OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Saturday, 27 September 1997 The Council met at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG SIU-YEE

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

THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN

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 ERIC LI KA-CHEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE ALLEN LEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MRS ELSIE TU, G.B.M.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE MOK YING-FAN

THE HONOURABLE HUI YIN-FAT, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHOI-HI

THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM

THE HONOURABLE TSANG YOK-SING

THE HONOURABLE CHENG KAI-NAM

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE

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

DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

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 PAUL CHENG MING-FUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHENG YIU-TONG

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

THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING

THE HONOURABLE KAN FOOK-YEE

THE HONOURABLE NGAN KAM-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE LO SUK-CHING

DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHEUNG-KWOK

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHOY SO-YUK

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHUN-YING, J.P.

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MRS ANSON CHAN, J.P.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE ELSIE LEUNG OI-SIE, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

MR MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE

MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES

MR PETER LAI HING-LING, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR BOWEN LEUNG PO-WING, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS

MR DAVID LAN HUNG-TSUNG, J.P.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR RICKY FUNG CHOI-CHEUNG, J.P., SECRETARY GENERAL

MR LAW KAM-SANG, J.P., DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

PAPERS

The following papers were laid on the table pursuant to Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Subject

Subsidiary Legislation	L.N. No.
Building (Administration) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 1997	441/97
Building (Administration) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulation 1997	442/97
Building (Oil Storage Installations) (Amendment) Regulation 1997	443/97
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Pleasure Grounds) (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) (No. 4) Order 1997	444/97
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Civic Centres) (Amendment of Thirteenth Schedule) Order 1997	445/97
Child Care Centres (Amendment) Ordinance 1997 (38 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	446/97
Child Care Centres (Amendment) Regulation 1997 (L.N. 272 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	447/97
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions and Minor Amendments) Ordinance 1997 (80 of 1997) (Commencement) (No. 2) Notice 1997	448/97
Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (87 of 1997) (Commencement) Notice 1997	449/97

Sessional Papers

No. 9	─	Report by the Trustee of the Prisoners' Education Trust Fund for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997
No. 10	─	Report by the Commissioner of Police on Police Welfare Fund for the period 1 April 1995 - 31 March 1996

ADDRESS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Address. Mr Ambrose LAU will address the Council on the Report of the Bill Committee on the Legislative Council Bill. Mr Ambrose LAU.

REPORT OF THE BILLS COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Madam President, as Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Legislative Council Bill, I wish to report on the main deliberations of the Bills Committee.

The Bill was introduced into the Provisional Legislative Council on 20 August 1997. It seeks to give effect to the provisions of the Basic Law that relate to the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and in particular to provide for the constitution, convening and dissolution of the Council as well as for the election of its Members.

The Bills Committee has held 12 meetings. It has received submissions from a total of 71 organizations/individuals. Eighteen deputations/individuals appeared before the Bills Committee to make oral representation. The Bills Committee has carefully considered the Bill and views received. It has also discussed in detail the various proposed amendments made by individual members of the Committee.

The Preparatory Committee's Decision on Formation of the First Legislative Council of the SAR

The Bills Committee has discussed whether the Decision of the Preparatory Committee on the formation of the first Legislative Council of the SAR is legally binding or advisory in nature. The view of the Administration is that the Decision adopted by the Preparatory Committee on 23 May 1997 has the force of law and is binding on the executive authorities as well as the legislature. Any amendment to the Bill will have to fall within the parameters of the Basic Law and the Decision of the Preparatory Committee. The Legal Adviser agrees to the view of the Administration. However, a few members hold different views.

First Meeting of First Term of Office of the Legislative Council

In response to the Bills Committee's concern about the arrangements for the first meeting of the first term of office of the Legislative Council, the Administration agrees to provide in the Bill a broad framework to facilitate the first term of the Legislative Council to elect its own President and to commence its business. As regards the detailed rules and procedures, it is for Members of the first term Legislative Council to decide.

Elections and Terms of the Legislative Council

On elections and terms of the Legislative Council, the Bills Committee has discussed a member's proposal to hold all general elections after dissolution. The Bills Committee has noted that it was an established practice under the former electoral system for the Governor to dissolve the Legislative Council before nomination for an upcoming general election commenced. The Administration has explained that the Bill introduces the concept of prorogation which allows elections to take place before dissolution, that is, the operation of the Council will be terminated even though the term of office of the Legislative Council has not ended and its Members will continue to hold office. The arrangement to prorogue the Council before a general election is necessary for practical reasons.

When Member Ceases to Hold Office

The Bills Committee has discussed in great length the circumstances under which a Member will cease to hold office. The Bill provides that a Member's office becomes vacant if the Member resigns, dies or is declared to be no longer qualified to hold office by the President of Legislative Council under any one of the seven circumstances prescribed in Article 79 of the Basic Law. As the previous electoral legislation set out a number of other circumstances under which a Member ceases to hold office, some members have asked the Administration to incorporate these circumstances in the Bill. The Administration has advised that the circumstances prescribed in Article 79 of the Basic Law are exhaustive on the ground that domestic legislation should be governed by the constitutional law, that is, the Basic Law.

Some members disagreed, pointing out that Article 79 of the Basic Law confers power upon the President of the Legislative Council to declare the disqualification of a Member under certain circumstances. But it does not preclude the Council from prescribing additional circumstances under which a Member ceases to hold office if deemed necessary.

The Administration, after reconsideration, has agreed to move Committee stage amendments to clauses 13 and 38 to incorporate, where appropriate, the disqualification criteria for candidature as set out in clause 37. The proposed amendments will require a candidate to take a promissory oath to the effect that he/she will not do anything during his/her term of office that will give rise to circumstances specified in clause 38(1)(b)(iii). By the operation of the proposed new clauses 13(3) and 38(1)(b)(iii), this would trigger off the disqualification mechanism under Article 79(7) of the Basic Law under which a Member may be declared by the Legislative Council President to be no longer qualified to hold office.

20% Nationality Rule

The Bill provides that permanent residents of the SAR who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries may stand for election only in 12 specified functional constituencies. A few Members do not agree and have given notice to move separate Committee stage amendments to provide for the 12 seats to be determined under other methods.

The Bills Committee also raised the question of a Legislative Council Member changing his/her nationality or right of abode after being elected. The Administration agrees that, except in the case of a Member of the 12 specified functional constituencies who is allowed to change his/her foreign nationality to Chinese nationality, a Member will cease to hold office on ground of change of nationality or right of abode during his/her Legislative Council tenure. The Administration will move a Committee stage amendment in this respect.

Electorate of Functional Constituencies

Some members have queried the basis and criteria used in delineating the electorate for the nine new functional constituencies. Taking into account the views of deputations and the Bills Committee, the Administration has agreed to take on board a number of proposals and will move Committee stage amendments accordingly. On other proposals which the Administration has disagreed to, a few Members have given notices to move respective Committee stage amendments. I shall leave it to them to explain their views in the debate today.

The Bills Committee will also move Committee stage amendments to expand the electorate of the Tourism functional constituency and the Information Technology functional constituency. The Administration has no objection to these amendments. I shall further address these points at Committee stage.

Election Committee

The Bills Committee has discussed the composition and voting system of the Election Committee. Some members are of the view that the distribution of the 200 members in each of the four equal size sectors should have regard to the number of groups and individuals the subsectors represent, instead of simply dividing up the 200 votes by the number of subsectors. Some members have queried the decision of the Administration to adopt the Block Vote system and suggested alternative voting systems. A few Members will move separate Committee stage amendments relating to the composition and voting system of the Election Committee. I shall leave it to them to elaborate on their views at a later stage.

Ex-officio Election Committee members

On ex-officio members of the Election Committee (that is, Members of the Provisional Legislative Council and the Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress), the Administration has, in response to the Bills Committee, agreed to move Committee stage amendments to the effect that they will be required to be registered as electors for geographical constituencies first before they can exercise their right to vote in the Election Committee election; and those who are also electors for functional constituencies should be allowed to choose between voting at an election of the Election Committee and at the same of the functional constituencies to which they belong.

Madam President, the Bills Committee supports that the Second Reading debate on the Bill be resumed today, subject to the Committee stage amendments agreed to between the Bills Committee and the Administration.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First question. Mr HUI Yin-fat.

Poverty Population

1.MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to our information, a research report published earlier by the World Bank indicated that the number of people living in poverty in Hong Kong is less than 1% of the total population in the territory. However, based on information released by the Census and Statistics Department, some academics found that there were 390 000 people in the local labour force whose income was below half of the median wage last year, representing an increase of 63% over that of 1993 when the number stood at 240 000. Yet the growth in population over the same period was just 7%. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

1. whether it knows of the criteria adopted by the World Bank in estimating the population living in poverty in Hong Kong;
   
   
2. whether it has provided the World Bank or other international organizations with information on the issue of poverty in Hong Kong; if so, what criteria it has adopted in measuring poverty;
   
   
3. of the reasons for the increase in the labour force earning less than half of the median wage at a rate faster than the growth of the local population;
   
   
4. whether it has any strategies in place to curb the sustained increase of low-income earners at a rate faster than the growth of the local population; if not, why not; and
   
   
5. whether it will consider adopting half of the median wage as the basis for setting the poverty line, and whether any policies for assisting the poor will be formulated accordingly with a view to reducing the growing disparity between the rich and the poor in recent years; if not, why not?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, in regard to the questions raised by the Honourable Member on a poverty research report published by the World Bank recently, my answers are as follows:

1. The poverty research report published by the World Bank recently did not provide an estimate of the population living in poverty in Hong Kong. One of the key tasks of the World Bank is to monitor the living conditions of individual countries and regions in the international community and to decide whether these regions suffer acute poverty and need financial assistance from the World Bank to bring them out of poverty at a faster pace. Therefore, the World Bank uses the basic needs in life as the criteria to measure poverty. The purpose is to ensure the best use of limited resources to help poor countries most in need of assistance. For this reason, the World Bank uses low income countries as the basis to measure poverty. The seriousness of poverty in a region is assessed by the per person daily expenditure of US$1 or below, regardless of the person is employed or not. This standard was set at constant 1985 prices to facilitate comparison within the international community at different times, taking into account of the fact that the situation and the daily basic needs of the people among individual countries or regions are not the same. The World Bank research report concludes that poverty has essentially been eradicated in Hong Kong. In the international community, "poverty" often refers to "abject poverty", that is, lack of basic foodstuffs, drinking water and shelter. We commonly describe this as "having nothing to eat" and "having no roof to live under". The above situation does not exist in Hong Kong.

2. We have not provided the World Bank or other international organizations with information on the issue of poverty. However, statistical information on employment, income, and so on of the Hong Kong people is included in statistical reports regularly released by the Census and Statistics Department. Many international organizations including the World Bank make use of such information for various analyses and the compilation of related statistics.

3. The median wage mentioned in the question, I think, refers to the median employment earnings of the labour force in the General Household Survey.

   As for the reasons behind the faster increase in the labour force earning less than half of the median employment earnings than the overall population growth in the period 1993 to 1996, my analysis is as follows. The first and foremost reason is the continued structural transformation of the local economy, shifting from manufacturing-based to services-oriented. As a result, there is a great increase in demand for professionals as well as management personnel, leading to a greater income growth to those with higher income. Meanwhile, the income growth of the non-professionals, especially those who remained in the slow developing or the shrinking industries, is comparatively smaller.

   Secondly, in 1996 among the employed workforce, there were approximately 336 000 (not 390 000 people) people whose income was below half of the median employment earnings. The corresponding number of people in 1993 was 222 000 (and not 240 000). Among them, nearly half were foreign domestic helpers. In recent years, as more women join the workforce and need to employ foreign domestic helpers to help them with their household work, the number of foreign domestic helpers had increased continuously from 112 000 in 1993 to 154 000 in 1996.

   Thirdly, the annual growth rate of the labour force has increased to an average of 2.7% since 1993. Apart from the increase in the number of new arrivals from the Mainland, more trained youths have also entered the labour market as a result of the continuous expansion in education and vocational training in recent years to cope with the economic development and restructuring in Hong Kong. However, these new entrants in the labour market, including young graduates and new arrivals, normally start at lower salary points due to the lack of experience.

4. Hong Kong is a free economy with no employment restrictions or barriers. Any administrative intervention by the Government would only lead to distortion of market operation, disruption of the principle of free and fair competition and hindrance to the long-term development of the economy.

   As I have just mentioned, the local labour force has shown a rapid growth recently and, in most cases, those first time job-seekers start with low salaries. However, after a period of time, their income will move upwards.

   In every society, sustained economic growth is the single most important element for improvements in income and standard of living. Experience has repeatedly prove that investment in human resources is the most effective way in defeating poverty and narrowing income disparity. Meanwhile, the labour market has to be highly flexible to ensure equality. With fair and open competition, every one will be encouraged to do his best.

   One of the characteristics of Hong Kong is fast economic growth with ample employment opportunities. All of us can, through our own abilities and efforts, earn higher income, improve our living standard and move to the higher income group. On the other hand, the Government, through the provision of subsidized education, vocational training and retraining, help workers change jobs or take up new employment, enabling them to improve their earnings and living standard, thus narrowing the income disparities among workers in different industries.

5. Whether half of the median wage or half of the median household income or any other criteria is adopted for setting the poverty line, they are all based on the concept of "relative poverty". Under this concept, even in the most affluent society in the world, there will be a group of people regarded as poor or relatively poor. With the continued economic growth and increase in total employment, median wage and median household income will increase accordingly, resulting in the constant upward shifting of the so-called "poverty line". For this reason, many people whose living standards are not that low will still be considered poor.

   Over the past ten years, the median employment earnings of the local labour force increased from $2,930 in 1986 to $9,960 in 1996. The growth in nominal terms was about 240% and the growth in real terms after discounting inflation still stood at 51%. The median household income has similar growth both in nominal and real terms, rising from $5,160 in 1986 to $17,500 in 1996.

   The above comparison clearly indicates that the income of the local population is increasing, reflecting continuous growth of the Hong Kong economy. However, the income of some people increases at a rate faster than others. This phenomenon is usually found when an economy experiences continuous growth and rapid structural transformation, especially in rapidly expanding industries where the income of workers generally grows at a rate faster than their counterparts in other industries, thus widening the income difference and also pushing up the level of median income. The most essential point is that the household income of each and every income group has increased. Therefore, it is not appropriate to use the concept of "relative poverty" to set the poverty line. As the income level is increasing and also because of the high social mobility, quite a lot of households in Hong Kong have gradually moved to the higher income group. In 1986, 69% of the population in Hong Kong had a household income of over $8,000, and in 1996, this ratio increased to 83.5%, meaning that the proportion of local households with a monthly income of less than $8,000 had reduced from 31% to 16.5%.

   Furthermore, it is not really meaningful to compare the constantly moving median earnings levels with one another. The purchasing power of $1 ten years ago is of course much stronger than that of today. To make a reasonable comparison between two earnings of different periods, we must first select a reference year as the basis for comparison, and then adjust the earnings of the other year to an equivalent value according to the prevailing inflation rate before making the comparison. Only then could the change in the distribution of earnings be appropriately reflected. For example, half of the median employment earnings of 1986 was $1,466. In terms of purchasing power (that is, after being adjusted to include inflation), this amount should equal to $3,309 in 1996. In 1996, only 4% of the employed workforce were earning less than $3,309, far below the 9.2% who earned less than half of the median employment earnings in 1986. Similarly, half of the median employment earnings in 1996 was $4,980. After adjustment for inflation, this amount should equal to $2,206 in 1986, and there was about 29% of the employed workforce whose employment earnings was below this level at that time. However, the corresponding rate in 1996 was only 11%.

   At present, there is no universally accepted definition or objective criteria for "poverty". An arbitrary definition of "poverty" would only be subjective. It would also be meaningless and controversial. On the other hand, a loose definition would affect the allocation of resources to help the poor, reducing the resources available to help those most in need. Therefore, instead of debating on the basis for setting the poverty line, I think we should continue to implement the Government's ongoing policies for helping the poor and providing assistance for those in need in the community. Various social services and facilities such as free or subsidized education, public rental housing, free medical care and social security assistance scheme and so on are provided by the Government for those who are in need. They aim at improving and raising their standard of living.

   Madam President, finally, I would like to point out that it is partial to analyze poverty or income distribution solely by wages or salaries without taking into account of the intangible income derived from the Government's spending on housing, health and education. This would only underestimate the economic effectiveness of welfare services on improving household income and its distribution. Taking these benefits into account, the total income of the "low income group" is actually higher than what the figures show.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

Mr HUI Yin-fat (in Cantonese): Madam President, I must first of all thank the Secretary for the detailed reply. I think his explanation on the concept of "relative poverty" is very good. However, while the rate of unemployment has dropped from 3.6% in 1995 to the present 2.4%, the number of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) recipients has risen by 50% during the same period, could the Secretary provide this Council with an explanation in this connection? In addition, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration has any specific plans to mitigate the upward rising trend of the number of CSSA cases so as to help the grassroot strata to break away from poverty?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

Secretary for Financial Services (in Cantonese): This question has been raised within the Government as well as in this Council before. We are of the opinion that this phenomenon is a result of the substantial increase in resources made available by the Government to CSSA over the past four years. If my memory does not fail me, then the rates of increase in real terms for that four years have all exceeded 6%. Under such circumstances, some people who have not really thought about applying for CSSA before have started given the same active consideration. Moreover, as a result of the enhanced promotion and discussion concerning CSSA in recent years, more people might be persuaded to consider filing their application. The increase in CSSA cases does not necessarily have a direct correlation with the rate of unemployment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

Mr CHAN Choi-hi (in Cantonese): Madam President, to set the poverty line is a positive first step to be taken by the Government or society. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether we could apply certain international standards, such as those of the United Nations, to set the poverty line? In my opinion, Hong Kong does need to take a first step to recognize the existence of the problem. What we need is a widely accepted objective criterion to help us set the poverty line, instead of the ambiguous answer that Hong Kong does not have such problem as provided in the main reply.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

Secretary for Financial Services (in Cantonese): Madam President, I did not say that Hong Kong does not have any problem of poverty in the reply I gave just now. My point is that the concept of poverty is relative. Just as Mr CHAN Choi-hi has pointed out, different standards upon which the definition of poverty is determined are available within the international community. In measuring poverty, the economic condition of a certain region or country should be taken into consideration; besides, the objective of certain international institutions, such as the world bank, in setting the poverty line should be taken into consideration as well. For instance, the objective of the World Bank is to measure the number of people living in abject poverty, and the standard they set would therfore be rather low; while other international organizatons, with their different target assistance recipients, might have set their standard at a higher level. In Hong Kong, we need to help those low income groups, as well as those who have limited earning power or those who have difficulties in earning a living due to various reasons. These persons have all along been the concern of the Government, we have never ignored their problems. As such, we do not need to set the poverty line before taking actions in aspects such as medical care, housing, education, employment and so on. In my opinion, the maintenance of a continuous economic growth is the major contributory factor to the continuous rise in people's income.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung.

Mr CHIM Pui-chung (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has referred to in his reply that there was not any standard, but the World Bank does have a figure. The Secretary has also said that most of the people in Hong Kong "have a roof to live under". Could the Secretary inform this Council whether the street sleepers are among those who "have a roof to live under"; and if such street sleepers are CSSA recipients, would they be regarded as regular income earners?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

Secretary for Financial Services (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have already explained that according to the standard set by the World Bank, there are already 1.3 billion people all over the world who are earning less than US$1 at 1985 prices. As such, when we are talking about the whole world, the standard is perceivably set at a lower level. In the main reply I gave just now, I have said that the situation where people "having nothing to eat" and "having no roof to live under" does not exist in Hong Kong.

Mr CHIM Pui-chung has referred to two types of persons just now, and the first one is the street sleepers. I am not specialized in welfare work, yet according to my understanding, some of the street sleepers are not without any choice. One of the factors that cause them to become street sleepers is that they do not accept the temporary accommodation offered by the Government out of their own reasons. As to the bedspace lodgers, I do think that their condition is very poor and that both the Government and society have the responsibility to improve their conditions. However, does that equal to "having no roof to live under" as in the case of abject poverty? I do not think so. Certainly, different people may have different standards, and this serves to prove that it is meaningless and controversial to set a poverty line.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAN Kam-chuen.

Mr NGAN Kam-chuen (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong has made more than 20 proposals to the Government in respect of the measures to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor. Regarding the employment assistance provided for the unemployed, we have suggested that the Government should grant those ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is question time, you are not supposed to express your opinions. Please raise your supplementary question.

