sea of China the sovereignty over which is still under dispute. If we are to adopt the same attitude and vote on the matter, we will have to put aside other matters. These are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TSO WONG Man-yin.

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Madam President, following detailed discussions on the motion concerned, we in the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) have reached a conclusion which is roughly the same as that stated by Members who spoke just now. In order not to waste Members' time, I want to raise two points only: first, we in the HKPA do consider the issue of the elderly as an important issue in the Hong Kong community, and we hereby express our intense concern for it; second, we believe, however, that the right time for discussions on it should be after 1 July. Therefore, on behalf of the HKPA, I support Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion that the debate be now adjourned. These are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, on behalf of the Liberal Party, I support Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion that the debate be now adjourned.

In doing so, we do not intend to restrict the rights of Members to bring up the various kinds of matters relating to the work of the legislature. Rather, we are simply considering the motion from a pragmatic point of view. Honestly speaking, in the coming 40 days or so, we should make very special efforts to focus our energies, so that within the constraints imposed by limited time, resources and manpower, we will still be able to handle the legislation and matters which must be dealt with before the establishment of the SAR Government. What is more, the motion today, like all those commendable and desirable motions of public concern which other Members may wish to move within this week, will in fact have adequate room and time for discussions and expression of opinions when the Budget debate is conducted on 7 June.

Madam President, we believe that for the motions today, the question of 1 July as a dividing line simply does not exist. Having no debate on the motion today will not mean the end of everything. Rather, I believe that the adjourning the debate today may well mean, technically, priority for it to resume after 1 July. These are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr MA Fung-kwok.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, let me just respond to Mr Frederick FUNG's point on "coercion of the majority". Why have I joined Mrs Peggy LAM in her support for Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion to adjourn the debate? The basic reason is simple. On our coach journey to this Meeting earlier, Mrs LAM disclosed to me what she would say on the motion. Since I agreed to her views, and since I wanted to save Members' time during the Meeting, I told her that I was prepared to support her position. However, having listened to Mr Frederick FUNG, I have the feeling that he has interpreted our time-saving attempt as a kind of "coercion of the majority". I am really very sorry about that. Here, I should like to remind Members once again that I do care a lot about the elderly. If more support is ever required for the cause in any situation or on any occasion in the future, I will always be prepared to lend my support.

Let me also remind Members that in this venue of Council Meetings and in the course of our debates, besides worrying about "coercion of the majority", they should also pay attention to "coercion of language". Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion that the debate be now adjourned. I maintain that an adjournment of the debate today is both undesirable and not gentlemanly. Why not gentlemanly? The reason is that Mr CHAN Choi-hi's motion and Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment motion have both been moved in strict accordance with the Agenda and the Rules of Procedure, and the President has also ruled that they can be moved for debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Sorry, Mr Bruce LIU, I have to interrupt your speech. The reason is that you are not permitted to describe another Member as being not gentlemanly. He has acted in strict accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Will you please withdraw the remark in question?

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Very well, let me then say that this is not an appropriate approach. In case a Member wishes to move a motion to adjourn a debate, he or she should, as a matter of courtesy, give notice at an earlier time. The Member should simply not move such a motion all of a sudden during a Meeting. On my part, I would say that such an approach is not appropriate because although there is no breach of the Rules of Procedure, this is actually an oppression of the minority by the majority. Apart from the principle of majority rule under which the minority must give way to the majority, the essence of democracy also encompasses the need to implement the principle of respecting and protecting the minority. What democratic behaviour essentially means is that when there are different opinions, diversity in views should be tolerated and the minority's freedom of expression protected. Fellow Members who are among the majority now should remind themselves that while they may oppose the views of the minority, they have an obligation to safeguard the minority's right of free expression. Care must be taken not to impose the majority decision all too readily to stifle the right of free expression enjoyed by the minority.

Second, I maintain that this motion to adjourn the debate is undesirable for if this Council endorses it today, it will look very likely that the debate will not be resumed until after the reunification. That way, we will miss an opportunity of urging the SAR Government to increase the CSSA payments to the elderly as soon as possible after its establishment, and we will also miss an opportunity of reaching a consensus and making known our positions. Some Members argue that this motion is outside the terms of reference of the Provisional Legislative Council before 1997 because the Provisional Legislative Council is just supposed to deal with those absolutely indispensable bills and other related matters before 1997. I must point out that this is actually a misconception. At a time when the Hong Kong SAR is due to be set up, we as Members of the Provisional Legislative Council are duty-bound to make sure that the SAR Government will formulate expenditure policies which can cater for the reasonable and strong demands of the public. What do I mean by this? The Provisional Legislative Council will scrutinize the Budget for the transition period, and CSSA payments are an important component of the Budget. Since the Hong Kong Government has turned down the request for increased CSSA payments, some 20 Members of the Legislative Council have voted against the Budget, thus making a record of negative votes in the history of Budget debates. As Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, we must learn a lesson from this. We hope that the SAR Government will, within its authority, allocate additional funds for the purpose and respond to this strong demand concerning the people's livelihood. What is involved is indeed a pressing problem and an important duty, or intrinsic responsibility, of the Provisional Legislative Council.