Mr NGAN Kam-chuen (in Cantonese): ......employers who provide training for their employees tax concessions, so as to encourage employers to take on workers who have received retraining. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether or when the Government will implement this proposal?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

Secretary for Financial Services (in Cantonese): Madam President, I will refer Mr NGAN Kam-chuen's suggestion to the Financial Secretary for consideration.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.

Mrs Peggy LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding people living in abject poverty, could the Secretary inform this Council of the percentage accounted for by each gender?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

Secretary for Financial Services (in Cantonese): Madam President, since we do not have an official definition for poverty, we do not have any such data. we certainly have an analysis on the living conditions and income situations of every stratum of society, but as far as abject poverty is concerned, we do not have any data.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Kai-ming.

MR LEE KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the fourth paragraph of part (d) of the Government's main reply, the Secretary mentioned that all of us can earn higher income and improve our living standard through our own abilities and efforts. For those skilled workers and middle-aged or elderly workers engaging in some sunset industries or industries that have moved out from Hong Kong, their income used to be quite well. However, since those industries have now vanished from Hong Kong, how could they improve their living standard through their own abilities and efforts?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

Secretary for Financial Services (in Cantonese): Madam President, one of the ways is to take part in the retraining programmes or receive other vocational training. Certainly, the situation and age of each worker may vary, and some of them may be able to adapt faster while others may take longer time, but that does not mean the Government has not given thought to the issue. Nor does that mean the Government has not formulated any plans or measures to address the issue. Nevertheless, thoughts would be given to the point raised by Mr LEE Kai-ming. On the other hand, if the continuous economic growth can be sustained, employment opportunities as well as the types of jobs available would also keep growing. Certainly, the benefits for those industries that are less competitive economically, such as the sunset industries, will be limited; and it is for this reason that we must concentrate our effort on retraining. Besides, we also have CSSA and other types of social assistance such as housing assistance to help the needy. As such, I would say that while we could consider doing more for those workers, the Government has, in fact, measures in place to tackle the problems.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question. Mr CHENG Kai-nam.

Protection of Privacy

2.MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): The death of Diana, Princess of Wales of Britain, has aroused public concern in Hong Kong about news-covering by the media and the protection of personal privacy. Regarding the provision relating to "news" in section 61 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486), will the Government inform this Council:

1. whether it will, for the sake of balancing the public'sright to know and the protection of personal privacy, review the effectiveness of the provision in protecting members of the public from intrusion to their privacy (for example, its effectiveness in restricting such acts as secret videotaping, bugging or trailing) and whether the provision needs any amendment in this regard; and

2. whether it will give a precise, clear and reasonable interpretation to the expression "in the public interest" used therein?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Home Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, allow me to state in general terms that the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (PDPO) regulates the collection, use, accuracy and security of personal data with a view to protecting the individual's rights to privacy in respect of such data. On the other hand, the discussions generated by Princess Diana's case seems to focus on the way in which reporters collect the personal data of celebrities, for example, taking photographs of their activities. Section 61 of the PDPO applies to news activities but is not directly relevant to the collection of personal data.

To strike a balance between the right to freedom of expression (which includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information) and the individual's privacy rights, section 61 contains two exemption provisions applicable to news activities.

First, under the PDPO, an individual (the data subject) has a right to ask a data user whether the latter holds any personal data on him and if so, to obtain a copy of the data. Section 61, however, provides that where personal data are collected by a news organization solely for the purpose of news activities, the organization has no legal obligation, until it has published or broadcast the data, to comply with a data subject's request for copies of the data.

Second, under a data protection principle (Principle 3) enshrined in the PDPO, a data user shall not, without the consent of the data subject, uses any personal data for a purpose not directly related to the original purpose of collecting the data. Section 61 provides that the principle does not apply to a case where a person discloses personal data to a news organization if he reasonably believes that the publishing or broadcast of the data is in the public interest.

My replies to the specific questions raised by the Honourable CHENG Kai-nam are as follows:

1. As explained above, section 61 has nothing to do with collection of personal data. There is nothing to suggest that it needs to be amended in order to deal with acts of surveillance.

   Acts of surveillance (such as videotaping, bugging or trailing) may, but do not necessarily, amount to the collection of personal data. Where they do (for example, they result in the production of media reports, video footage or photographs of individuals from which it is practicable to identify the individuals concerned), they are subject to regulation under Data Protection Principle 1 of the PDPO, which requires the means of collection to be lawful and fair in the circumstances of the case.

   The PDPO seeks to protect the individual's privacy rights in respect of personal data only. It is not the purpose of the PDPO to protect other privacy rights not related to personal data. As regards intrusion into privacy through acts of surveillance, the Privacy Sub-committee of the Law Reform Commission is conducting a review on the laws regulating surveillance to see whether there is a need for additional legislation to protect members of the public against such acts. The LRC's report on the review will probably be published by the end of this year.

2. The term "public interest" used in section 61 is not defined in the PDPO. There are, however, judicial rulings on the meaning of the term in other legal contexts, which are available for guidance in applying section 61 to particular cases. Hence, it does not appear to be necessary to introduce a definition of the term into the PDPO. Neither would this appear to be desirable in view of the need to cater for widely differing circumstances.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.

Mr CHENG Kai-nam (in Cantonese): Madam President, my question in fact asked about the part of section 61 relating to news activities, not the collection of personal data. The Secretary pointed out in his main reply just now that the means of personal data collection must be lawful and fair in the circumstances of the case. could the Secretary inform this Council, while unlawful means of collection will certainly be subject to legal sanctions, what actions will the Government take to tackle the cases in which the data collected have already been published or have already obtained copyright?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Home Affairs.

Secretary for home affairs (in Cantonese): Section 61 does not provide for actions relating to cases in which copy right has already been obtained. As it is related to copyright, I would reflect the Honourable Member's opinion to the Intellectual Property Department.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

Mr LAU Kong-wah (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am very much puzzled by a recent incident which is related to this question. A newspaper has reported the pregnancy of a pop star earlier on, in this connection, the court has just ruled that the attitude of the newspaper involved is not proper. Could the Secretary inform this Council, in the light of this court ruling, of the Government's attitude in this respect, as to whether it would discourage the media from videotaping celebrities in public places; or it would take action to review the ambiguous parts of the existing legislation?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Home Affairs.

Secretary for home affairs (in Cantonese): Madam President, as I have said in my main reply to Mr CHENG Kai-nam's question, the Law Reform Commission has taken the matter into detailed consideration, including the question raised by Mr LAU Kong-wah.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHOY Kan-pui.

Mr CHOY Kan-pui (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council of the number of complaints against intrusion into privacy the Administration has received since the implementation of the Ordinance; how many of such could not result in prosecution; and of the reasons for taking legal actions?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Home Affairs.

Secretary for home affairs (in Cantonese): Madam President, so far we have received some 150 complaints. Generally speaking, we would examine whether a complaint received could be accepted. If the matter could be resolved immediately by exhortation, the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data will certainly do so. As to prosecution, there are procedures that must be followed; for example, steps such as exhortation or issue of notice must first be taken. According to my understanding, no prosecution has been resulted from similar cases so far.

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

Portable Comprehensive Social Security Assistance

3.MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Regarding the "Portable Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme" implemented since April this year, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective numbers of applications received and approved as well as the number of people who have settled in Guangdong Province under the Scheme since its implementation;

(b) of these elderly people's major places of settlement in Guangdong Province;

(c) apart from the follow-up action taken by the Red Cross on the cases of these elderly people, whether it has undertaken other follow-up measures; if so, what the details are; if not, what the reasons are;

(d) whether it has supervised the work of the Red Cross in this respect; if so, what the specific actions are;

(e) whether it has plans to establish direct links with the civil administration departments in the Mainland for the purpose of following up the Scheme; if so, what the specific plans are;

(f) when a comprehensive review of the Scheme will be conducted; and

(g) whether it will consider extending the Scheme to other provinces?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

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

(a) As at 20 September 1997, we have received 474 applications since the implementation of the Portable Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (PCSSA) Scheme. 352 applications have been approved and 309 beneficiaries of the Scheme have already settled in Guangdong.

(b) The major places of settlement are Guangzhou, Jiangmen, Foshan and Dongguan.

(c) As an agent of the Social Welfare Department (SWD), the main duty of the Hong Kong Red Cross (HKRC) is to liaise with the elderly CSSA recipients living in Guangdong to ensure they receive their correct entitlement. It also handles enquiries from and relevant information reported by these CSSA recipients. Where appropriate, it will refer the enquiries to the SWD for follow-up action. The HKRC also provides an escort service for those recipients who have a genuine need to return to Hong Kong but who are unable to make the arrangements on their own.

With HKRC acting as the bridge between the SWD and those CSSA recipients residing in Guangdong, the SWD will take appropriate follow-up action (such as extension, re-assessment or termination of payment, updating of administrative records, handling of clients' enquiries and requests and so on) as and when necessary.

(d) The SWD monitors closely the work of the HKRC to ensure that it fulfils its contractual obligations. To perform its duties, the HKRC is required to adhere to procedural guidelines and standards laid down by the SWD, and to report to the SWD regularly on the details of its work. All work undertaken on individual cases is carefully vetted by social security field units to ensure compliance with the operational requirements. As part of the monitoring system, the SWD holds monthly meetings with the HKRC to check the progress of its work, to discuss any problems it has encountered, and to ensure that it has discharged its duties to the SWD's satisfaction. Ad hoc meetings and discussions are also held as and when necessary.

(e) A delegation headed by the Director of Social Welfare visited Guangdong on 24 to 25 September 1997. The main purpose of the visit was to brief the Guangdong Civil Affairs Department on the arrangements for the PCSSA Scheme and to exchange information relevant to the Scheme.

(f) We will review the arrangements one year after implementation of the Scheme.

(g) In the light of actual experience and after conducting the review, we will consider the feasibility of extending the Scheme to other provinces on the Mainland as well as any other implications that might arise.

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

Mr CHAN Kam-lam (in Cantonese): Madam President, in our understanding, the Administration has recently sent officials to visit the relevant departments in Gunagdong Province. Could the Secretary inform this Council of the arrangments concerning the Scheme as well as the co-ordination with the mainland officials in this respect?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to the information obtained by the Director of Social Welfare from his visit to the Guangdong Civil Affairs Department, the latter welcomes our Scheme and is ready to offer any help necessary. As an initial step, both parties have agreed to set up a liaison group as a venue through which the representatives from the Guangdong Civil Affairs Department and the SWD could conduct work-related negotiations and discussions at any time. This is a very good start. In this connection, we expect to continue our effort in expanding our liaison and communication network in all directions.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

Mr HUI Yin-fat (in Cantonese): Madam President, we understand that medical services is the major concern for the elderly CSSA recipients. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether this issue was raised with the mainland officials in the recent visit; and if so, what the results are?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, quite a number of elderly people have inquired us of the information concerning the medical services available in the Guangdong Province. However, since their places of settlement scatter around many different towns and municipalities, we could not have a detailed understanding of the various medical services available in such a large region as the Guangdong Province. During our recent visit, we also requested the officials of the Guangdong Province to provide us with the relevant information. We believe that more practical information will be available to us when the liaison group starts functioning later. Nevertheless, we must understand that the medical system in Guangdong Province is different from ours, and that the elderly CSSA recipients concerned have to decide where to settle down in the light of their needs.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Sai-chu.

Mr HO Sai-chu (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the main reply that 352 applications have been approved. Could the Secretary inform this Council whether this figure is comparatively more or less than the original figure expected; and whether the rate of applications is lower than expected?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, this Scheme does not have any quota since it serves as an alternative for those elderly people who are residing in Hong Kong but wish to settle down and spend their golden years in their homeland. Since its introducion in April, we have received a large number of enquiries amounting to more than 9 000 cases (certainly, not all the enquiries are made by the elderly; some are made by other members of society), but we have only received 400-odd applications so far. Nevertheless, we need to understand that this is a rather new scheme. We must allow the public more time to think about whether this Scheme really suits their daily needs. We expect them to first understanding clearly the situation of the place in which they wish to settle down before making any long-term planning.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

Mr LAU Kong-wah (in Cantonese): Madam President, paragraph (c) of the main reply has referred to the Hong Kong Red Cross as the agent of the SWD, but the authority and responsibility of the former have not been clearly explained. In this connection, could the Secretary provide this Council with a copy of the detailed agreement made between the two parties? Apart from receiving information for follow-up referrals and escort services, what are the other responsibilities of the Hong Kong Red Cross? Many elderly people will reside in homes for the aged after they have returned to the Mainland, in this connection, could the Secretary inform this Council of the ways in which the Hong Kong Government could provide assistance for them should they find the homes not as good as what has been claimed and wish to lodge complaints?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, so far we have not received any complaints of this kind. In this connection, we have already made some initial contacts with the Guangdong Civil Affairs Department, and a liaison group will also be set up later on. We will reflect any complaints received or relevant problems via the liaison group when so required.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Are you seeking an elucidation? (Mr LAU Kong-wah (in Cantonese): Elucidation.) Elucidation. That means ......

Mr LAU Kong-wah (in Cantonese): Madam President, although the Administration has not received any complaints of such kind, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the elderly people are aware that the liaison group referred to by her would take up the work in that connection?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, the HKRC will provide those elderly people intending to settle in Guangdong Province with a detailed introduction on the Scheme. It may even make am appointment with the elderly people concerned to give them an introduction of the way of living in the Mainland. The eldely people, on the other hand, will also meet with SWD officials before deciding on whether an application be filed. Therefore, they should be aware that their cases would be followed up by the Department, and should hence be aware of the redress channels available.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

Mr CHAN Choi-hi (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council whether this Scheme has any requirements; if so, will the Administration consider abandoning such requirements; and whether there is any performance pledges in respect of the Scheme?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): The only requirement of this Scheme is simple. Any elderly person who has been receiving CSSA for at least three years could apply under this Scheme. Other than that there is not any requirement. However, the Scheme does have a limitation as it is now available only to elderly people planning to settle in Guangdong Province and has not been extended to other provinces. Should we find it possible to extend the Scheme to other provinces after an review has been conducted, we will make the necessary arrangements accordingly.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

Mr CHAN Choi-hi (in Cantonese): Madam President, it appears that the Secretary has not answered the question concerning perfomance pledges. Could she inform this Council whether there are any performance pledges?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, since this Scheme does not have any target number of participants, no performance pledges will be made in this connection. In addtion, as the number of applicants so far is still small, no waiting time is required. The relevant application could be approved right away provided the information submitted is clear enough.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.

Mrs Peggy LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding the HKRC as an agent of the SWD, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Hong Kong Government has any undertaking in this connection; whether it has to pay any charges; and if so, what the amount is?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, I will provide the Honourable Member with a written reply regarding the detailed arrangements. As to the question of charges, we do have to pay the HKRC an amount around $1.8 to $2.4 million, depending on the number of successful applications. The breakdowns of the expenditure and the payment method will be described in the written reply as well. (Annex I)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan is scheduled to ask the fourth question. But since he is not in the Chamber now, Council will proceed with the fifth question first. Mr Paul CHENG.

Guangdong and Hong Kong Environmental Protection Liaison Group

5.MR PAUL CHENG: Madam President, it is understood that the Guangdong and Hong Kong Environmental Protection Liaison Group, together with its technical subgroup, was set up in 1990. Given that the number of pollution-related respiratory illnesses is on the rise (the annual fatality rate is reportedly reaching 1 000), will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the composition of the Liaison Group as well as the number of meetings it has held since inception;

(b) the achievements of the Liaison Group in the past seven years; and

(c) the reasons for the Liaison Group taking so long before it could decide at its meeting held in December 1996 to set up a study group on air pollution in the Pearl River Delta Region?

PRESIDENT: Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Madam President,

(a) The Hong Kong-Guangdong Environmental Protection Liaison Group (EPLG) was set up in 1990 to enhance the co-operation and co-ordination between Hong Kong and Guangdong on environmental management and pollution control efforts in areas of mutual concern.

The Hong Kong delegation is headed by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands and its members include:

- Director of Environmental Protection;

- Director of Agriculture and Fisheries;

- Director of Planning; and

- Director of Drainage Services.

The Guangdong delegation is headed by the Director of Environmental Protection Bureau of Guangdong Province and its members include:

- Vice Chairman of Construction Committee of Guangdong Province;

- Deputy Director of Guangdong Provincial Oceanic and Aquatic Bureau;

- Deputy Secretary-General of People's Government of Shenzhen;

- Director of Environmental Protection Bureau of Shenzhen;

- Director of South China Sea Branch of State Oceanic Administration; and

- Deputy Division Chief, Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Division, Office of Foreign Affairs of the People's Government of Guangdong Province.

Seven plenary meetings have been held since the inception of the Liaison Group. The Liaison Group has also set up a Technical Sub-group (TSG) to deal with various issues in detail. So far, nine meetings of the TSG have been held. Experts of both sides also meet once every two months.

(b) The Liaison Group and its TSG have discussed and carried out studies on a wide range of environmental issues, and organized quite a number of visits, workshops and seminars. These have provided good opportunities for both sides to learn more of each other's systems and to exchange views on specific topics. Some of the major achievements include:

(i) Designating Deep Bay as the highest priority area requiring protective conservation actions from both sides. An environmental management and action plan for managing the environmental quality in Deep Bay was formulated in 1992. Under the action plan, the Liaison Group has completed a joint monitoring study on the air and water quality in 1995 and has commissioned a study on Water Quality Management to confirm Deep Bay's dispersive and self-assimilative capacity and to develop a water quality model for the long term strategic development of the Deep Bay Catchment Area. The Study is scheduled for completion in January 1998. A system to exchange monitoring data and environmental information for major development projects around Deep Bay has also been established. Twelve Environmental Impact Assessment reports (seven from the Hong Kong side and five from the Guangdong side) have so far been exchanged and further exchange of information on priority projects is on-going;

(ii) Commencing a study on environmental protection of Mirs Bay in 1996. The study is scheduled for completion by the end of 1997, and has already identified various environmental issues which would affect the ecological importance of Mirs Bay, namely the Yantian port development, the future increase in population/recreational/industrial developments around Mirs Bay and the economic activities associated with the nearby fish culture zones. The study would take these into account in developing a joint environmental management strategy and action plan for the area;

(iii) Setting up study group on the conservation and protection of Chinese White Dolphins. The aim is to develop a joint conservation plan covering Hong Kong and Pearl River Estuary areas;

(iv) Agreeing to form a study group to exchange information and findings of previous studies on air quality in the Pearl River Delta Region and discuss the planning for future joint studies. A preparatory meeting was held in July this year to exchange such information and to discuss the boundary of the study areas and the pollution issues to be investigated.

(v) Enhancing the exchange of information and discussion on transboundary movement of waste.

(c) The Liaison Group has in fact been addressing various air pollution issues affecting the Pearl River Delta since its inception in 1990, notably the detailed studies on air quality of specific areas close to the border area in the context of the environmental management and action plans for Deep Bay and Mirs Bay. Studying the air quality in the entire Pearl River Delta is a much more ambitious project, and the Liaison Group needs time to gather the necessary information and experience before it can embark on a much bigger venture.

Thank you.

PRESIDENT: Mr Paul CHENG.

MR PAUL CHENG: Would the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands inform this Council when the study on air quality in the Pearl River Delta is expected to be completed, and when we can expect specific actions to be taken to combat our air quality problem, so that cases of respiratory diseases, some of them fatal, can begin to decrease?

PRESIDENT: Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Madam President, as I explained in the last part of my reply, it would take some time for the Liaison Group to gather more information on the size of the study area as well as the criteria and parameters to be investigated.

A preparatory meeting, as I said earlier, had been held in July. What we would hope to do is to present a final joint study model for discussion at the next meeting of the Liaison Group in December this year which would also include timing and programming of the study. I should also add that we need a mutual agreement on the resources needed for the study because it involves both sides. But a study of that nature will certainly take two or three years.

However, on combating air quality or air pollution, I should mention that we should not always put the blame on the other side. I mean, neither should Hong Kong do so nor Guangdong do so. We need to sort out a house in order. What we are now embarking on is to have various actions to clean up the air pollution in Hong Kong arising from Hong Kong sources first, and then involve the other side to have a much bigger regional co-operation study and action plan.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHOY Kan-pui.

Mr CHOY Kan-pui (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding the issue of environmental protection, could the Secretary inform this Council whether there is any divergence of views between the members and experts on one side and their counterparts on the other; and if so, what those divergent views are?

President (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, environment and lands.

Secretary for Planning, environment and lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, there has never been any divergence in terms of confidence, determination or sincerity towards environmental protection between the Hong Kong delegation and the Guangdong delegation since we started working together Our co-operative relations with each other has all along been fine. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

Mr LAU Kong-wah (in Cantonese): Madam President, my major concern is air pollution. The Administration has stated very clearly in the last paragraph of its main reply that studying the air quality in the entire Pearl River Delta is a much more ambitious project. By that it means the project would be delayed for a considerable period of time. To the Government, studying the issue is already a "much more ambitious project", I really would like to know what adjectives it would use when it comes to resolving the issue? Besides, are there any practical joint actions coming on stream?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, with your permission, I would like to answer the last part of the supplementary first. I have, in fact, referred in my main reply to the relevant programmes that we have carried out or are still proceeding with, including the air quality management plans for Mirs Bay and Deep Bay. However, this supplementary is asking about the plan for the entire Pearl River Delta. To put it in simple words, before any action could be taken, we must first gather detailed information concerning the size of the Pearl River Delta and the extent of influence it would have on Guangdong Province or even Hong Kong, as well as establish an air quality monitoring system in the region. Bearing in mind that the study itself is already an ambitious project, if I am asked to describe the practical work in this respect, I would say it is a project the implementation of which requires not only the sincere co-operation from both sides but also ample supply of manpower as well as other kinds of resources.

PRESIDENT: Mr Paul CHENG.

MR PAUL CHENG: With the trial of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) taxi about to be launched later this year in Hong Kong, will the Government advise the Council whether the authorities across the border have similar plans, if not, will the Government initiate this topic for discussion at the next Joint Liaison Group Meeting, otherwise, improvement in poor air quality in Hong Kong would still be hampered by poor air quality control across the border?

PRESIDENT: Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: It may help, Madam President, if I should first give a description on the nature of the fuel used by the vehicles in Guangdong at the moment.

Contrary to the general misconception, there is unleaded petrol being used in Guangdong Province, although its share in the total vehicle fleet usage is only about 5% to 10%. However, I believe the Mainland is as concerned about air pollution as we are. What they have recently decided is that Guangzhou, to begin with, will phase out the use of leaded petrol in the city area with effect from 1 October 1997, that is, a few days from today.

Zhuhai and Shenzhen will also stop using leaded petrol beginning 1998 and we will be able to see some substantial air quality improvements arising from the use of unleaded petrol over some years. In Hong Kong, it also took us some years to gradually phase out leaded petrol.

The other thing is on the use of LPG. Parallel studies are being done in certain cities of China to see whether the technology can be applied to vehicles. They are actually doing two studies, as far as I am aware, the first is on LPG, the other is on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). We are awaiting with considerable interest the results of the studies, but what I can assure this Council is that through our liaison network, we have received very strong signals from the Mainland Authorities, not just in Guangdong but in other cities, that they will take air pollution control as a priority in their future environmental protection work.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YUEN Mo.

Mr YUEN Mo (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is mentioned in the Secretary's main reply that Deep Bay has been designated as one of the high priority areas requiring focused protection efforts from both sides, and that a working group has been formed in 1992 to formulate environmental management and action plans for Deep Bay. However, as time passes by from 1992 to 1997, the pollution situation at Deep Bay has developed from bad to worse and its coastline has been filled with unpleasant smell. Where then are the practical actions? What practical actions could we take to remedy the situation? On the face of it, the area has already been polluted. The Administration only keeps saying that it has formulated practical management action plans, but what actually are those practical actions; and how are such actions going to control directly the treatment and discharge of sewage?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.

Secretary for Planning, environment and lands (in Cantonese): Madam President, as I have mentioned in the main reply, the water quality model developed for the long term strategic development of the deep bay catchment area is scheduled for completion in January 1998. Although the model has yet to be completed, we are looking forward to discussiong with officials from the Guangdong Province about the initial or later stage proposals at the next Liaison Group meeting to be held in December. The most serious pollution problems affecting Deep Bay is in fact not those found along the coastline. They might be developed at the upper reaches of other rivers. As such, we are now studying, under the water quality model project as well as other action plans, the possibility of extending the control zone to inland areas. We expect to receive further information and make relevant decisions at the meeting to be held three months later.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council now turns back to the fourth question. Mr MOK Ying-fan.

Transparency and Representativeness of the Elderly Commission

4.MR MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Some groups have recently commented that the Elderly Commission, established in July this year, is lacking in transparency and representativeness. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the measures in place to enhance the transparency of the Commission so as to facilitate public participation in the discussion of elderly matters and policies, and

(b) whether it will increase the number of Commission members who represent grassroots social groups and the elderly in the community; if so, the timing when this will be achieved and the criteria for selecting such members?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

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

(a) Since its establishment at the end of July, the Elderly Commission has held three meetings. The Committee Secretariat will, before a meeting, issue a press release to inform the public of the topics for discussion. Besides, the Chairman of the Committee will, similar to the arrangement of the other government consultative committees, hold a media briefing to report on the key points covered in the discussion to the public after the meeting. The public is also welcomed to write to the Secretariat on elderly issues. If there is a need for public consultation, we will make appropriate arrangements.

(b) Non-official members of the Elderly Commission and its ad hoc Committee are appointed in their personal capacity. They are from various classes and sectors of society, including Executive Council Members, Provisional Legislative Council Members, district representatives, professionals from health and medical sector, social welfare sector, housing sector and academic sector, the grassroots people and service users. With their wide knowledge and expertise, members will be able to contribute positively in the deliberations of the Elderly Commission.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan.

Mr MOK Ying-fan (in Cantonese): Madam President, I think the Secretary has not answered my question directly because part (a) of my question asked about the measures in place to enhance the transparency of the Commission. As we all know, care for the elderly has been one of the major items, other than housing and education, on the policy agenda of the Chief Ececutive of the Special Administrative Region since he was elected to office. I hope the Secretary would answer my question directly because it is not enough just to say that the existing arrangement is similar to that of the other government consultative committees. Voices from outside this Chamber have been claiming that neither the transparency of the Commission nor public participation is adequate; in this connection, could the Secretary inform this Council of the improvement measures by the Administration?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, whether or not the transparency of the Commission is adequate is a rather subjective issue. On the other hand, if many people do think that the Elderly Commission needs to enhance its transparency as well as to conduct more promotion work to make itself known to the public, I would certainly reflect such views to both the Chairman and members of the Commission, so that the issues would be discussed in detail at the meetings of the Commission.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHOY Kan-pui.

Mr CHOY Kan-pui (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Elderly Commission would enhance its communication and co-operation with the various district boards?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, although the Elderly Commission has just been established, we expect its work in future to be multifarious in nature. As such, close communication and liaison would be among its necessary tasks and Honourable Members could rest assured about that.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

Mr HUI Yin-fat (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Elderly Commission would consider open its meetings to the public la the Housing Authority; if not, why not?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, the members of the Elderly Commission have voted unanimously that the meetings of the Commission are to be held behind closed doors. Should there be any need to open the whole or part of the meeting to the public, such a proposal would only be adopted after it has been discussed and approved of by the members of the Commission. Nevertheless, I would relate this proposal to the Elderly Commission for members' consideration.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan.

Mr MOK Ying-fan (in Cantonese): Madam President, the last part of the reply given by the Secretary just now has answered my question already, I do not have any more questions to raise.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

Mr WONG Siu-yee (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to ask about government support. Could the Secretary inform this Council of the number of civil servants working full-time to support the work of the Elderly Commission?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare.

Secretary for Health and Welfare (in Cantonese): Madam President, this suplementary could be answered from two aspects. On one hand, the Secretariat of the Commission has two to three staff members providing direct support to the work of the Commission; on the other hand, as the work of the Commission covers also services in respect of housing, welfare, medical care, hygiene as well as social security, officers from the relevant departments would also provide us with the necessary support. Thus it is very difficult to estimate the actual manpower engaged. Various government departments will make concerted effort to support the work of the Elderly Commission when necessary.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last question seeking an oral reply.

Bank Notes Issued after 1 July 1997

6.DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, with regard to the bank notes issued by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (the Hongkong Bank), the Standard Chartered Bank and the Bank of China, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has any specific stipulations on the design and security design of bank notes; if so, what the details are;

(b) given that Hong Kong has become the Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China since 1 July this year, whether the Government has required the three banks to print the words "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" and the regional emblem on the new bank notes issued on or after that date; if not, why not; and

(c) whether the design of the new bank notes issued by the Standard Chartered Bank is in breach of any legislation as well as any relevant stipulations, as it does not carry the term "Hong Kong dollars" in English and Chinese, which is at variance with the practice adopted by the Hongkong Bank and the Bank of China; if not, why not?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding part (a) of the question, the Legal Tender Notes Issue Ordinance regulates the issue of Hong Kong dollar denominated bank notes. Under section 3(2) of the Ordinance, the Financial Secretary may, with the approval of the Chief Executive in Council, by notice in writing authorize a bank to issue bank notes subject to prescribed terms and conditions including the design. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the design includes pattern, words or characters and security features appearing on the bank notes. Note-issuing banks are required to obtain the approval for any change of the design of their bank notes. All bank notes issued by the three note-issuing banks have common security and design features which adhere to the best international practices. For security reasons however, details of these features are confidential.

As to part (b) of the question, the Government has not asked the note-issuing banks to change the design of their bank notes because of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The current bank notes bear neutral designs which are widely recognized and accepted by the public in Hong Kong and internationally. They bear the necessary features that render them effective legal tender bank notes. We therefore have no plan to change the current designs of bank notes at present under circulation.

With regard to part (c), the Government does not consider the absence of the words "Hong Kong Dollars" on bank notes issued by the Standard Chartered Bank a violation of the existing law relating to the issue of bank notes. There is no explicit provision under the Legal Tender Notes Issue Ordinance that the words "Hong Kong Dollars" should appear on the bank notes issued by note-issuing banks. However, it is self-evident that these bank notes must be denominated in Hong Kong dollars by virtue of section 4 of the Ordinance which says "every such note shall be deemed to be the currency of Hong Kong for the purpose of any promise to pay printed thereon." As such, it is not necessary to specify that the bank notes are denominated in Hong Kong dollars.

In fact, as bank notes are promissory notes, what is more important is that the note-issuing bank has clearly stated the bank's promise to pay on the bank notes. A promissory note is defined by section 89(1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance as an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer. While past and present bank notes issued by the Standard Chartered Bank do not bear the words "Hong Kong Dollars", they all bear the suitable terms to underline and emphasize such contractual obligation on the part of the note-issuing bank, as a promissory note issuer, to pay the bearer of the note the value denoted on the note in Hong Kong dollars on demand at the bank's office in Hong Kong. Inclusion of such terms hence satisfies the statutory criteria for being promissory notes. Furthermore, when the Financial Secretary authorizes a bank to issue bank notes under the Legal Tender Notes Issue Ordinance, he has only authorized the bank to pay in Hong Kong dollars. It is therefore not necessary to repeat the currency denomination.

In fact, this practice is not uncommon internationally. For example, there is no specific currency denomination denoted on US dollar notes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LAW Cheung-kwok.

DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the bank notes issued in other regions or countries of the world all carry the name of the regional or central bank of the country. For this reason, I have proposed that the bank notes issued after 1997 should carry the words "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". However, the Secretary said in part (b) of his main reply that the current bank notes "bear neutral designs". I do not quite understand what "neutral designs" are. Would it imply that designs bearing the words "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" are not neutral? Besides, since the Sercetary has also said that the current bank notes are widely accepted by the public in Hong Kong, would it imply that bank notes carrying the words "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" will not be widely accepted by the public in Hong Kong?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, while the public in Hong Kong has got used to the bank notes presently under circulation, international tourists visiting Hong Kong as well as Hong Kong people travelling abroad have also become familiarized with the current designs. Such designs bear no other special meaning apart from those that render the bank notes effective legal tender bank notes. As such, we do not think it is necessary to insist that the features as suggested by Dr the Honourable LAW Cheung-kwok be added to the bank notes at this stage. Note-issuing banks could certainly consider adding such features when they design new bank notes in the future; with the approval from the Financial Secretary, the newly designed bank notes could then be issued. We do not rule out such a possibility, but we do not see the need at this stage.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, because of certain objective reasons in the past, we have three note-issuing banks in Hong Kong. However, as the local financial system is now wholly represented by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), has the Administration considered putting note-issuing matters under the co-ordination of the Authority; if not, why not?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, we have no intention of changing the existing note-issuing arrangement for the time being, not only because the existing arrangement has proven to be effective, but also because it has never given rise to any special problem so far nor breached any of the terms of reference of the HKMA. Just now, the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung mentioned about co-ordinantion. In this connection, while the Financial Secretary is authorized by the Chief Executive in Council to have a series of powers to handle matters concerning the issue of legal tender and bank notes, the Chief Executive of the HKMA is also delegated with some of those powers. We could therefore see that a co-ordinator is already in place. As to note-issuing matters, we are of the opinion that the existing arrangement of having three commercial banks as the note-issuing banks could be retained.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LAW Cheung-kwok.

DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the bank notes currently issued by the Standard Chartered Bank carry a colonial hue so strong that even the words "Hong Kong dollars" are missing. In this connection, I feel that the people of Hong Kong are being treated very disrespectfully. However, according to part (c) of the Secretary's main reply, bank notes are "promissory notes" and it is more important for the note-issuing bank to state clearly the bank's promise to pay on the bank notes. Please take a look at this bank note issued by the Standard Chartered Bank. The words referred to by the Secretary appear in English version only, Chinese equivalence is unavailable. Let us now take a look at this bank note which is issued by the Hong Kong Bank, the Chinese characters "憑票即付" (meaning promises to pay the bearer on dermand) are clearly legible on it. How are the majority of the public in Hong Kong, especially the new immigrants who do not know English, going to understand the promise as stated on the bank notes issued by the Standard Chartered Bank? Could the Secretary inform this Council whether the Administration would instruct the Standard Chartered Bank as soon as possible to have either the words "港幣" (meaning Hong Kong dollars) or the Chinese version of the said promise printed on the bank notes it issues?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I believe that the Standard Chartered Bank, as one of the note-issuing banks, would certainly take note of and attach importance to the comments made by Dr LAW just now. On the Administration's part, we are of the opinion that the current bank notes issued by the Standard Chartered Bank, which have been under circulation for quite some time, have not attracted so far any comments claiming that they are improper, cannot be used as legal tender, or even not able to honour the amount of money as promised. After all, "bank notes" do have their own looks as "bank notes" at the international level. Regarding the question of Chinese or English wordings, I am afraid I have to say that we should not make bank notes too much a politicized issue. Since the Chinese and English languages are both official languages in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the HKMA opines that it is not necessary, at this stage, to instruct the note-issuing bank concerned to make any changes just because of the reason mentioned. As to the future, I believe that the note-issuing bank should have received the message of Dr LAW. Finally, I would like to say that the note-issuing banks have their own intellectual property concerning the designs of bank notes. So long as their designs are in line with the statutory requirements, we would permit them to issue such bank notes. After all, the initial design of the bank notes is the responsibility of the note-issuing banks concerned.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG Leung-sing.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, could the Secretary inform this Council of the total amount in monetary terms of the bank notes issued by the three note-issuing banks that have flowed overseas; and of the percentage such bank notes represent in respect of the total amount of bank notes issued?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): I am sorry, Madam President, I do not have such information at hand. I think I have to provide the Honourable Member with a written reply. I can remember that similar questions have been raised in this Chamber before. Regarding the actual amount of Hong Kong dollars flowed to places outside the territority (including the Mainland), basically we do not have any formal or accurate estimation made in this respect, yet we could make a rough estimation basing on other indirect material available. In this connection, I will provide Mr NG Leung-sing with a written reply in the light of such figures. Yet I must add that the estimation to be provided would not be an accurate one. (Annex II)

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Regulation of Discotheques

7.MRS SELINA CHOW (in Chinese): Recently, two discos in the Yau Tsim District were found to have unlawfully accommodated more customers than what their licences permitted. One of the discos, which only had a permitted capacity of 199, was reported by the police as accommodating more than 800 people. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the total number of cases where discos were found to have accommodated customers beyond their permitted capacity in the past three years, and whether any discos have been prosecuted by the authorities concerned for such breach; if so, the number of such prosecutions and the penalties in the convicted cases; and

(b) the present system for regulating the operation of discos, and whether the policing of discos will be stepped up?

SECRETARY FOR BROADCASTING, CULTURE AND SPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, I am replying on behalf of the Provisional Regional Council and the Provisional Urban Council.

There is no specific licensing scheme for discotheques (discos). At present, discos which serve liquor are required to obtain a restaurant licence and a liquor licence endorsed with approval for dancing. They are subject to the same form of licensing control as restaurant/liquor-selling premises with respect to health, building and fire safety issues.

Previously, as holders of a liquor licence endorsed with approval for dancing, disco operators were required to undertake to ensure that the number of persons on the premises at any time did not exceed the limit prescribed by the Buildings Department. Enforcement action against any breach of this undertaking was, however, difficult as it did not form part of the liquor licence. No prosecution action has therefore been taken against discos found in breach of the undertaking on capacity limit in the past three years.

Following the recent enactment of section 6A(6A) of the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Cap. 109) empowering the Municipal Councils to determine conditions to liquor licences as they think fit, the Liquor Licensing Boards have imposed, as one of the conditions, capacity limit on liquor selling premises with dancing facilities. Failure to comply with this condition is an offence liable on conviction to a maximum fine of $100,000 and one year imprisonment. In addition, the respective Liquor Licensing Board may, upon receipt of proof that such an offence has been committed, revoke or suspend the offender's liquor licence. The police have, in August and September 1997, issued a total of nine summonses to three discos for breaching the capacity condition. Hearings on these cases will soon take place.

To ensure compliance with hygiene, fire safety and capacity conditions stipulated in their licences, discos are subject to regular inspections by the Regional Services Department, Urban Services Department, Fire Services Department and the police. The relevant authorities will closely monitor the effectiveness of these inspections and consider stepping up such measures as and when necessary.

Building Pedestrian Footbridges at Busy Road Junctions

8.MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Chinese): Regarding the serious traffic accidents which recently occurred in Central and Mong Kok respectively resulting in heavy casualties, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has any plans to assess roads with heavy traffic and pedestrian flows in Hong Kong, for the purpose of constructing pedestrian footbridges at junctions with a high degree of potential danger, so as to ease traffic pressure on the roads; if so, what the details are; and

(b) whether it will consider installing more cameras at busy road junctions to deter drivers from disobeying traffic signals?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The assessment of the need for pedestrian facilities, such as zebra crossing, signalized crossing and grade-separated crossing, including footbridge and subway, is one of the areas included in our day-to-day district traffic management activities and district traffic studies. In deciding whether or not to provide pedestrian footbridges or subways at junctions, the volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, traffic accident statistics and engineering feasibility are taken into account. District boards are consulted.

In proposing new footbridges in built-up urban areas, there are often severe site constraints involving land resumption or shopfront obstruction and hence difficult negotiations with affected parties. In new developments or redevelopments involving a new land grant or the Government's approval of a modification of an existing land lease, the Government may require the developers to construct footbridges or similar pedestrian crossing facilities. Where appropriate, we also include footbridges or subways in new roads or road widening projects.

In the past 12 months, we have provided pedestrian footbridges and subways at 19 critical locations: two on Hong Kong Island, four in Kowloon and 13 in the New Territories. Details are listed in the Annex.

We now have pedestrian footbridges and subways for 31 busy locations under construction or advanced stage of planning: eight on Hong Kong Island, 12 in Kowloon and 11 in the New Territories. These include the proposed footbridge at the junction of Mong Kok Road and Nathan Road. Details are in the Annex. In addition, the Government is following up proposals for footbridges in Central District.

(b) We have installed 30 red-light cameras throughout the territory to deter motorists from disobeying traffic signals. We have plans to install 15 more red-light cameras in the urban area before the end of 1998. In addition, we will install red-light cameras at three road junctions intersecting with the Light Rail Transit within six months.