Madam President, some Members say that they do not want to deal with this issue before 1997 because they want to concentrate on some bills and the related debates. I do not think that the question of time is the real concern here, because even the motion on adjournment of debate will take time for arguments, probably as long as one whole hour. Had we started the debate right on just now, we might have been able to finish the debate within the same amount of time. So, the question of time is not the real concern. Nor is it a question of technicality. Members know only too well what is actually going on. As far as my understanding goes, they do not want to exert any pressure on the SAR Government or the Chief Executive, nor do they want to lay down any parameters which oblige the Chief Executive to decide in favour of increasing CSSA payments. In other words, they do not want to turn the Provisional Legislative Council into a source of pressure for the Chief Executive. Perhaps, they may wish to act as a "convoy" for the Chief Executive so that he may have more time for further deliberations and consideration. But, I must point out that this Council is a legislature, and as such, it is our intrinsic responsibility and duty to reflect the people's opinions by making known their demands and aspirations. What is more, since the motion today involves an item of expenditure after 1997 (that is, after the establishment of the SAR), it is appropriate for us to conduct a debate on it today. That being the case, let me call upon my Honourable colleagues to vote against Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion that the debate be now adjourned.

Madam President, these are my remarks.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? If not, do you wish to reply, Mr NGAI Siu-kit? Mr NGAI Siu-kit.

MR NGAI SIU-KIT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. The focus of what the two Members (including Mr Bruce LIU) have just said seems to be that an adjournment of the debate today is tantamount to a neglect of livelihood issues and a neglect of elderly welfare. In fact, the opposite is the case. As some Members have themselves pointed out, they are very concerned about this issue, and others speaking on behalf of their political parties have also said that they have always been committed to the cause of fighting for better elderly welfare. So, what Mr LIU has said is simply not valid. These two Members also used words and phrases like "strangling" and "in breach of". I do not think that such words and phrases can reflect the actual situation. This a point which we can all notice. I have already stated that the issue concerned is an important and complex issue, complex in terms of technical and policy considerations. And, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying has given a very detailed footnote to my comments: there are many interrelated policy issues and the issue of the elderly must be viewed in conjunction with them. So, what I actually mean is that given the complexity involved, once we decide to act, we must ensure that our actions are the best possible ones. I did not refer to any procedural problems. I did not say anything on that. Mr CHAN Choi-hi was simply putting words into my mouth. I must make a clarification here. I have no further comments to make except the point that we must focus all our energies on the bills which will come in large numbers to us for scrutiny. Let me thank Members for their support. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr NGAI Siu-kit's motion, moved in accordance with Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that the debate be adjourned, be approved. Will those in favour of the motion please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".

(Members responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): I wish to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): At the request of Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mr Frederick FUNG, Council will now proceed to a division. I now announce the commencement of the division, and the division bell will ring for three minutes, after which voting will proceed. Honourable Members, as the division bell is still ringing, let me once again explain how the voting device works. The green button is for "aye"; the red button for "no"; and the white button for abstention. As soon as I announce the commencement of voting, the red light on the voting device will start flashing. But, there is a little time lapse with the electronic device. What I mean is that during the ten seconds or so following my announcement, if you press a button, the device will not be able to record your vote. Therefore, after pressing a button for the first time, it will be better for you to press it for the second time, and it will be best if you can do so for the third time. I advise you to do so because we identified this problem in our review after the last Meeting. As you may recall, last time, after Mr Bruce LIU had pressed a button, his voting result was not displayed. What was the reason? After investigation, we identified the cause mentioned just now. So, once the red light starts flashing, it will be better for you to wait for a while, say ten seconds, before you press your desired button. That way, you can be sure that your voting decision will be recorded. But, after 30 seconds, the voting device will be switched off, and the last button that you pressed will be recorded as your voting decision. You need not worry even if you have pressed a wrong button, provided that you press your desired button again after the red light has started to flash. I hope that we will all be clear about the way in which the voting device works, and I also hope that it will thus be able to serve the desired purpose.

(The division bell had rung for three minutes)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I announce that voting will now commence.

Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Siu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr TANG Siu-tong, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Ms Maria TAM and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted for the motion.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Bruce LIU voted against the motion.

Mr WONG Siu-yee and Mr CHIM Pui-chung abstained.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There are 39 votes in favour of the motion, five votes against it, and two abstentions. I therefore declare that the motion is carried.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am strongly dissatisfied with the voting result. I will now walk out in protest.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): The three Members belonging to the Alliance for Democracy and the People's Livelihood will also walk out in protest.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I declare that the debate is now adjourned.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 40(2) of the Rules of Procedure, this Council will now proceed to the next item of business. The next item of business is the date of the next Meeting. I now adjourn this Council until 9.30 am on Saturday, 24 May 1997.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.