Annex

A.(Footbridges and subways provided in the past 12 months)

(Hong Kong Island)

1. Extension of O'Brien Road Footbridge across Hennessy Road

2. Pedestrian subway at junction of Pokfulam Road/Pokfield Road

(Kowloon)

1. Footbridge across Lei Yue Mun Road near Tsui Ping Road

2. Footbridge at j/o Argyle Street/Tong Mei Road

3. Footbridge at j/o Waterloo Road/Ferry Street

4. Footbridge across Yen Chow Street at Ki Lung Street (by private developer)

(New Territories)

1. Footbridge across Chung Wa Road at East Point City, Tseung Kwan O

2. Footbridge across Sheung Ning Road at East Point City, Tseung Kwan O

3. Footbridge across Po Ning Road near Hau Tak Estate

4. Footbridge across Sai Sha Road at Sunshine City

5. Footbridge across Sai Sha Road near Chung On Estate

6. Pedestrian subway across Sai Sha Road near Kam On Court

7. Pedestrian subway across Sai Sha Road roundabout near Shing On Temporary Housing Area

8. Footbridge across Yat Ming Road

9. Four pedestrian subways and one footbridge in Tung Chung New Town, Phase I

B.Footbridges and subways under construction/advanced stage of planning

(Hong Kong Island)

1. Upgrading of Gloucester Road/Fleming Road Footbridges

2. Duplication of Pedder Street/Connaught Road Footbridge

3. Footbridge between Admiralty and Central Reclamation Phase II

4. Footbridge at j/o Pokfulam Road/Sasson Road

5. Footbridge across Wong Chuk Hang Road near Wong Chuk Hang Sportsground

6. Footbridges at j/o Ap Lei Chau Road/Ap Lei Chau Drive

7. Pedestrian subway at j/o Chai Wan Road/Tai Tam Road

8. Two footbridges in Siu Sai Wan

(Kowloon)

1. Pedestrian subway at j/o Kowloon Park Drive/Salisbury Road

2. Pedestrian subway at j/o Kowloon Park Drive/Peking Road

3. Pedestrian subway at j/o Austin Road/Canton Road

4. Flyover and footbridge system at j/o Austin Road/Chatham Road South/Cheong Wan Road

5. Pedestrian subway at j/o Nathan Road/Austin Road

6. Extension of existing footbridge at Bute Street to the eastern side of Portland Street along Sai Yee Street and Mong Kok Road (by private developer) (j/o Nathan Road/Mong Kok Road)

7. Flyover and footbridge Yau Ma Tei section Phase II, footbridge system at j/o Argyle Street/Tong Mei Road

8. Footbridge at j/o Boundary Street/Embankment Road

9. Footbridge across Lung Poon Street

10. Pedestrian Subway across Kwun Tong Road near Ting Fu Street

11. Footbridge across Kwun Tong Road at Tsun Yip Lane

12. Two pedestrian subways across Salisbury Road near Sheraton Hotel (by private developer)

(New Territories)

1. Footbridge at j/o Clear Water Bay Road/Hiram's Highway (as part of the flyover project)

2. Two footbridges at Clear Water Bay Road near Tai Po Tsai

3. Footbridges across Wan Hang Road at Metro City, Tseung Kwan O

4. Footbridge at j/o Mei Tin Road/Chik Wan Street (as part of the Trunk Road T3 project)

5. Footbridge system at j/o Che Kung Miu Road/Hung Mui Kuk Road

6. Footbridge at j/o Hung Mui Kuk Road/Tin Sam Street

7. Footbridge connecting Lok King Street near Fo Tan KCR Station to the racecourse (by private developer)

8. Extension of existing subway system at the Kwai Fuk Road Roundabout (under the West Rail project)

9. Three footbridges at Tsing Yi Station

10. Footbridge at the North-west Tsing Yi Interchange

11. Footbridge at j/o Tai Ho Road/Sha Tsui Road (by private developer)

Note: j/o=junction of

Opening Date of the Chek Lap Kok Airport

9. MR HOWARD YOUNG: Will the Government inform this Council when it plans to officially announce the opening date of the Airport at Chek Lap Kok so as to give enough time for the tenants in Kai Tak airport to move to Chek Lap Kok without their daily operation being adversely affected by the airport's "overnight move"?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Madam President, the Government and the Airport Authority remain committed to opening the new airport in April 1998. We recognize the need for the airlines and other airport operators to have as much advance notice as possible of the precise opening date. We are reviewing all the programmes considered essential for achieving overall readiness for airport operations. We will announce the opening date once we have completed the review.

For the relocation of airport operations from Kai Tak to the new airport at Chek Lap Kok, the Airport Authority is already in consultation with the airlines and airport operators to enable them to plan ahead.

Maintenance and Renovation of School Buildings

10.DR RAYMOND HO (in Chinese): It is reported that in a recent incident involving the spalling of ceiling plaster at an over 30-year-old primary school building in Sham Shui Po, six pupils were hit and slightly injured. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council how the Education Department assists schools in inspecting and renovating school premises so as to ensure their safety, and what the funding arrangements in this regard are?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Chinese): Madam President, the Education Regulations stipulate that all school premises shall at all times be kept in a satisfactory state of repair.

For aided schools, the Code of Aid requires all school management committees to be responsible for the safety and soundness of their school buildings. Any aided school can:

(1) approach the Architectural Services Department (ASD) or the Housing Department (HD) for professional or technical advice on the conditions of its school premises;

(2) use the school and class grant to engage professionals to inspect school premises, for advice on the maintenance or repair of school premises, or to carry out minor maintenance works; and

(3) apply to the Education Department for grant to carry out large scale repair works. Applications from non-estate schools and estate schools will be vetted by professionals of the ASD and HD respectively. These two departments will monitor the repair works to ensure that the relevant requirements are met. They will also arrange for urgent repair if the situation so requires.

As for government schools, the ASD inspects all the school premises about once every four years and undertakes all maintenance works. The ASD also takes up urgent repair works if so required.

For private schools joining the Bought Place Scheme or Direct Subsidy Scheme, the Government will calculate the amount of subsidy on the basis of the average cost of an aided school place, which has already included charges for inspection and maintenance of school premises. Private schools joining the Direct Subsidy Scheme can also apply to the Government for an interest-free capital assistance loan if large scale repair or renovation is required. However, the Government does not offer any grants or loans to other private schools for inspecting or maintaining their premises.

Standing Parking Space for Coaches at Tourist Spots

11. MR HOWARD YOUNG: Will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it has undertaken any study on the availability of standing parking spaces for coaches at popular tourist spots (such as outside hotels along Canton Road, outside shops in Peking Road and near the Tiger Balm Garden); if so, what the findings are; and

(b) it has plans to provide more standing parking spaces for coaches at tourist spots?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT: Madam President, the Transport Department closely monitors the adequacy of parking spaces for coaches and picking up/setting down places for passengers at popular tourist spots. In general, where space is available, parking spaces and lay-bys for picking up/setting down passengers would be provided. For example, in Repulse Bay, roadside spaces are designated for coaches and in Canton Road, lay-bys are provided. In busy shopping precincts in the urban built-up areas where such arrangements are not possible, traffic management measures are employed, such as providing passenger picking up/setting down zones on side streets nearby so as not to cause obstruction to main stream traffic.

For new tourist spots or existing ones which are redeveloped, provision for coach parking is included in the development plan. For example, at the Peak, coach bays are provided within the transport terminus in the redevelopment. Coach parking spaces are also provided for the viewing point at the Lantau Link.

As to hotels, developers are required to provide, in accordance with the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, a sufficient number of picking up/setting down spaces for coaches within the development site to meet their own needs.

In the case of Tiger Balm Garden, the Government plans to expand the existing open air vehicle park off Tai Hang Road to increase the number of parking spaces therein and to permit the parking of longer coaches. Subject to the availability of funds, works will start by the end of this year and will take about one year to complete. Continuing efforts will be made to increase similar provision for coaches at other popular tourist spots wherever possible.

Complaints against Taxis

12.MR CHOY KAN-PUI (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the number of complaints made against taxis in each of the first eight months this year; the nature and number of such complaints;

(b) the number of prosecutions instituted against taxis in each of the first eight months this year and the offences involved; and

(c) whether enforcement actions against taxis selecting passengers or refusing hire will slacken upon the conclusion of the World Bank meeting, since it is reported that in anticipation of this meeting, the police has stepped up such actions recently?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, the numbers of complaints and prosecutions against taxis in each of the first seven months of this year, broken down by type of complaints and offences involved, are annexed. Figures for the month of August 1997 are still being collated. During this period, taximeter offences, driver behaviour, drivers not taking the most direct route and drivers refusing hire were the most common malpractices.

The police are responsible for taking action against such malpractices by way of prosecution under the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374). Priority is given to combating those which involve tampering with the taximeter, soliciting passengers and refusing hire. The police have also from time to time mounted special operations and spot checks, dependent on the availability of additional resources and other operational demands. Such enforcement action is ongoing and continuous.

Occasionally, the police will widely publicize their enforcement operations, which could have a deterrent effect on taxi malpractices. A recent example is the operation taken before the World Bank meetings, when Hong Kong experienced a large influx of overseas visitors. These visitors may not be familiar with the local situation and complaint channels, and hence are more vulnerable to such malpractices.

Annex

Number of Complaints Against Taxis Received from January to July 1997

Type of Complaints	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	Total
Refusing hire	58	58	48	50	51	72	102	439
Soliciting passengers	3	5	7	1	7	3	12	38
Overcharging	31	16	14	25	29	23	25	163
Taximeter offences	150	108	92	86	101	136	195	868
Failure to take most direct route	84	76	66	68	62	89	103	548
Failure to reach destination	27	22	12	21	23	18	24	147
Behaving other than in a civil manner	93	69	55	64	86	87	96	550
Failure to display identity plate	1	6	4	5	6	10	6	38
Improper display of identity plate	4	4	3	8	4	4	2	29
Frequency / carrying capacity	5	1	-	1	2	-	1	10
Provision of stops	-	1	1	3	4	3	1	13
Condition of vehicles	1	-	-	-	1	-	-	2
Passenger services and facilities	2	1	1	3	4	1	1	13
Others	6	1	-	1	-	3	2	13
Total	465	368	303	336	380	449	570	2 871

Annex

Number of Prosecutions Against Taxis from January to July 1997

Type of Offence	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	Total
Soliciting passengers	22	-	12	2	6	11	6	59
Refusing hire	32	10	67	45	43	22	26	245
Refusing to drive to destination	7	1	5	6	6	4	7	36
Failing to drive to destination by the most direct and practicable route	15	7	8	16	16	9	13	84
Overcharging	5	3	1	1	1	2	1	14
Taximeter Offences	87	27	123	79	52	31	87	486
Behaving other than in a civil and orderly manner	11	7	5	6	12	5	14	60
Taxi driver identity plate offences	4	-	2	7	4	1	4	22
Other offences	8	9	7	5	13	46	7	95
Total	191	64	230	167	153	131	165	1 101

Introduction of ISO9000 and TQM in Government Departments

13.MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the current position of government departments in seeking ISO9000 accreditation and the departments which have obtained or are now seeking such accreditation;

(b) which departments are implementing the concept of "Total Quality Management"; and

(c) of the measures in place to promote the implementation of ISO9000 accreditation and "Total Quality Management" in government departments?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The following government departments have already obtained ISO9000 certification in respect of some of their services and they are also seeking further certification for their other services:

Architectural Services Department

Civil Engineering Department

Electrical and Mechanical Services Department

Government Flying Service

Government Laboratory

Hong Kong Police Force

Housing Department

Marine Department

Printing Department

(b) Whilst all government departments are committed to improving their quality of service, Heads of Departments are given the flexibility to adopt the latest management techniques and information technology, including promoting the concept of Total Quality Management (TQM), to produce the best results having regard to changing needs.

(c) As ISO9000 accreditation and TQM are only two of the many measures used to improve the quality of service of government departments, we consider it more productive to keep senior management staff of government departments abreast of a range of latest management techniques which can help to enhance the efficiency and quality of the services provided by their departments. To this end, regular seminars and training courses are arranged for the senior management staff of government departments to attend.

Requesting Developers to Build Pedestrian Footbridges

14.MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Chinese): Currently, when processing applications for the construction or redevelopment of buildings, the government department concerned will, if necessary, require that the developers be responsible for building pedestrian footbridges or other pedestrian crossing facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

1. whether the relevant authority specifies the dates of completion for such facilities; if not, how it ensures that the developers build the facilities the soonest possible;

2. of the total number of projects which the relevant authority has required the construction of such facilities, and the number of such facilities which the developers have not yet built, during the past three years;

3. whether the relevant authority will seek the prior consent of the other property owners concerned if the required facilities are to be connected to their properties; if not, how it will assist the developers in reaching agreement with the property owners concerned; and

4. how it will deal with those developers who do not honour their undertakings to build the required facilities?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Chinese): Madam President,

1. when the Government grants a new land lease or approves a modification of an existing lease, it may include in the lease conditions a requirement for the lessee to construct a footbridge or a similar pedestrian crossing facility. A completion date for the construction will normally be imposed. This date is linked to the issue of the certificate of compliance for the building on the site concerned. However, if the facility is to connect the site with another site, prior agreement of the owners of the other site is necessary. On some occasions it is not certain whether, and when, such agreement can be obtained. In this situation, the completion date cannot be specified in the lease conditions;

2. we do not have readily available figures on the number of projects which we have required the construction of such facilities. However we know that over the past three years, 38 footbridge proposals made by either developers or the Government have been approved in private developments, 21 of which are being constructed and the rest are being planned to be built;

3. where the facility links two buildings, it is necessary to obtain consent from the respective owners of both buildings. In many cases, particularly for older leases, the owners are not obliged to agree to the construction of the facility. The Government will try its best to obtain their consent. This however would depend on voluntary co-operation which is frequently made more difficult by multi-ownership of the buildings; and

4. the Government may take lease enforcement action (including re-entry of the site concerned) if the developer fails to honour any requirement to build the facility under the lease.

Structural Safety of School Buildings

15.MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Chinese): Regarding the spalling of ceiling plaster in the assembly hall of a primary school in Sham Shui Po some days ago, will the Government inform this Council:

1. of the number of schools which encountered the problem of plaster spalling from ceilings of school buildings or experienced structural problems of buildings over the past three years, and the number of people injured in those incidents;

2. whether any school was closed as a result of these incidents over the past three years; and

3. whether it will consider implementing a mandatory inspection scheme on school buildings; if not, why not?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Chinese): Madam President,

1. Over the past three years, spalling of plaster from ceilings occurred in 33 schools, but no school buildings had structural problems. In most cases where plaster spalled from ceilings, the area involved was small, and repair works were immediately carried out by the schools concerned. Apart from a recent incident of plaster spalling from the ceiling in a primary school in Sham Shui Po in which five school children sustained minor injury, there was no report of injury in the other incidents.

2. Over the past three years, no school was closed due to structural problems of buildings.

3. The current Codes of Aid require management committees of all aided schools to ensure the safety and soundness of their school buildings. If necessary, these schools can draw upon the school and class grant to engage professionals to inspect the school buildings. They can also apply to the Education Department (ED) for subsidies to carry out major repair and renovation works if such a need arises. For government schools, the Architectural Services Department inspects the school buildings about once every four years, and undertakes all maintenance works. Moreover, both government and aided schools can seek expert advice on the conditions of their school buildings from the Architectural Services Department or Housing Department. Therefore, at present there is no need to implement a mandatory inspection scheme for these two types of schools.

   As for private schools, it is stipulated in the Education Regulations that all schools, including private ones, must ensure that their school premises are at all times kept in a satisfactory state of repair. The Government is now consulting the public on the Building Safety Inspection Scheme. If the proposed scheme is endorsed and becomes policy, all privately-owned school buildings aged over 20 years will be subject to inspection once every 10 years. Once a decision is reached on the Building Safety Inspection Scheme, the Government will consider whether there is a need to formulate a mandatory inspection scheme for all privately-owned school buildings.

Articles taken away by the Ex-Governor

16.MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Chinese): To enhance the transparency in the use and handling of government property, will the Government inform this Council whether:

1. there is a list of objects taken away by the former Governor of Hong Kong, Mr Christopher PATTEN upon leaving office; if not, what the reasons are;

2. Mr PATTEN took away certain objects, including a batch of silver tableware, which belonged to the Government, from the former Government House when leaving office; if so, of the quantities, the purchase prices and the market prices of such objects; and

3. it was necessary for the former Governors to list out the particulars of the objects and file applications for taking them away from the Government House upon leaving office?

SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY (in Chinese): Madam President, our record clearly shows that the former Governor, Mr PATTEN, did not take away any government stores (including silver tableware) used in Government House when leaving office. However, he did purchase from the Government some tableware and glassware used in Government House. Under the Stores Regulations, government stores can be sold to individuals, including the Governor. The purchase prices offered to Mr PATTEN were determined by the Government Supplies Department according to values assessed by independent valuers.

Replies to the Honourable Member's questions are given below:

1. We have a list of stores purchased by Mr PATTEN from the Government before he left Hong Kong.

2. Mr PATTEN purchased on 30 June 1997 from the Government some 400 items of glassware and tableware used in Government House at a total cost of $62,490. Values of these items were assessed by independent valuers. The details are listed in the Appendix. Mr PATTEN did not purchase any silver tableware. The silver tableware and other stores in Government House are still being kept by the Government.

3. As stated above, individuals can apply for the purchase of government stores. Such applications will be considered in accordance with the Stores Regulations.

Appendix

List of Tableware Purchased by Mr Christopher PATTEN

Items	Value assessed by independent valuers ($ per unit)	Quantity	Total ($)
Champagne glass	420	12	5,040
Wine glass	380	4	1,520
Water glass	380	6	2,280
Sherry glass	180	13	2,340
Coffee cup and saucer	140	84	11,760
Tea cup	100	52	5,200
Saucer for tea cup	65	52	3,380
Soup cup and saucer	210	51	10,710
Sauce boat	400	7	2,800
Salad dish	170	18	3,060
Bread and butter plate	90	14	1,260
Plate 10.5"	120	23	2,760
Plate 6"	65	18	1,170
Plate 9"	120	14	1,680
Plate 8"	90	22	1,980
Large platter	340	12	4,080
Pot and lid 1.5 pt	180	3	540
Pot and lid 3/4 pt	140	2	280
Milk Jug	130	5	650
	Total	412	62,490

Legislative Timetable of the MPF System

17.MR PAUL CHENG: The Subcommittee on Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System, set up in the former Legislative Council in 1996-97, did not have the opportunity to study the relevant draft subsidiary legislation, which was issued by batches by the MPF Office during the period from late April to late June 1997. In view of the fact that the System will have far reaching impact on the business sector and the employees, will the Government inform this Council:

1. when the authority concerned will announce the relevant legislative process and timetable;

2. whether it will amend the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 485); if so, what the details of the amendments are; and

3. whether it will undertake to allow sufficient time for this Council to scrutinize the relevant subsidiary legislation instead of rushing through the legislative process?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES: Madam President, as the proposed Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System is required to provide the much needed retirement protection to millions of our citizens, with far reaching impact on the whole community, the Administration's objective is to set up the System in a workable and cost-effective manner and to do so as soon as possible. Details of the proposed System had been discussed with the Subcommittee on MPF System set up by the previous Legislative Council at 20 meetings held between November 1996 and June 1997. Draft subsidiary legislation incorporating relevant comments given by the Subcommittee to improve the proposed Scheme had been submitted in batches during the period from end of April to end of June. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee did not have time to scrutinize the drafts.

1. Our current aim is to submit the draft legislation necessary for the introduction of MPF to the Executive Council in October and this Council shortly thereafter. In view of the importance of the subject and the urgent need to set up a formal retirement protection system, we hope that the legislative process can be completed within the current Legislative Session.

2. The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance will be amended. These amendments are necessary in order to provide for an efficient and effective System, and taking into account comments that we have received. The proposed amendments will strengthen enforcement measures, for example, empowering the MPF Schemes Authority to enforce relevant provisions or impose financial penalties; cater for special needs, in particular, protecting the interests of low-income earners and small employers; and provide for additional checks and balances on the MPF Authority, such as by requiring the Authority to report to the Financial Secretary annually, and establishing an Advisory Board to advise the Authority on any policy matter in connection with the Ordinance.

3. With the aim of enacting the Amendment Bill and subsidiary legislation within the current Legislative Session, the Administration will try its very best to facilitate the Provisional Legislative Council's scrutiny of the legislation.

Severance of Ties with the Asian Productivity Organization

18.DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): It is learnt that Hong Kong has severed all ties with the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) since 1 July this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

1. why, under the Basic Law and the spirit of "one country, two systems" Hong Kong cannot participate in such a regional economic organization as the APO;

2. whether it has raised with the Central People's Government and the APO to retain its membership in the APO; if so, what the details are;

3. of the present employment situation of those Hong Kong residents who were recommended by the British Hong Kong Government to take up employment with the APO; and

4. of the reasons for Hong Kong's continued participation in other international organizations (such as the International Monetary Fund) whilst its ties with the APO have to be severed?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Chinese): Madam President,

1. Clause 1, Article 13 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Central People's Government shall be responsible for the foreign affairs relating to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Clause 3, Article 13 also stipulates that the Central People's Government authorizes the SAR to conduct relevant external affairs on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. For example, Article 151 empowers the SAR to maintain and develop relations and to conclude and implement agreements with foreign states and regions and relevant international organizations in the appropriate fields. Article 152 also stipulates that the SAR may participate in international organizations or conferences.

   In conducting its external affairs in accordance with the above provisions, the SAR should uphold the principle of "one country, two systems". The name used by Taiwan in the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) is "Republic of China". This matter involves the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China and the "one China" policy.

   As this question has yet to be resolved, the SAR has suspended all connections with the APO with effect from 1 July 1997. Once the question of Taiwan's nomenclature in the Organization is resolved, the SAR will be able to resume its participation in the activities of the APO.

2. In order to maintain the SAR's relationship with the APO, the Central People's Government has already put in strenuous effort to liaise with the APO with a view to resolving the problem of Taiwan's nomenclature in the APO. The Central People's Government is still following up this matter. Once the problem is resolved, the SAR will be able to resume its participation in the APO.

3. The Hong Kong Government has not recommended any Hong Kong residents to become employee of the APO.

4. The SAR's suspension of connection with the APO is due to the problem of Taiwan's nomenclature in the APO. Similar problem does not exist in the SAR's participation in other international organizations. Thus, the SAR's participation in those organizations is not affected.

CSSA for People having Children in the Mainland

19.MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Chinese): Children aged below 18 and born in the Mainland of parents who are permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are financially dependent on their parents while living in the Mainland. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

1. whether these children, like their siblings in Hong Kong, are regarded as members of the family, so that their parents, in applying for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, are also eligible for receiving the standard rate for children, child supplement and special grant in respect of these children; and

2. whether, as far as taxation is concerned, these children are regarded as members of the family enjoying the same status as their siblings in Hong Kong, so that their parents are eligible for claiming the child allowance in respect of these children?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE(in Chinese): Madam President, the bases for determining eligibility for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) payments and allowances for salaries tax are completely different. In respect of the specific questions raised by the Honourable HUI Yin-fat, the answers are as follows:

1. Under the current CSSA Scheme, children of CSSA recipient parents, aged below 18 and born and residing in the Mainland, are not taken into account when calculating CSSA payments for the parents. CSSA is funded from General Revenue and it is therefore directed towards meeting the welfare needs of those living in Hong Kong. As such, applicants must normally have resided in Hong Kong for at least one year to become eligible.

2. Under section 31(1) of the Inland Revenue Ordinance, a salaries taxpayer may claim the child allowance in any year of assessment if he or she maintained at any time during that year of assessment a child who satisfied the criteria as stipulated in the section, irrespective of whether the child concerned was born or living in Hong Kong. These criteria are that the child was:

   1. under the age of 18;

   2. of or over the age of 18 but under the age of 25 and was receiving full time education at a university, college, school or other similar educational establishment; or

   3. of or over the age of 18 and was, by reason of physical or mental disability, incapacitated for work.

Therefore, the parents of the children in question would be able to claim the child allowance for such children.

Allocating Students to Schools outside their Local Districts

20.MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Chinese): It has recently been reported that quite a number of students living in the northwestern New Territories have to travel a long distance to attend schools on outlying islands, thereby causing them a lot of time and travelling expenses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

1. the number of students who are placed in schools situated outside their residing districts in this academic year;

2. the criteria adopted by the relevant department in allocating school places and whether a review of the allocation criteria will be made; if not, why not; and

3. the measures that can be taken to prevent the recurrence of cross-district allocation of school places?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Chinese): Madam President,

1. In accordance with the present Primary One Admission System and allocation systems for secondary school places, every year the Education Department (ED) allocates Primary 1 (P1), Secondary 1 (S1) and Secondary 4 (S4) school places to eligible children/students. Apart from some discretionary places for allocation by schools upon applications by parents which are not subject to locational restrictions, most students are allocated to schools within the school nets where they reside or where they previously attended schools.

   In the 1997-98 school year, 57 875 (88%) P1 students were allocated to schools within the school nets where they reside, through discretionary admission or central allocation. A total of 6 877 (10%) students was admitted to schools outside their own nets through discretionary admission. Another 1 612 students (2%) were allocated to schools outside their own nets owing to insufficient places in those nets.

   As regards S1 students, 68 050 (88%) were admitted to schools in the same districts as their primary schools through discretionary admission or central allocation. A total of 847 (1%) students was admitted through discretionary admission to schools outside their original districts. Another 8 482 (11%) students were allocated to schools in neighbouring or other districts of their choices because of their needs for different curricula (for instance, prevocational and special education) and because of insufficient places in their original districts.

   In accordance with the existing Junior Secondary Education Assessment System, in 1997, a total of 63 765 students (93%) was allocated S4 places within the same districts where they attended Secondary 3 (S3), (including 60 484 (88.7%) allocated to S4 of their own schools). Another 4 805 students (7%) were allocated to schools not in their original districts, and of these, most of them were allocated to schools in the neighbouring districts.

2. The existing allocation systems for P1, S1 and S4 school places take into account the districts where the students reside, school nets and parental choice. The allocations of S1 and S4 places also take into account students' academic performance. At present, the Government's target is to provide subsidized S4 places for 85% of our youngsters aged above 15, and to enable the students to continue their studies in their original schools as far as possible. The ED will review all allocation systems and their criteria from time to time.

3. Given constant population movement, there are fluctuations in the demand for school places in districts at different points of time. As such, the Government determines the number of secondary schools required on the basis of the territory-wide demand and supply of secondary school places. In considering the locations of new schools, priority will be given to those districts where there has been or will be persistent shortfall. The ED keeps the School Building Programme under regular review, and will, in the light of actual circumstances, identify appropriate locations for building new schools. It will also take measures to reorganize the class structure of those schools which are in a position to do so in order to meet the demand for school places and to minimize cross-district allocation.

   In addition, the ED will continue to organize seminars for parents in new towns to help them better understand the allocation systems and choose appropriate schools for their children.

BILLS

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill

HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1997

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 10 September 1997

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills. We will now resume the second Reading debate on the hong kong court of final appeal (amendment) (no. 3) bill 1997. Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the hong kong court of final appeal (amendment) (no. 3) bill 1997 be read the second time.

Will those in favour please say "aye"

(Members responded)

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

(No Member rsponded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): hong kong court of final appeal (amendment) (no. 3) bill 1997.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage of Bill

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.

HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1997

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 and 2.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.

Council then resumed.

Third Reading of Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third Reading of Bill. Chief Secretary for Administration.

Chief Secretary for Administration (in Cantonese): Madam President, the

HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1997

has passed through Committee without amendment. I move that this bill be read the third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the

HONG KONG COURT OF FINAL APPEAL (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1997

be read the third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK: Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1997

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 20 August 1997

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Council will now resume the Second Reading debate on the Legislative Council Bill. Does any Member wish to speak? I will now invite Dr LEONG Che-hung to speak first.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, as the Chairman of the House Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to giveexpress my heartfelt praiseappreciation to the Chairman of the Bills Committee, the Committee members and also the staff of the Secretariat. Owing to their hardwork and heavy dedication, we managed to finish examining each and every principle and provision of the Bill in detail within a record time. As far as I can recall, none of the previous Bills Committees can finish scrutinizing such complicated provisions within such a short period of time.

There is no doubt about the importance of this Bill. In addition to is not onlybeing the first step towards the historical establishment of the first legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), but this Bill has also provideds a framework for the development of the future Legislative Council elections. Honourable ccolleagues all agreed undesignedlywithout prior agreement that they were willing to give up their sleeping time of sleeping in order to finish the scrutiny of this Bill as soon as possible. This has reflected one very important point, that is, all Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, including you, Madam President, would like to see the establishment of an elected legislature as early as possible, so as to take Hong Kong into a new era.

Madam President, from nowthis moment onwards, I will speak in my personal capacity and support the resumption of debate on Second Reading of this Bill. I believe people no matter outside or inside the Chamber will be asking me this question: Dr LEONG Che-hung, you gave your support to the 1995 electoral package, why do you now change to support this Legislative Council Bill which is less democratic in nature?

Madam President, the reason is obvious. We have to first enact the legislation before we can carry out elections. We hope to have a fully elected legislature quickly, therefore, we have to be pragmatic in order to establish a council that is elected by the people of Hong Kong, and we can join hands with the Government forto implementing the principle of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and to building a more democratic Hong Kong. Madam President, since this Bill before us is bound by the decision made by the Preparatory Committee on the method for the formation of the first Legislative Council, no one can deny that it does have inherentcongenital defects, and therefore it lacks flexibility in nature. Thus we may not be able to make amendments to it in complete accordance with the aspirations of the public. However, I believe that many Honourable ccolleagues have already tried very hard to propose amendments to improve the Bill within the restrictions set down by the Preparatory Committee, so that it can accord with the aspirations of the public.

However, in the past few days, we have heard that the Government and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Mr Michael SUEN, firmly state that they wouldill object all the amendments proposed by Members, and that they wouldill also use the "secret weapon" to re-amend those amended provisions after they have been passed. I feelam very much astonished aboutby this. It is true that the Government has the power to propose amendments to any legislation, but if the Government neglects the decisions of a council the main responsibility of which is to enact laws, and insists to propose amendments after amendments, or even decides to "reinstate" the original provisions of which Members are opposed to, then the Government is actually telling the public blatantly that the legislatureive body is nothing but a "rubber stamp" in its eyes, and that the legislature should silently carry out the duties of a "rubber stamp". Madam President, the high-handedness of the Government, as reflected in its statements, is really a great satire on the law-making process of an open society. Furthermore, if the Government thinks that the amendments proposed by Members are all invalid, it can try to put forward justifications and convince us with reasons. Regrettably, until this very moment, the Government has only asked us not to support the amendments, failing to provide any concrete and convincing reasons.

Pardon me if I am being frank, Madam President, but the behaviour of some Honourable ccolleagues are certainly suspicious. In fact, quite a number of their amendments have been interpreted by the press or the public as being oriented towards the sectoral interests of a particular party or Members themselves. Even more worse, is it ihas been suggestedsaid that some Members are blatantly and obviously trying to increase the chances of winning for themselves or their parties in the election.

I think all Members will understand and agree that the work of the legislature should put public interests first and foremost. Apart from that, we should also be seen to be speaking and acting strictly in accordancethe interests of the public. Therefore, we are obliged to the public to examine any Bill iwith great care and to propose necessary amendments, so that it can be to perfect it and bring it in compliance with the interests of society. We should not abuse our rights into amending Bills in order to enhance the interests and status of ourselves, any particular party, or any sector. Also, we should not abuse our amendments in order to increase our chances of winning in the election. We absolutely cannot let our words and deeds tarnish the credibility and integrity of the legislature.

Since I have pledged to the doctors and dentists that I will try my best to represent the medical sector until the next election, Madam President, I have sent letters to all the registered doctors and dentists earlier to explain to them the contents of the Bill. I have also requested them to exercise one-man, one-vote by letter on the provisions of the Bill and the amendments proposed by some Members. Due to the time constraint, I will not go into the details of the result. However, the results of this referendum have reflected two points. First, most of the respondents are in favour of the single-seat, single-vote model, but regrettably this has been ruled by you, Madam President, as overriding the decision of the Preparatory Committee. Therefore, we are left with no choice except the proportional representation system. So, the Honourable Frederick FUNG, I am afraid I have no chance to give him my support. Secondly, most of the repliedrespondents doctors and dentists opposed the provision that persons not of Chinese nationality or persons with right of abode overseas can only participate in the election of the 12 "designated" functional constituencies. Obviously, they are of the opinion that this kind of "designation" is absolutely unfair. For this reasonBased on this point, I will propose a respective amendment and I will explain in detail my argument at the Committee stage.

Lastly, Madam President, no matter what is the voting results will be today, I believe the Bill will be read the third time with amendments. After today, the most important task is to ensure the public understands the arrangements of the new electoral system, and actively participate in this historical election.

I hereby urge the Government, the political parties, different social organizations and social leaders to work together to boost voter registration, and also encourage the public to take an active part in the voting. I hope that in the future, the Chief Executive of the SAR, the Executive Council and the Administration can conduct a wide public consultation, carry out a review and sort out a package for the democraticization of Hong Kong in the future.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI (in Cantonese): Madam President, this Bill cuts down the size of the electorate from 1.8 million voters to 180 000-odd, I certainly regard this as a retrogression in democracy. This is my first point.

Second, while some people will certainly argued that democracy cannot be quantified, I opine that the "quality" of the same has basically been changed, and that we really need to review further our understanding of democracy.

I would like to talk about the observations I have made in these few days. Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen political parties attacking each other in manners just like "the pot calling the kettle black". In addition, we have also seen many people who, in referring to the functional constituencies they belonged to, would presumptuously claim themselves as being very democratic, like a foot-bound woman who thinks her feet will become larger after putting on a pair of three-inch high heels. functional constituencies, in the end, are still functional constituencies; and they are just a transitional arrangement. We should all be aware that by the year 2004, 30 seats will be returned by direct elections and 30 by functional constituency elections. In my opinion, while the pace for democratic development should be hastened after 2007, we should also strive to amend the Basic Law to enable a fully directly elected Legislative Council to be returned after 2007, thereby realizing the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy".

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

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, at a meeting of the Preparatory Committee discussing the method for the formation of the first Legislative Council, Mr QIAN Qichen, the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, indicated that the principle of democracy, fairness and openness should be manifested and that the formation of the first Legislative Council should also enshrine the spirit of accommodation of the Hong Kong community. The present Bill submitted by the Government can be considered to have reflected the spirit of the decision of the Preparatory Committee to the greatest possible extent.

The Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) has come to the view that a good electoral system should be sustainable. As suchTherefore, although the Bill is meant for the election of the first Legislative Council, it can also be used as a basis for the elections of the second and third Legislative Councils in accordance with the basic principles laid down in the Basic Law, so that a mode of election and democratic system with Hong Kong characteristics can be developed gradually in light of the realistic political culture of Hong Kong.

The electoral system for the direct election component of the Legislative Council has attracted the greatest attention and controversy in the communityamong members of the public. The Preparatory Committee recommended either the '"multi-seat, single-vote"' system or proportional representation. The Government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) eventually adopted the latter. Despite the hot debate that ensued, there iis a general consensus that proportional representation is a relatively fair and satisfactory electoral system. In fact, all electoral systems, including the "'single-seat, single-vote"' system, "'multi-seat, single-vote"' system or various forms of proportional representation have their own strengths and weaknesses. But our main fore and foremost consideration must beand a most important one: Which system is most suitable for the specific political environment of the community?

The DAB has been advocating that the system of proportional representation should be adopted at the district level mainly because we think believe the system can achieve balanced participation, even though there are views that balanced participation may mean the Council will be split, and that the Council might be deprived of an integrated and loud voice, undermining its function of checking the Governmentis. However,But the DAB maintains that, other than making laws, the most important work of the legislature is to monitor the Government and allow different opinions to be reflected in the Council. This suits the realistic political environment of Hong Kong.

Another strength of proportional representation is the continuity achieved in the boundaries of geographical constituencies. Even if in future the number of directly elected regional seats increased, or even if there is direct election across the entire community, the boundaries can remain unchanged. Thus the confusion arising out of a re-delineation of the boundaries for every election in the past will not recur. In addition, the system can enhance accountability of candidates towards their electorate.

One comment from the community on the present Bill is that the electorate base for functional constituency election will shrink from the two million-odd in the 1995 Legislative Council election to about 200 000, which is a big retrogression in democracy. I do not think this is a correct comment. However,But before we talk about the issue, let us clearly understand the principles and concepts of the functional constituency election when it was first designed. The idea was to accommodate those persons who were representatives of their group and who had different functions in the economic development of the Hong Kong community. In the 1995 Legislative Council election, Chris PATTEN's '"three-violation election plan"' added nine new functional constituencies, making it direct election in disguise according to occupation. And the number of voters swelled in unreasonable proportions. Hence, the Preparatory Committee and the Bill only revert the functional constituency election to its original design and lay down the method for the functional constituency election for the first Legislative Council according to the election principles for functional constituency as designed since 1985, with suitable developments.

Madam President, although the Bill implements the specific requirements according to the Basic Law and the Preparatory Committee in respect of the election of the first Legislative Council, there are quite a few inadequacies. For example, in the voterelectors' qualifications for the social welfare constituency, the Bill adopts the principle of "one-person one-vote" for registered social workers in the 1995 election on the one hand, and reduces the number of votes for corporate members of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) from six to one on the other. Moreover, under the Bill, non-HKCSS organizations are not qualified to be voters infor the social welfare functional constituency even though their objects and nature of service are the same as those of the corporate members of the HKCSS. This is absolutely unfair for social service organizations in Hong Kong. Therefore, I will explain further about the issue and will be putting forward amendments at the Committee stage later.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Peggy LAM.

MRS PEGGY LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, as Members of the Provisional Legislative Council (PLC), one of our duties is to make laws for the election of mMembers ofor the first Legislative Council. We are called Members of the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC because we act as a bridge between the old Legislative Council and the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR).

The election of the first Legislative Council of the SAR is very important to the SAR. Only if we have good electoral arrangements can we convince pessimists or western countries which have been doubtful about our ability to achieve "'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy"' that Hong Kong people can really master their own fate and do well in the administration of Hong Kong.

Today, Honourable colleagues are discussing the electoral laws about the first Legislative Council and various amendments that have been put forward. Some of the amendments will be discussed today while some have been ruled beyond the ambit of the Bill by you, Madam President. Some of the amendments may be tabled, while some may not. Some of them may be adopted and some may not. However,But I trust that everyonebody of us here does shares the same objective: to perfect the election for the first Legislative Council.

One good thing about Hong Kong is that everybody can hold different views. Through discussions, we can seek common ground on major issues while reserving differences on minor ones. Tabled before us are different amendments, but I do believe that Honourable ccolleagues have just one goal: to arrive at an electoral package which he or she thinks is in the best interest of Hong Kong.

Recently, we have espoused different opinions on the Bill. Everybody seems to be nervous. A number of colleagues have put forward amendments which, to them, are the best for Hong Kong, and hoped that they can be passed. However,But we must understand that one either wins or loses in a vote. The important thing is that we should observe the rules of the game and ensure that the Bill which finally passes can best cater tfor the interest of the whole of Hong Kong as a whole. This is the attitude I hold when I vote today and I believe this should also be the attitude the general public should hold towards the Bill.

Talking about the Bill itself, I think there are three main principles which must be upheld. The first one is Hong Kong people should decide for themselves the specific method for the election of the first Legislative Council. The second one is that the method of election must comply with the requirements of the Basic Law and the decision of the Preparatory Committee. The last one is the system of election must be fair.

That Hong Kong people make their own decisions is as sure as sunrise. What we should do is to consider how we can best show this fact clearly to the Hong Kong people and all those who are concerned about the future of Hong Kong.

Often, wWe often hear some people say the election is going to be rigged by the Chinese Government behind the scenes or that there is influence by foreign powers. While such unnecessary worries are understandable, they are indeed untenable.

If, as some critics have suggested, the Provisional Legislative Council PLC was a rubber stamp for the Beijing Government, or a convoy for the SAR Government, then there would not have been so many amendments, lively discussions or even heated debates. Now, we rely on nothing but our identity as a member of the Hong Kong community and our determination to do well in our job as Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC Members. With regrets, are might not have done enough in promoting our image for we are too absorbed in practical work.

As regards the requirement for electoral laws to comply with the Basic Law and the decision of the Preparatory Committee, it is easy to understand. The Basic Law is the overriding constitution of the Hong Kong SAR and the Preparatory Committee operates on the Decision of the National People's Congress on the Method of Formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. So, both the Basic Law and the Preparatory Committee have their own proper legal status. Legislative matters in Hong Kong should not go beyond the limits defined by them. This does not mean to say that we are abandoning the '"high degree of autonomy",' which in fact should be bounded by certain limits. Otherwise, Hong Kong will become in effect an independent state or will act in contravention of the Basic Law. This is not in the interest of Hong Kong. I do not believe any member of the Hong Kong community will expect us to come up with any resolution which is in breach of the Basic Law.

Lastly, the election must be fair. This is of utmost importance. Only do when we have a fair election can the elected Members gain acceptance from the people of Hong Kong people. If the electoral laws we make today gave preference to some people, or, for that matter, operated against some others, they would not be adopted.

However, I daresay say I cannot see any unfairness in the original Bill or the various amendments put forward by Members. Perhaps some amendments give people the wrong impression that they would work for the benefit of the originators, but I think this is a misconception. Even suggestions by the Government can be assumed to a certain extent to have been made out of some ulterior motives. Conspiracy theories are always the best attractions for the media but are not necessarily true. Indeed everyone, Members included, has his or her own value systems or value judgements. Differences in opinions and viewpoints are allowed so long as everybody is making amendments according to their conscience. If all of us can reach unanimous decisions, conspiracy theorists would then say there is '"rigging"' or under-the-table deals. I do not think we need to satisfy such curiosities on theories of conspiracy or suspicion.

Madam President, I think the best proof is in the hard work and performance of Honourable colleagues: proof that we are acting in good faith and in the best interest of Hong Kong, proof that we can proclaim to the world Hong Kong can really achieve "'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy"'.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Wong-fat.

MR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese) : Madam President, according to the decisions made by the Preparatory Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), one of the tasks of the Provisional Legislative Council (PLC) is to enact indispensable laws necessary to ensure the establishment and proper functioning of the SAR. The enactment of legislation for the formation and election of the first Legislative Council is of course a very important task. In this regard of this, after serious consideration, the Preparatory Committee has decided on the formation method of the first Legislative Council this May according to the Basic Law and the stipulations of the National People's Congress. Under Article 11 of this decision, it is clearly stated that, "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall introduce legislation with respect to the election of the first Legislative Council in accordance with the method stipulated above."

Without doubts, the decision of the Preparatory Committee does have legal effect and is also binding on our executive and legislative bodies. In other words, the legislation enacted by the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC on the formation method of the first Legislation Council should not be in contravention of the decision of the Preparatory Committee. After the Administration has put forward this Legislative Council Bill, wide consultations have been conducted in the Bills Committee and even various sectors in society. The Preliminary Working Committee (PWC) and the Preparatory Committee have already gone through many of their ideas and proposals.

Madam President, no electoral system is ideal in this world, therefore, it is understandable that different political parties and people from various social sectors have different ideas on the electoral arrangements. Representatives of different political parties and independent Members in the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC have altogether put forward over ten amendments to the Legislative Council Bill. With the exception of several amendments that have been ruled by you, Madam President, as in contravention of the decision of the Preparatory Committee, such that they and are beingtherefore barred from being tableding for scrutiny, the remaining amendments in certain aspects or to some extent have got support. However, these amendments are still very controversial and unjustified from other perspectives.

To be fair, the Bill put forward by the SAR Government, together with the dozens of pages of amendments it later prepared, is in fact in compliance with the requirements of the Basic Law and the Peparatory Committee's decision on the formation method of the first Legislative Council. As I have just mentioned, there would never be an ideal electoral system, the electoral package proposed by the Government still has room for improvement. However, exceptunless the amendments concerned are very crucial and indispensable, otherwise, we can leave them for further discussions since there is no need to include such amendments into the electoral arrangements for the first Legislative Council election in hasteso hastily.

Madam President, after the reunificationturn of Hong Kong towith China, we have to implement the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and " with a high degree of autonomy". The election of the first Legislative Council can be regarded indeed as another landmark in the development of our political system. A steady pace and a more pragmatic approach in the beginning will be more suitable and beneficial to the operation of the SAR Government. Furthermore, the term of office of the first Legislative Council is only two years, in other words, soon after the formation of the first Legislative Council, we have to prepare for the provisions governing the formation and the electoral arrangements of the second Legislative Council. I feel that many of the proposed amendments at present in fact could have been left forto the first Legislative Council, so that it could have more time for scrutiny. Also, the SAR Government by then has been in place for quite some time. I believe that the social condition at that time will provide a clearer basis for the Legislative Council to make more rational decisions on the problems concerned.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.

MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President., Today, on behalf of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS), the Hong Kong Social Workers Association Limited, the Hong Kong Social Workers' General Union and all social workers and social work organizations in Hong Kong, I express the unanimous view of the entire social welfare sector in categorically opposing the amendment put forward by the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), through the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam, to(representing the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, (DAB) the qualification of voters for the social welfare functional constituency as defined in the Legislative Council Bill.

Developments in the social welfare functional constituency shows that in the 1985 Legislative Council election there were only '"corporate votes"', and in the 1995 incarnation there were '"six votes for one corporate member plus one-person one-vote for social workers"'. The election of the first Legislative Council of the SAR next year will see '"one vote for one corporate member plus one-person one-vote for registered social workers"'. Therefore one can see the social welfare functional constituency has been moving towards professionalism and democratization.

Since 1985, both the Government and the social welfare sector have agreed that voters in the social welfare functional constituency be defined as corporate members of the HKCSS. The Administration has never mentioned that other non-profit making organizations should be added to the social welfare functional constituency.

In addition, since the enactment of the Social Workers Registration Ordinance by the former Legislative Council, social workers can become voters in the social welfare functional constituency through registration as professional social workers. The role played by social welfare organizations is gradually replaced by registered professional social workers so that the election of Legislative Council Members in this functional constituency will develop towards being conducted on a "one-person one-vote" basis by all registered social workers.

Madam President, the DAB indicated that if their amendment was passed, the number of organizations in the social welfare functional constituency will only be increased by several hundred and so it would not constitute any impact on us. However,But all along the DAB has been reluctant to tell disclose the actual number and names of such organizations. Thus they have been trying to confuse the public and give Members and as well as outsiders the impression that their amendment has only little effect on the social welfare functional constituency.

What I can gather from the police and the Inland Revenue Department shows there are some 3 800 exempted societies within the meaning of the Societies Ordinance and there are over 2 700 charitable bodies exempted under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Just theseTherefore, the two groups alone add up to some 6 000.

So, the DAB amendment will result in at least several thousand more bodies and corporates being added to the social welfare functional constituency. This willnot only causes not only a great impact to the professionalism of the social welfare functional constituency, but will also dilutes the representativeness in that constituency. This is a great leap backward in the development of the constituency.

When we refer to the decision of the Preparatory Committee, the qualification of voters in the 21 old functional constituencies should follow the definition in the 1991 election. It has been reported that our Honourable ccolleagues, Mr TSANG Yok-sing and Mr TAM Yiu-chung in this Chamber, were present at that particular meeting. However, they failed to mention that the various groups referred to in the present amendment should be added to the social welfare functional constituency. So, we can say that the present amendment put forward by the DAB is inconsistent with the decision of the Preparatory Committee. Indeed, Mr Michael SUEN, Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, indicated to us earlier that the Government would be opposing Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment for the same reasons.

Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity today to point out to Honourable ccolleagues that the social welfare sector opposes Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment not out of discrimination against exempted groups organizations set up for religious, charitable, social or recreational purposes or organizations such as rural committees or charitable companies. I repeat: it is never our intention to discriminate against them.

These groups and bodies should have been grouped under the nineth constituency in the "'nine new constituencies"' in the last gGovernor, Chris PATTEN's reform package;, that is, the Community, Social and Personal Services functional constituency, which the DAB was against in the past. But now the DAB forces such '"social service'" organizations on the social welfare sector and regard the act as a "'reinstatement of the reasonable electoral interests of such groups"'. This is unfair to the social welfare sector.

In fact, the DAB and a group called the Joint Forum of social welfare Organizations Fighting for Electors' Eligibility in the Legislative Council Election' admitted in public they were putting forward the relevant amendment because at a meeting on the 23 May of the Preparatory Committee, a resolution was made on the Specific Method for the Formation of the First Legislative Council, narrowing the third sector of the Election Committee from '"social service"' to '"social welfare"', resulting in non-profit making bodies or corporates such as those set up for charitable, recreational or rural matters, or regional service group such as kaifong welfare associations which could have participated in the Election Committee losing their eligibility. The amendment was meant to put such bodies into the social welfare functional constituency and '"reinstate'" their right to elect 40 electors in the third sector in the Election Committee.

Madam President, the DAB has adapted the objectives of the HKCSS but evaded the direct social welfare service membership requirement of the HKCSS. This is "'making advances"' of the social welfare functional constituency. However,But in public they never said that the act was politically motivated. This is hardly convincing.

In fact, the social welfare sector did request the Preparatory Committee to group the sector into the second sector of the Election Committee, which is more professional, rather than the third one, which belongs to the grassroots;. Bbut the Preparatory Committee insisted on their classification arrangement,. andThat led to this debate, quite to the detriment of the social welfare sector.

Madam President, what the social welfare sector perseveres with is what is found in the definition and principles of '"social welfare'" services. The Government has a very clear definition on '"social services'", which is enshrined in the seven policy programmes of the social welfare Department under the Health and Welfare Bureau: services for the family and child care, social security, services for the elderly and medical social services, rehabilitation service, services for discharged prisoners, community development, and youth services. Existing member agencies and registered social workers have formed an electorate base. They follow clear rules in terms of organization structure, objectives and modus operandi. They are widely recognized by the public, and best able to understand the sentiments of the profession and can truly represent the social welfare sector.

Furthermore, I want to point out the numerous loopholes in the amendment of the DAB. To introduce the objectives of the HKCSS is just to provide a conceptual description. Compared with the definition of voter qualification for other functional constituencies, the amendment has a vague definition without well-defined coverage. And tThe Government has admitted that under the existing mechanism, there is nobody in the constitutional structure who has the right to adjudicate on the eligibility of the organization referred to in the amendment. It is therefore technically impracticable.

As I mentioned earlier, the DAB amendment has evaded the membership requirement of the HKCSS, which is the requirement that a member must be one which '"directly provides social welfare service"'. As such, the amendment distorts in real terms the concept of what constitutes the '"social welfare'" sector. All these show that the DAB lacks understanding and respect for the social welfare sector.

For the above reasons, I urge Honourable ccolleagues in this Council to oppose Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment to the voter qualification for the social welfare functional constituency.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Wing-chan.

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, it ishas nearly been three months since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). and aA lot of the work has been put on the right track. Now we are scrutinizing the Legislative Council Bill to make the necessary laws for the election of the first Legislative Council for the SAR next year, that is 1998, as well as forand elections thereafter.

As time is running short, the Provisional Legislative Council(PLC) hurried to complete the scrutiny of the Bill. Members worked from nine to five on a four-session-a-day schedule and worked over-time before finally succeeding in tabling the Bill at today's meeting.

Given the limited time and space, the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC had to work doubly much harder to scrutinize some of the laws, for example, the amendment Bills relating to the Provisional Urban Council, the Provisional Regional Council and the Provisional District Boards. The Assistant Secretary General, Miss Pauline NG, now sitting next to the President knows only too well. The three organizationinstitutions above can now operate normally under the amended laws. Madam President, this is most encouraging.

Madam President, talking about the present Bill, Mr Michael SUEN, Secreatry for Constitutional Affairs, pointed out to the Bills Committee he hoped that Members, who know the Bill very well, could pass the Bill quickly as time was running out.

In the course of scrutiny, members of the Bills Committee noticed and pointed out a number of areas in the Bill that required amendment. For instance, in addition to those amendments put forward by the Government, there were 14 other amendments from Members today, making the discussion a lively one. Madam President, among the many amendments is one by Mr CHAN Kam-lam. It seeks to include qualified organizationinstitutions which have been serving the people of Hong Kong people for a long time in the relevant constituencies although such organizationinstitutions were not covered in the Bill. I hope the organizationinstitutions could enjoy the right to "'one-organizationinstitution, one-vote'", in line with the principle of balanced participation and fairness. I cannot understand why the amendment has met with such a strong reaction. I have heard comments which are unfair to Mr CHAN Kam-lam.

Another point, which is rather interesting, is that the Bill puts the Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited as a voter under the "wholesale and retail" functional constituency rather than "sports, performing arts, culture and publication", which is related to the performimg arts. If we say that theatres are doing retail services because they sell tickets to viewers and so the above association is treated as a voter under the "wholesale and retail" constituency, then it is a joke. We must rectify the '"mismatch'".

I wish to make one further point. In the list of 15 new functional constituencies recommended by the Preparatory Committee, there is a hotels and catering sector. However,But in the present Legislative Council Bill, that sector is not among the newly added functional constituencies. Thus, the sector as a functional constituency was first included and then excluded. This is regrettable!

The hotels and catering industry can be considered a big industry in Hong Kong, with over 200 000 employees, out-numbering the Civil Service. Furthermore, every day the industry comes into contact with tourists and Hong Kong people, directly serving them over one million times. How can an industry with wide contact and profound influence has not been given the same status as the above constituencies? Thus I must express profound disappointment on behalf of the hotels and catering industry!

The Government, however, gives the hotels and catering industry a '"consolation prize'". Among the 800 members of the Election Committee, there are 11 from the catering industry, but this is just a small number out of proportion to the huge size of the hotels and catering industry. Well, at least this is "'better than nothing"'.

On a A more encouraging note, is that the Bill has complied with the requirements of the Basic Law and the instructions contained in the resolution of the Preparatory Committee in realizing the principle of '"one country, two systems"' and making Hong Kong's own laws. On behalf of the Federation of Trade Unions, I express my support for the Bill.

Madam President, when he explained the Bill to the media, Mr Michael SUEN said he hoped in 1998 the turn-out rate of the first Legislative Council election could be raised and that the registration of voters would achieve 100%.

Whether the Secretary SUEN can achieve what he said depends on his "'capability"'.

At any rate, I support the Secretary's objective of 100% registration for voters to raise the turn-out rate of the first Legislative Council.

I recall in the voter registration for the last Legislative Council election in 1995, the Administration sent out some small gifts for those voters who registered to enhance registration.

I do not approve of the gimmick of sending out gifts. I think the Administration should promote by using strategies employed in promoting civic education. People should be told voting is a civil responsibility or voting is a way of '"participating in the building of Hong Kong"', in order to enhance their sense of civic responsibility, thus the turn-out rate. More importantly, the Government should strive to raise the turn-out rate of the first Legislative Council.

With these remarks, I support the Bill. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have had six years of experience holding office as a Member of the Legislative Council. I am also a mMember of the first Provisional Legislative Council (PLC) this year. Today, this is the secondsecond time I take part in a meeting to discuss the Bill relating to election. I can recall the last discussion was held on 29 June 1994. From video recordings, one can see how very hard the last group of people in power tried to to use all means, combining threats with inducements, to gain just one vote. This is another example of unscrupulous behaviour. Today is my secondsecond time to take part in such a kind of debate. A number of media say there are people who act out of personal interests and objectives. This view, is I think, is a bit subjective. We must understand that whoever is in power has the power to do what they like at different times. As suchTherefore, despite of the fact that Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung was speaking as if he was representative enough, he, nevertheless, said he needed to ask the profession for their opinions. That is to say means he needsed to consider the interests of the profession because, in future, he will need to obtain votes from the profession he is representing. Hence, he is not as aloof from politics and material pursuits as he claims himself to be.

Today, I support the spirit of the Basic Law in principle. But there is a guideline given to us by the Preparatory Committee, as a result of the emergence of the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC, although I am not totally agreeable to the Preparatory Committee giving us restrictions. I agree we should support whatever is in line with the Basic Law, but this does not mean the Preparatory Committee should be doing our job. We are here in this Chamber as mMembers of the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC and we should have total full autonomy.

An official of the SAR Government has already held an attitude before this meeting. He said if the numerous amendments were adopted, the Government would amend the amendments. I hope this attitude is just his personal attitude uttered out of a slip of the tongue; otherwise it would be misleading as far as our views and political wisedom are concerned, at a time when people outside are minded to bad-mouth the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC.

Madam President, can everybody be fair? I do not think there is such a thing as fairness be it related to legislation, discussion, debate, the former Legislative Council, the present Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC or the Legislative Council in future. Nothing is entirely fair. Power we have but not fairness. Why? I could recall when we passed the ordinance relating to Wong Wai Tsak Tong in Cheung Chau, there was a consensus. However,But we can see now in a certain street in Causeway Bay, someone with the surname LI still has certain privileges. Why did we not make a fair deal towards the privileges of other people. From this trivial case, we can see there is no such thing as fairness. Now we are here discussing the issue of election for the future or the electoral laws for the first Legislative Council. I do hope people with political party affiliations or individuals are not worried about allegations that they are being selfish. They should exercise their own representativeness, in addition to using their political wisedom in formulating laws for the first Legislative Council of Hong Kong in future.

Madam President, I very much hope today that at least one out of the six amendments could pass. Everybody is saying that the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC is a rubber stamp. Although there should be no threats combined with inducements in any form today, there are still pressure and lobbying. In lobbying, would there be any political exchanges or exchanges of interests of any sort? I am not sure. We saw on TV some leading Members saying that there were exchanges before. But are there any now? I cannot tell. In the circumstances, if one out of the six amendments is adopted today, then we can tell everyone in Hong Kong without reservation that the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC is not a rubber stamp. The people of Hong Kong people can judge us with their wisedom and make their own assessments. They will be able to decide what we are.

Of course, Madam President, I myself and other Members already have our own decisions now as mMembers of the Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC or mMembers of the former Legislative Council. Some say they will remain steadfast in their stand. Therefore, despite the amendments by Members or political parties or lobbying from the Government, everyone has a good idea of what decision to make. As such, I hope everybody will be brief in the debate about the various amendments or their oppositions. Most Members are already '"stubborn enough"'. So, it is better to put everything to vote quickly. Even if one tries very hard to convince others, the result would not be good enough. Naturally, the President may doubt whether I should use the phrase "stubborn enough", but I did not mean to insult anyone: I only want to tell people my attitude.

I do not think the Government should worry too much about the electoral laws for the first Legislative Council. We do understand the Bill was prepared in a very short time. I too want to take the opportunity to point out that members in the Bills Committee have indeed worked very hard. Former Members of the former Legislative Councillors (some are in attendance here) and others should have good reasons to praise the present Provisional Legislative CouncilPLC Members, who may not be able to please everyone but at least they have done their best. Therefore, the Government should not be too obsessed about the results. The most important thing is: if the first Legislative Council has not done perfectly in everything, let us hope the secondsecond can improve so that they can better meet the demands of everyone.

I think the Government should try its best to promote election methods for the future. After today's amendments, one should not hold the attitude that further amendments must be made. What the Government should do is to try its best to explain to the people of Hong Kong people, to the voters, their rightful responsibilities. The Government should do its best to popularizepromote the election so that it can obtain everyone's support. Of course, we also want the media to agree to the results of the elections. The results may favour certain people but we have to be fair and we must not say those who put forward amendments will be benefited, whether they are passed or not, as such mentality is harmful to the political wisedom or affiliation of the people of Hong Kong people.

Madam President, I hope that after the Second Reading debate, everyone can spend the least amount of time in studying details in order to save time. I of course have made my own decision already.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, today we need to debate about the electoral arrangements of for the first Legislative Council mainly because back in 1995 there could not be a through-train for the then elected mMembers of the Legislative Council back in 1995 then elected. The failure to obtain a through-train can be due to a number of reasons. Personally, I think as a man in the street in Hong Kong, it is difficult for me to tell, for example, who was right or who was wrong in the bickering between China and Britain, or what problem there was in diplomatic relations between the two countires. However, But what I can obviously see is that the 1995 Legislative Council election results might lead to a breach of Article 67 of the Basic Law because there was no provision then, in the light of the Article, to restrict the proportion of members in the legislature having the right of abode in foreign countries to 20% percent, that is 12. After the 1995 election, many newspapers reported or even named cited names saying and claimed that there were at least 16 elected mMembers who possessed a right of abode in foreign countries or foreign passports. ViewingLooked at from this angle, the 1995 Legislative Council election was a direct election and hence might be inconsistent with Article 67 of the Basic Law. Because of this, I agree that there should not be any through-train for the Members of the former Legislative Councillors elected in 1995. Without a through-train, how can we deal with the situation? In accordance with the requirements of the Basic Law, the 60 seats in the Hong Kong Legislative Council should ultimately be elected by universal suffrage. Even the Chief Executive should in future be elected by universal suffrage through a one-person, one-vote system. If this is the ultimate aim, the 1991 Legislative Council election should aim at having 60 seats of the future Legislative Council elected by universal suffrage through a one-person, one-vote system. In other words, every election should be more democratic, fairer and more open than the last one rather than less so.

In the 1995 elections, there were three election methods: geographical election, functional constituency election and Election Committee election. If anyone should say any of them are inconsistent with the Basic Law, I dare him or her stand forth and point out to me the inconsistent part; otherwise I would take the methods as acceptable. There are of course arguments about concerning these election methods. The Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL) is not entirely for in support of the three methods of election, especially the one for the nine new functional constituencies, and we have already made known our views Aat thate time., we made known our views However, But if it cannot be explained why or how the said methods are inconsistent with the Basic Law, I think the 1995 elections were a step or even a big step forward, compared with the 1991 elections. Now in our discussion of the 1998 elections, are we going to go one step further, stay where we are, or go one step back? I think at the Second Reading debate, we need to discuss the principle, the direction or the direction of development for the entire electoral system.

Madam President, this is my own analysis on the issue: In the present proposal, the Government has offered three election methods. The first one is geographical elections, formerly the single-seat, single-vote system, and have since been converted to proportional representation. I will analyze this with respect to the relevant provisions in detail. That means I will compare the single-seat, single-vote system and proportional representation in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. Nevertheless, I must point out that, in principle, both systems have different political effects. From the point of view of democracy I cannot say which of the two systems is not democratic or which one of them is more democratic than the other. The reason is that in modern western or democratic countries, both systems have been used to change national leaders. Any democratic election method is meant to achieve certain political effects and the said systems indeed result in different political effects.

The political effect of the single-seat, single-vote system is that it can easily give rise in the Council to a party holding a vast majority or a simple majority or power because the entire number of seats could be gained by a single party upon getting the majority of the votes in an election. However,But in Hong Kong this will not happen in Hong Kong as only one third of the seats, which is 20 seats, are returned from the single-seat, single-vote system. So, even if a party gets the simple majority or even all of the 20 seats, it is only a party with a simple majority in the legislature, not a ruling party. It is only a party that has got through direct elections, a majority or even all of the seats. Hence the single-seat, single-vote system will not give rise to the political situation in Britain, the United States or Canada, in which a party holds the simple majority in the legislature. In other words the political effect of the single-seat, single-vote system is to enable some political parties to obtain more seats as a return for the support they obtain from the vast number of people. At presentthis day, I think this is a suitable method because we need to develop a parliamentary system before we have a party with a vast majority or a ruling party; and a parliamentary system is inseparable from political parties. We need to let those interested in political affairs obtain more returns with support from the people, in order to encourage more people to take part in political work. I think the reward one gets from political work is less than that one gets from being a civil servant, a businessman or a professional. The lack of return as encouragement in the political system would be a disincentive to people taking part in politics.

The political effect of proportional representation is it allows people holding different opinions to be elected so that political parties with different opinions may voice their opinions in the legislature. That means there is pluralization in the legislature. However,But another political effect is that the legislature would be badly split, lacking. a leading party to effectively monitor the Government. In other words, from the viewpoint of direct election, I anticipate proportional representation will result in the 20 seats of the legislature being shared by six or seven political parties. Seats in the future legislature would be shared by a number of political parties. The greater the number of political parties the more likely it will be for them to be lobbied by the executive. As Mr CHIM Pui-chung has put it, they would easily come under pressure or even threats. If we did not pass the laws proposed by the executive, the Secretary SUEN would use numerous "'secret weapons"' against us.

Using proportional representation to elect 20 members in the legislature will undermine the legislature's ability in monitoring the Government. It will also deprive the legislature of its power to check the executive. In the present election, the kind of proportional representation used is different from that used in western countires in another aspect. and Tthat is, it usually needs a considerable number of seats in a constituency before we can achieve the effect of plurality in proportional representation in which a number of political parties are included. Without such a number, the intention of proportional representation cannot be realized. For instance, if there are only three3 toor four4 seats, the scenario perceived by the Government will result, that is, big parties would be undermined because votes are counted in accordance with the largest remainder formula. Unlike the case of the single-seat, single-vote system, big parties cannot gain sufficient votes to get elected. The small parties will also be undermined because, given the fact that there are only three or four seats, it will be difficult for them to gain "entry". They may not even have sufficient money to buy tickets. Therefore, if there are only three or four seats, proportional representation will work to the advantage of medium-sized parties, which will almost certainly get at least one seat in every one of the constituencies. With five or six electoral constituencies, they will get five or six seats. The above are my analysis from a political viewpoint on the effect of proportional representation in geographical constituency elections.

Next, I want to analyse functional constituencies. In the last two elections, functional constituencies underwent two changes. The first one took place in the 1991 elections. In general, elections for functional constituencies are based on associations and professonals. Elections are based on one-association, one-vote for associations; and one-person, one-vote for professionals. Societies also get one vote for each society. A comparatively big change took place in 1995, which was: the one-association, one-vote or one-unit, one-vote system changed to one-association, six-votes, but no change for professionals. However, new seats were added through the nine new functional constituencies. The so-called nine new functional constituencies in fact were meant to elect Legislative Council Members according to their professions to represent the interests of the professions. The HKADPL does not agree to this arrangement but it is not inconsistent with the Basic Law. We are just against the arrangement. The HKADPL thinks that if we would like to see more people take part in the elections and if we want to go one step further in democracy, we at the time proposed that for companies, directors should vote; for professionals, individuals should be given one vote each as usual; and for associations, members should vote. In other words, all relevant persons within the definitions provided for the various functional constituencies should have a chance to vote. In this way, we think we would have gone one step further from the 1991 elections without acting against the definition of the functional constituencies. According to the definitions given by the HKADPL, functional constituency elections could invovle 1 200 000 people. How about the present proposal? The proposal in fact returns to the method of elections for functional constituencies in 1991. That method has two major problems which cannot be solved, and I pointed them out in the 1995 debate. Firstly, the number of voters abruptly dropped or remained at the 1991 level. The smaller the number of electors in the functional constituency elections the easier it will be for people who can mobilize voters, have connection or please everybody to get elected. Secondly, the method of one-vote, one-company or one-vote, one-association can easily be rigged, leading to some people having a number of votes. In 1992, the HKADPL conducted a research on the functional constituency elections and found out that one boss had 23 votes for more than 50% of the shares he had in some companies. He could decide who went to vote and whose votes he wanted. If functional constituency elections reverted to the position in 1991, I think there could be some problems.

The Election Committee is basically something of a different nature. I do not intend to make any comments here. In the present election process, we can see three kinds of arguments: arguments between political parties, arguments between functional constituencies, and arguments between the executive and the legislature. It is difficult to imagine there is no interest involved in these arguments. For example, in the process of scrutiny of the provisions concerning the Election Committee some Members said quite directly: "If such and such is the case, then I cannot be a candidate." Or some said: "If such is the case we would stand a good chance of being elected." Or "We would not stand for election if we could not get this through." So, how can we convince people outside this Chamber we are not working for our own benefits? As regards the arguments betwen the executive and the legislature, I recall the Secretary saying that he had some "secret weapons". How does the Secretary treat the Provisional Legislative Council? As a rubber stamp or what? I think he treats the Provisional Legislative Council as his supporter rather than a body which monitors him. This is in total conflict with the normal relation between the executive and the legislature. How are we going to deal with this? I think there are several ways. In direct elections we have an Electoral Affairs Commission to define the boundaries of the geographical constituencies but none for the functional constituencies. Why? Why is there no independent body to define functional constituencies? Why should we allow a group of interested Members to deal out a piece of bread and let others start a fierce fight for it? This is sadism. The argument today can come down to two possible outcomes: some provisions with personal interests may be passed or they may not. I think either outcome can bring different benefits. If they are not passed, personal interests will not be gained inappropriately. If they are, at least the outcome succeeds in telling us how vulnerable functional constituency elections are. I hope those who take part in politics and the general public can try their best to pressurize the Chief Executive to amend the Basic Law so that by next year functional constituency elections can be dispensed with as they are only good for personal gains.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam President, several colleagues today have commented on the importance of the Bill before the Council today and the importance indeed of today. I suspect that the work of the Provisional Legislative Council today may well be the single most important day in our short life span. But let me say that in terms of the work we have done on the Bill today, I think one point has been overlooked, that is, we have in fact used quite a lot of the existing or former building blocks, if I could put it that way, on our previous electoral laws. The Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance, as it is now known, shows that, and likewise, many of the terms that are familiar to us find itself in the Bill today.

Of course we also have to cater to and observe the Basic Law as well as the decision of the Preparatory Committee that was made on 23 May this year. As we all know, that decision left many matters to our government. That decision again was confirmed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in July of this year. But I think, above all, this Council must really be the custodian and guardian of public confidence and expectation as to what sort of election we want for ourselves in future, and this underlines the heavy burden and the duty that rest on this Council today. That duty commences, in my view, with the work of the Bills Committee that led to over 60 pages of amendments by the Administration.

The work broadly took four different stages, if I could put it that way. The first was for us to understand the Bill. The second was really receiving and discussing opinion that was given to us by members of the public or by interested bodies and by representations put forward to the Bills Committee. The third was really discussing views and proposals put forward by these representations and indeed by Members. But throughout the entire procedure, the fourth, in my view, the most rewarding and most difficult was Members' probing, pushing, testing the views of the Administration, expecting reasonable answers, explanations, as to why a certain clause or a particular policy was said in the way it was.

I suspect that the Administration probably believed initially that it would have been plain sailing that we would literally be a rubber stamp and allow the Bill to go through without any effort, without any amendment, and indeed without any hard lobbying by the Administration. Well, wake up, Government, I hope that the past several weeks have shown that this Council does not work that way. That having been said, Madam President, all was well until we got down to sectoral or party political interest. It was then that some of us, for whatever reason, be it self-interest, be it the most laudable motive, we stumbled. Yes, we did.0 We stumbled because the community felt that the all consuming considerations of this Council was self-interest, and not fair and open election.

Fair and open election, in my view, is the single most important consideration and must indeed be our sole objective today, Madam President. This war is, and will always be, the Liberal Party's unshakable belief and I would like to think that we are not the only political party to have that belief. But as I have said before, words are not enough because people will judge us by our deeds and our deed today is the passing of the Legislative Council Bill.

I would like now to deal with several points in the Bill. The Preparatory Committee wisely, in my view, left many decisions to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and some of the more important issues were, for instance, the choice of the nine new functional constituencies, the size of our geographical constituencies and the method of voting, the nationality problem, namely, the 20% foreign nationals or those with a right of abode, to be members of this and indeed future Councils, and the formation of the Election Committee and the voting method.

I would like to talk a little bit about the nationality issue because this is always interested me as difficult and one of the almost impossible to have a fair solution, and there are several amendments that Members have put forward on this, ranging from my friend, Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung's drawing of lots to the Honourable Bruce LIU's "6-5-1" formula and the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi's "2-4-6" formula. But all I can say, having thought about it and thought about it very deeply, is that it actually does not work unless you are dealing with a single seat constituency. Why is that?

You take a look at Mr Bruce LIU's example. You allow one foreign national to be elected out of each of the five geographical constituencies and they allow one name in each of the nomination list. Let us just say that two of the first choice of any list happen to hold foreign passports or right of abode, and let us say that those two lists get the most votes. Only the first one will be elected, the second one ─ the second highest vote ─ in that constituency will not be elected. Do we really want this system that produces a Member of this Council who is the third person or the fourth, or indeed the fifth or the sixth? Clearly not.

The Election Committee is even worse. Mr Bruce LIU allows one Member to have a foreign passport. What happens if the first 10 who are elected by the Election Committee, all have foreign passports? So who are elected? Number one and then number 11 to 19. That cannot be right either. So doing the best of a difficult job, I think the only way really was to nominate 12 functional constituencies where the likelihood of candidates or members of that constituency holding either foreign passports or right of abode elsewhere would arise, and this is where, frankly, I confess, I am a little bit confused why my former and possibly future constituency, the real estate and construction industry was given one of the 12 seats, if I could put it that way, as opposed to my friend the Honourable Edward HO there where professionals are more likely to have foreign passports or right of abode. But be that as it may, that is what has come out.

Dr LEONG Che-hung has also criticized the Administration for threatening to propose amendments if amendments that are unacceptable to the Administration were passed today. The Liberal Party of course agree that such a course of action will be highly questionable and it is not to be encouraged. But what does one do if we are convinced that a particular amendment or amendments have basically hijacked, yes, I use the word "hijacked", the principle of fair and open elections. We, as Members, can vote against it. The Administration has no choice. They have no vote. So therefore if we look at the amendments today, there are one or two that concern us and it is our view that the amendments to the social welfare Functional Constituency, to the change of composition in the second and third sectors of the Election Committee proposed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong through poor old the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam, I sympathize with him. If that is passed, Madam President, I believe and the Liberal Party believes that we will be compromising the principle of fair and open elections. If those two amendments are passed today, the Liberal Party will vote against the Bill at its Third Reading.

In conclusion, I am sure Members would like to reflect on today and when they look back in future, to think of it as a day with pride and a sense of achievement, not, Madam President, as a day of unholy alliances producing a law that wholly compromises fair and open elections.

With these remarks, Madam President, the Liberal Party will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI has just referred to Mr CHAN Kam-lam as the poor man who has to move the amendment on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB). Indeed, some Honourable colleagues in this Council and some organizations in society have been attacking the DAB. Some of these criticisms have already been covered by Mr HUI Yin-fat in his speech.

We are very sorry that you, Madam President, also have to face criticisms for allowing us to put forward this amendment. I do not know whether I should feel comforted or find it regrettable because I note that not only the poor Mr CHAN Kam-lam has been attacked and criticized, but other Members who have proposed amendments are also criticized as purely working for their personal interests. It seems that all those criticisms are not substantiated, no matter what the contents of the amendments are, the purposes of which are for "vote planting", "making use of somebody" and "grabbing seats".

In considering other Members' amendments, the DAB will not speculate on their motives behind. The DAB Members in this Council also will not attack the motives behind any amendments. Rightly as some Honourable colleagues have said just now, our common goal is to endorse a piece of legislation for regulating the election of the first Legislative Council next year. This is a very important piece of legislation to ensure that we have a fair and open election. We should give our support to all amendments, be they by the Government or by Members, as long as they meet this standard. We will raise our objections if we think that the amendments are in contravention of this standard.

I also believe that other colleagues in this Council will not consider Members' amendments simply for their own interests. It is very unfair to say that all colleagues of this Council will fight against each other for a piece of bread. I believe the following debate and voting results will demonstrate this lofty objective to the public. I therefore have no intention to defend the motives of the DAB against those criticisms. In regard of Mr HUI Yin-fat's criticisms, we will review our action to see if we have made any mistake; if not, we will take those criticisms as encouragement with appreciation and gratefulness.

However, we feel obliged to account to Honourable colleagues some facts which have come into our knowledge. The discussions and the arguments in society over the last couple of days have reflected a phenomenon which ties in with what we have said in the past, that is, "when one dog barks at a shadow, all the others join in slavishly to echo others". I hasten to clarify that we are not in discrimination of any animals, and using "dogs" in our analogy has no derogatory meaning. However, it is indeed true that the dog first barked because it had seen a shadow, and it is understandable that it would become sensitive on seeing a shadow. However, it seems that the echoes are based on the arguments of those who have made their speeches, and they actually have no idea of what that "shadow" is, or what the objective of "barking" is. The reason is some persons have confused the facts intentionally or unintentionally during this debate. I therefore feel that I am obliged to clarify here. Regarding the logic of the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam, I think he will explain to Members in detail later.

Some criticisms have concluded that the DAB amendment is in contravention of the Preparatory Committee decision because the Preparatory Committee has decided that next year's functional constituency election should reinstate the electorate as in 1991. Mr HUI Yin-fat has also emphasized this point, so much so that he even pointed out that as members of the Preparatory Committee, both Mr TAM Yiu-chung and I did not propose to expand the electorate of the social welfare sector when this issue was discussed in the Preparatory Committee. We of course did not put forward any proposals because the electorate in different constituencies was in fact not on the agenda of the Preparatory Committee. Mr HUI Yin-fat also pointed out that, despite their persistent effort, the Preparatory Committee still insisted on putting the social welfare constituency in the third sector of the Election Committee. According to my information and as far as I can recall, the discussion and the decision of the Preparatory Committee have not stipulated what constituencies should be included in the first, second and third sectors of the Election Committee respectively. If the Preparatory Committee has stipulated what constituencies should be included in each sector, the DAB and Mr CHAN Kam-lam will not have proposed to make any changes to some constituencies.

However, I believe this is not the most important question. The most important thing is whether the 1991 election has stipulated that the electorate of the functional constituencies in the next year's Legislative Council election has to be the same as in 1991. Some Members may uphold this viewpoint, including Mr HUI Yin-fat, but for those who insist on upholding this idea, it seems that they should oppose the idea that registered social workers should vote in the social welfare constituency. As Mr HUI Yin-fat has just pointed out, in the 1991 election, only corporate members under the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) were qualified to vote in the social welfare sector, but not individual registered social workers. The HKCSS was originally composed of two to three hundred registered organizations before it later developed into an organization with 6 000 registered social workers. It can be said that this functional constituency has gone through a major change. Why do we accept such change on one hand but still think that Mr CHAN Kam-lam's proposal is in contravention the decision of the Preparatory Committee on the other if we propose to allow other organizations sharing the same objective, nature and goal as the existing organizations in the constituency to become voters in the constituency? I think that this argument is hardly justified.

Mr HUI Yin-fat also stated that the DAB did not dare to mention the number or the names of the organizations which it intended to add. In fact, this is a genuine difficulty for us. It is not a question of whether we have the courage to do so. The point is we have never had any idea of which organizations should be included in this constituency, then how can the DAB propose a number or a list of organization names? If we have sone so, the public and Mr HUI Yin-fat will then attack us for "vote rigging" and "gerrymandering". We certainly do not have this intention. We are just listing out the standards, so that organizations meeting these standards should join this constituency as voters because they are also eligible for becoming corporate members of the HKCSS. Mr HUI Yin-fat has mentioned that after looking up the relevant information, he discovered that 3 800-odd organizations are exempted from registration and 2 700-odd are registered non-profit-making organizations. Can all these 6 000 or more organizations and companies comply with the objectives of the HKCSS? If they apply to join the HKCSS, will they all be accepted? The constitution of the HKCSS has listed out its objectives, stating that all those organizations which are in compliance with these objectives can apply as members. However, article 13 of the constitution of the HKCSS has also stipulated that the executive committee of the HKCSS has the right to reject applications from any organizations without giving any explanations. In that case, should we allow the executive committee of the HKCSS to decide on the eligibility of an organization as a member of the HKCSS when this qualification can lead to a right to vote in a functional constituency? Would the Government be a more suitable institution to make the decision?

Mr HUI Yin-fat also stated that we have only adapted the objectives of the HKCSS and they are indeed very broad ones. However, I believe that the HKCSS should consider the eligibility of different organizations strictly in accordance with those objectives. Also, Mr HUI Yin-fat pointed out that we have overlooked the fact that the HKCSS requires all its members to provide direct social services. We have looked through the constitution of the HKCSS and it is stipulated that only three types of organizations will be acceptable to the HKCSS, and only the "basic member" are required to provide direct social services. It is especially stated in the constitution that organizations not providing direct social services can also become ordinary members. Article 9 of the constitution sets out that all types of members (including members who do not provide direct social services) can have the right to vote at the General Meeting of the HKCSS. According to the Bill which we are now examining, it is stated that corporate members who have the right to vote at the General Meeting of the HKCSS are included in the social welfare constituency. Therefore, it seems that Mr HUI Yin-fat's assertion that only those organizations which provide direct social services can become members of the HKCSS and hence voters in this constituency is in contravention of the constitution of the HKCSS. Which version is true? Please clarify.

I would like to reiterate that regarding the objective and principle proposed by the DAB and Mr CHAN Kam-lam, some people are of the opinion that the motive behind the DAB is to "grab seats" in the coming election, and we have therefore offended all the social workers in Hong Kong. As such, the gains cannot make up for the losses. This may well be true. If we had set off with only gains and losses in mind, and all our actions were directed to serving our personal interests as what some people has said, then perhaps Mr CHAN Kam-lam should have withdrawn his amendment earlier. However, why should we allow the existence of such phenomenon which is in contravention with the fair and open principle? With two organizations providing the same services and having the same objectives, one possesses the right to vote because it has joined the HKCSS but the other does not just because it has not, can we say that this is a fair arrangement? In order to become a voter in this constituency, one has to join the HKCSS, and whether you are qualified to become a member is dependent upon the decision of its executive committee which is required to provide any explanation. Is this an open practice? I am very much in support of the idea that we should measure each and every of our amendment against the principle of fairness and openness. I believe Honourable colleagues in this Council will propose amendments in accordance with this principle. I do not agree with Mr CHIM Pui-chung that we should not talk too much later because we have already made the decision. I understand that many Members are still willing to sit here to hear some wise arguments before making their decisions. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the Honourable TSANG Yok-sing has referred to the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) quite a number of time just now, I think, as Chairman of the HKCSS, I should make some response, albeit with a little of a hurry.

But before that, I would like to speak a few words on the Bill as a whole first. I agree entirely with what Mr ARCULLI said. How this Council deals with the Bill today may well be a very important decision as it not only reflects our political wisedom and political ethics as members of the Provisional Legislative Council, but will also shape the political situation of Hong Kong in the near future. Are we being fair, or are we going to give people an impression that we are ready to sacrifice virtuous principles for benefits? For us Members, this is a harsh test we need to face. For political parties, this is also an important index with a significant bearing on the credibility of the party. Hence, the votes we cast today will most probably be more important than the votes we cast at any other time. With so many amendments forthcoming, Members would have hard times deciding on the general criteria to be applied and examining carefully the overall situation before proceeding to vote. I am very grateful to Dr LEONG Che-hung for reminding us to consider the matter from an overall perspective. I hope Honourable Members would bear Dr LEONG's words in mind and consider the political situation of Hong Kong as a whole in their deliberations. We must not give people the wrong impression that this Council favours certain political groups or parties.

Because ours is a representative system, it is perfectly right to make requests, especially when the requests are not controversial, in which case we should welcome the requests and accept them. However, if the requests are rather controversial and not acceptable to a certain sector, then in deciding on whether or not we should accept them, we need to consider whether the public will think that we are helping someone to rig the election behind the scene, helping to create inequality in the election, or whether we would make others feel the Council is an arena where political groups struggle against each other. Only if we have a justified explanation will the public regard our decision as being fair and oriented towards the interest of society as a whole.

Of all amendments put forward today, the most controversial one is certainly the one put forward by Mr CHAN Kam-lam, which has been agreed upon by the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB). I think Mr CHAN's recent performance has been very laudable and definitely not pitiful. Nevertheless, since he has tabled an amendment, we should give him a fair and square response.

Mr HUI Yin-fat has spoken at lengths about the feelings of the social welfare sector and I will not repeat them here. He has given a firmly grounded speech. I need only add some points.

Firstly, perhaps I should brief Members on the background to the social welfare functional constituency. Indeed, the social welfare sector favours and hopes to have an "one-man, one-vote" system. For years, we have been fighting for professional status for social workers, just like the educational workers, medical workers and other professionals so that the social workers can be defined as professionals to enjoy "one-man, one-vote". This is one of our most important objectives, especially when social problems are becoming increasingly complicated and it is extremely difficult for social workers to perform their social function without professional training. However, it was not until 1995 that the Social Workers Registration Ordinance was passed. Therefore, in the 1991 election, we accepted that the HKCSS was defined as an intermediate body. In 1995, it was given six votes. As we went into 1997 and when the relevant electoral law was ready, we took the initiative to approach the Government and the Preparatory Committee to include the 6000-odd registered social workers among the list of eligible voters. I hope the Honourable TSANG Yok-sing understands this was an honest act in good faith. The reason is there are only 200-odd votes in an organization and when we add 6000-odd votes that way to the 200-odd votes, the bosses of such organizations are in effect relinquishing their voting rights. We had never said this was unfair. We supported the move of the social workers as we understood the importance of the laws for professionalism. On the other hand, the professional social workers yearned to have one vote for each person, but they had due regard to historical facts. They realized that they and the HKCSS have had a long-term close partnership relationship. The HKCSS did not reject the voting rights of the social workers. It even chose to accommodate them so that both have voting rights now. None of them questions the rights of the other. We hope in future we can eventually have "one-man, one-vote" for all professional social workers. The process is a manifestation of the characteristics of the democraticization process, the mutual understanding and mutual accomodation among volunteers and professional workers in the social welfare functional constituency, and also their political bearing.

Secondly, I must point out that the scope of work and modus operandi in the social welfare or social service sector is clearly defined. In fact, Mr HUI Yin-fat has written articles on this and I do not want to repeat that. Our service organizations mainly provide services within the ambit of the Secretary for Health and Welfare. The majority of our member agencies are subject to the supervision of the Government one way or the other. They not only have good management but also have proven to be responsible agencies in the services they provide. They comply with the objectives of the HKCSS in what they do. Supervision means more than just rights. It means obligations too. So, we must not look at objectives alone. I will speak about this in greater detail later on. In addition to objectives, also printed clearly in our articles are the procedures and requirements for applications for membership. All these are in my view very important and Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment has failed to include them. As one of the societies in a constituency, we have to a certain extent indirectly helped the Government make those groups which want to become our members prove themselves to be well-managed, to have a responsible management team and provide actual services rather than empty talk.

I have a long service record in social or community service. My roots in social service groups is just as deep as those in social welfare organizations. For several generations, my family has been participating in social services. My grandfather was even the founder of the Causeway Bay Kai Fong Welfare Advancement Association. In that district, I am chairman, president or sponsor to many organizations providing services to the grassroots. I have high respect for these organizations. I think these organizations and organizations providing social welfare services should unite and work together with one heart, with the sole purpose of serving the grassroots. There should not be any disputes among them.

As Chairman of the HKCSS, I openly invite the abovementioned organizations to join the HKCSS. Why are there members of the HKCSS which are kai fong associations or organizations not subsidized by the Government? This fact shows that in addition to basic members, we also welcome, on grounds of flexibility and unity in our desire to serve the grassroots, organizations which provide fringe social services. I have been serving the HKCSS for only about a year, which is a rather short period, but I have been a committee member for some time. As far as I can recall, I have not voted down any applications wothout giving reasons. Even if the articles do not require reasons to be given, we often send representatives to visit such organizations to explain why their applications were rejected. We would not make use of the restrictions of the articles to avoid an obvious responsibility to explain. I invite such organizations to contact me.

As a Preparatory Committee member — Mr TSANG is also one — I must state clearly at the outset I clearly understand the quests of these organizations. At the time, to my mind, I thought the decision of the Preparatory Committee was a very rushed one. Why were the voting rights of corporate voters omitted from the third sector? I think it was an oversight of mine. I forgot to make a representation leading to organizations, which are obviously providing services to the grassroots, being excluded, thereby leaving in the sector mainly organizations which provide social services. But this is not what the social services organizations would like to see happen. This was due to my own negligence. So, I am willing to bear the responsibility and make an apology in public. However, in finding a remedy to the situation, I disgree with using any effort to regain their voting rights through unjustified means. I am willing to join hands with the DAB or even to motivate the HKCSS to help these organizations to fight for their legitimate rights in the next election, so that they can represent the interests of the organizations providing services to the grassroots.

Why has the social work sector reacted so strongly? I think the DAB should understand this to a certain extent. The strongest reaction was met at the beginning because the scope of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment was much wider than the present one. His amendment not only includes as voters kai fong associations but also societies insofar as they are religious organizations or organizations that provide community services, irrespective of their objectives, and makes it possible for all qualified members to vote. At the time, we estimated that the number would be in tens or hundreds of thousands in the social welfare functional constituency. On the other hand, social service organizations such as the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals and the Po Leung Kuk, which have a long history of social service, need to have their own votes. Therefore, how can we blame the social workers for dismissing the amendment as being unfair? It is understandable that they had reacted strongly. They have been working very hard to have their professional status recognized. Why should their effort be easily undermined by an amendment? It is thus understandable that they very much regretted the amendment.

I appreciate the later amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam to revert to the "one-organization, one-vote" system. I also appreciate his facing the strong criticism of the social workers last week. However, that does not mean that I approve of his amendment. His amendment, as it is, is too open. I will discuss with Mr CHAN Kam-lam at the Committee stage. The amendment as it stands allows anyone to register for the functional constituency. The Government also understands this is the case when it gets down to enforcement. Mr CHAN's is an open style so that from this moment onwards until election takes place anybody can register. The DAB and other organizations can rig the election by artificially including a number of voters. Although the DAB said it would not go to the social welfare functional constituency, will it publicly give support to a number of "allies" in future to run in the election, if there is such a functional constituency? I think the DAB has tried to remedy the situation rather than remaining unmoved by the loophole, as Mr CHIM Pui-chung said, yet the DAB is still on the wrong track if what it wants is to put things right. To remedy the Preparatory Committee's oversight, the DAB should follow the legitimate way, instead of forcing the left-out part on the social welfare functional constituency without any consultation because this would give people the impression it is being heavily biased, in listening to the voice of its allies but not that of the other groups in the functional constituency.

In defining the electorate, the Preparatory Committee clearly states that the present functional constituencies are working well as they have gained general acceptance by the community. So, seats for the original 21 functional constituencies should remain. But the formerly nine new functional constituencies have caused confusion to the definition of voters because they are equivalent to direct elections by trade and is in contradiction with the original intent of functional constituency elections and should therefore be eliminated and then re-established. The present amendment proposed by the DAB gives rise to exactly the same kind of confusion and creates difficulties in enforcement. Confusion among voters will arise. If the DAB wants to make further amendments, I think it should go along the lines of "one-man, one-vote" so that social workers are clear about their professional status. If the DAB thinks my proposal is not fair enough, I am willing to ask colleagues in the HKCSS to give up "one-association, one-vote" ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI, time is up.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): ...... to achieve full professionalism for the social welfare sector. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.

MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am grateful to the Honourable Eric LI for proving that we have all along been having reasonable discussions with the social work sector and that we have also been listening to their views. The amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam has also gone through many changes after repeated discussions and consultations. I am glad to hear from Mr Eric LI that he is willing to fight for the interests of the organizations which have not yet become, which are not or which are not willing to become members of the HKCSS.

Mr LI mentioned just now that the existing members of the HKCSS were regulated or supported by the Government under a proper system. They have contributed a lot to society within the parameters specified by the Government. We think that there are indeed some other organizations persevering with their contribution to society in providing similar services, albeit without the comprehensive reasonable and useful regulation and support from the Government. Is this point alone not sound justification for giving them one vote in this constituency?

Mr Eric LI has also mentioned many times that he does not want people think that we are seeking self-interests. I am sure none of the us here will want to be seen as pursuing self-interests. But then the wish of not to be seen as self-interests seekers does not mean that we are not pursuing self-interests. On the contrary, if we are not afraid of being misunderstood, if we can stand firm on our conscience and our principle of fairness in dealing with the issues and putting forward our suggestions, no one can accuse us of pursuing self-interests. Therefore, the DAB would like to tell Members of this Council and members of the public in unambiguous terms that we have all along been trying to have justice done to those organizations which have not yet become, which are not, and which are unwilling to become members of the HKCSS, but are still providing similar services for society. Mr Eric LI just now mentioned that he would like to have a more democratic system but not in this year. I suddenly have an idea that I would like to share with Mr Eric LI. For example, if we now have two options; first, to abandon the one-organization, one-vote system for the members of the HKCSS; second, to accept non-members of similar organizations to become members; which option will Mr Eric LI take?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NGAN Kam-chuen.

MR NGAN KAM-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Legislative Council Bill seeks mainly to implement the specific decisions on the formation and election of the first Legislative Council as stipulated in the Basic Law and by the Preparatory Committee. It also provides a legal basis for the overall arrangement of the Legislative Council election, and also the definition of the electorates for the functional constituencies as well as the Election Committee. Unlike what some political parties have said, the electoral arrangements are not meant to protect the interests of the pro-China sectors, or to shut the democrats out of the Legislative Council.

On the eighth day after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), an announcement was made on the overall arrangements of the first Legislative Council election by the SAR Government. These arrangements are in compliance with the principles of openness, fairness and acceptability to the people of Hong Kong, evident in the absence of strong voices of opposition in society after the publication of the package. Also, in accordance with the development plan for the SAR as outlined in the Basic Law, the method for forming the Legislative Council shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the SAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the election of all Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. In fact, the Basic Law has already provided for a mechanism whereby decisions can be made on the constitution of the Legislative Council in accordance with the relevant stipulations if there is a clear consensus in society after 2007. In addition, when Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, the Chief Executive, visited the United States recently, and met with Mr Bill CLINTON, the President of the United States, he also stressed that democracy is very important and Hong Kong will move towards democracy step by step in accordance with the Basic Law. All these can reflect that both the Central Government and the SAR Government are determined to promote our democratic development gradually and orderly.

Some people criticize that the election of the nine new functional constituencies has caused the number of elegible voters to drop drastically from 2.5 million to 180 000, and this means a big retrogression in democracy. At the early part of this debate, Mr CHAN Choi-hi also shared this view. But I think this opinion is confusing the public. Please bear in mind that, all along, the electorate of the functional constituencies have been formed by representative bodies and also professional organizations. It was not intended to emulate the "three-violation scheme" proposed by the then Governor, Mr Chris PATTEN. According to that scheme, the definition of the electorates for the nine new functional constituencies was based on occupation and it was actually direct elections in disguise. As a result, the number of voters was increased drastically. The present decision is just reverting the functional constituency elections to its original incarnation.

Madam President, regarding the Election Committee, the original arrangement in the Legislative Council Bill has grouped Members of the Provisional Legislative Council and the Hong Kong Deputies to the National People's Congress as ex-officio members of the Election Committee. Even though they may be the members of other functional constituencies, they cannot choose to vote in their own constituencies. This arrangement is obviously inconsistent with the practice previously. It has deprived the Provisional Legislative Council Members and NPC deputies of their right to vote in their own functional constituencies.

In the functional constituency elections of the previous Legislative Council, those people who were qualified voters of different constituencies could choose to cast their votes in which constituency. However, since the electorates of the Urban Council, the Regional Council and the Heung Yee Kuk were much smaller, voters who were also members of the Municipal Councils and the Heung Yee Kuk must cast their votes in these three constituencies. For those members of the Municipal Councils and the Heung Yee Kuk who were also district board members, they could not cast their votes in the Election Committee. The purpose of the former British Hong Kong Government in making such stipulations was to ensure that constituencies with smaller electorates could secure a certain level of representativeness. The SAR Government has also followed this good practice in drawing up the Legislative Council Bill, stipulating that voters have to cast their votes in constituencies with smaller electorates. Apart from the three constituencies ─ the Urban Council, the Regional Council and the Heung Yee Kuk, there is similar arrangement in other three constituencies, namely, agriculture and fisheries, insurance and transport. I therefore cannot understand why there is different arrangement regarding the constitution of the Election Committee. However, having listened to the views of the Bills Committee, the Government was willing to make amendments, allowing the ex-officio members of the Election Committee to cast their votes in either the Election Committee or their own functional constituencies.

In addition, the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam is suggesting that the electorate of the social welfare sector should be expanded. I originally intended to comment on this, but since other Honourable Members have already spoken on this issue, therefore, I follow the President's advice and will not repeat those points.

With no further comments, I support the Second Reading of the Bill. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof NG Ching-fai.

Prof NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, Hong Kong is a place with only 6 million-odd people, but it has developed from a little fishing port to an international financial centre nowadays. This myth of our economic development is made up of historical and also human factors, and it has always been a story praised far and wide. However, I believe we have to depend on the co-operation from among various sectors in order to promote the overall quality of our society as a whole in order to maintain Hong Kong's position in the world. In his speech given at the annual meeting of the World Bank, Mr ZHU Rong-ji, the Vice Premier of the Central People's Government, mentioned the ways to deal with the population problem in China. He stressed that we have to pay special attention to education in order to raise the quality of our people, as well as to develop high technology for the progress and development of the whole country. Also, at the initial stage after establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, the Chief Executive, has repeated time and again that we have to promote the quality of our education for maintaining and promoting Hong Kong's position as the business, financial, commercial, transportation and information centre in the world. Thus we can see that, no matter it is the Central People's Government or the SAR, or whether it is Mr ZHU, the Vice Premier, or Mr TUNG, the Chief Executive, they are all very concerned about maintaining and promoting Hong Kong's position as an international business centre.

There is no denying of the importance of focused attention on the development of higher education to the upgrading of the overall quality of society as a whole and also to enhancing the competitive edge of Hong Kong in the world market. Since Hong Kong entered into the stage of economic transformation in the eighties, the development of local industries has remained stagnant and the manufacturing sector dwindling, thereby affecting the employment situation locally. Therefore, the development of hi-tech industries is a must and we can afford no delay. The training of talents in the field of technology and hi-tech industries needs of course to tie in with higher education. In addition, over the past ten-odd years of economic transformation, the tertiary industries in Hong Kong have developed rapidly. The emphasis of the market is mainly placed on the investment in sectors such as finance, real estate as well as service industries. As the environment of the market becomes more and more sophisticated, the employees in these industries have begun to move towards professionalism. As a result, professionals from the higher education sector have also become the head-hunting target of the relevant industries and enterprises.

The higher education sector is also facing the pressure of transformation and new tasks. On 1 July 1996, the Hong Kong Institute of Education was officially brought under the University Grants Committee (UGC). Since then the important task of retraining teachers in the education sector has fallen under the higher education sector. The enhancement of the quality of teachers is also an urgent task in the provision of excellent basic education in Hong Kong. The economic transformation of Hong Kong has not only affected the direction of development of the local industries, but also caused employees to learn new skills, university graduates to adapt to new employment environment, and teaching and administrative staff of primary, secondary schools and even tertiary institutions to face the pressure of transformation. This is a "quality" transformation of society that entails the omni-directional support from the higher education sector.

In order to tie in with the omni-directional development of the SAR, the Legislative Council should have representatives from the higher education sector for the promotion of the above task. As far as the Legislative Council Bill proposed by the Government is concerned, the delineation of the seats of the nine new functional constituencies is in fact slanted too much towards the business sector. We have a ratio of 5:1:3 in terms of the industrial, commercial and financial sector, the professionals, and the grassroot sectors. It seems that this is apparantly unjustified at all. In accordance with the proposal of the Preparatory Committee, the higher education sector is among the 15 new functional constituencies that may be considered for inclusion in the first Legislative Council election. Regrettably, the SAR Government did not include this sector in the Legislative Council Bill. We think that in addition to failing to fully reflect the general principle of balanced participation, the Government has also neglected the long-term, positive and critical roles that the higher education sector can play in the Legislative Council.

Under this Bill as proposed by the Government, the education sector can only have one seat just like before. I think it is inappropriate to group educational institutions of different levels as well as their teaching and administrative staff together under one sector. In fact, given the vastly different nature of higher education and basic education, they should be separated. At present, there are eight UGC-funded tertiary institutions. Together with the Open Learning University and the Shue Yan College, they account for 7 200 professors, lecturers and relevant executives who possess ample knowledge in their respective professions in addition to their teaching experience. By training high quality professionals, they are in fact directly or indirectly promoting the culture, technology, finance, industry, medical service and environment of Hong Kong, as well as the development of our economy, livelihood and welfare activities. We can see that the nature and the work of tertiary education are really different from basic education. It is therefore impossible to group them under one single education sector. They should have different representatives to complement each other for the benefit of the education sector as a whole.

Madam President, in my proposed amendment, I seek to put the insurance sector back to the financial services sector. As we all know, the financial services sector and the insurance sector originally belong to one constituency; in fact they are compatible with one another. If the higher education sector is added to the new functional constituencies, then the ratio among the industrial, commercial and financial sector; the professionals, and the grassroot sectors will become 4:2:3, and this is apparantly more in line with the general principle of balanced participation, and thus will be more acceptable to the public.

Here I would like to point out that the creation of a higher education sector functional constituency will be beneficial to the overall interests of Hong Kong as a whole is not only my personal idea, but is also identified with co-workers in the tertiary education sector and the general public. According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Social Policy Research Institute, the result of which is tabled before this Council, Honourable Members can see that among the 1 890 respondents, 89.6% of them would prefer the higher education sector to the insurance sector in having a functional constituency seat in this Council.

Madam President, I would like to emphasize here that the higher education sector actually has a lot of talents, and they always provide objective and balanced professional opinions on different social issues. This function, which is already beyond the interests of their own constituency, can help to play a balancing role in the Council, and they are also capable of providing more direct and close connections with the different developments in society. Scarcely can we have a functional constituency that can play such a diversified role in this Council.

Apart from catering to the needs of different sectors, the most important thing about the constitution of the new Legislative Council is to accommodate various and comprehensive interests. Obviously, the SAR Government has added new elements on top of the previous base in order to perfect the representativeness of the functional constituencies in this Council. For example, the agriculture and fisheries sector in the primary production and the information technology sector in the quaternary production have been added as new constituencies, and this is in line with the idea regarding the development of new technology industries and the financial services which in fact has assigned a new and important task to the higher education sector.

As a member from the education sector, I sincerely hope that I can secure all your support. I have always kept an open mind to strive for the passing of this amendment. As far as the long-term interests of Hong Kong is concerned, I do not really care who or which political party is going to contest this seat, as long as the eventual Council elect can really pay attention to the development of tertiary education in Hong Kong, and motivate fellow colleagues in the education sector to make more contributions to society. I can guarantee to my respectable colleagues of this Council that if the higher education sector can get this seat, the colleagues from this sector will hold a high quality election with a very responsible manner to return a Legislative Council Member who will not be a disappointment to the people of Hong Kong.

Madam President, we are moving towards the 21st century, and many places around the world have already come up with cross-century development strategies with education planning being an important component in economic and social development plans aimed at meeting the challenges in the new era. I sincerely hope that the higher education sector can be embraced under the new functional constituencies of the Legislative Council, so that colleagues from the tertiary institutions can make greater contributions to the SAR.

With these remarks, Madam President, I seek to propose my amendment.

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

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in fact I have prepared to put forward about five batches of amendments regarding the Legislative Council Bill, but some very important amendments have been ruled by you, Madam President, as out of order. Therefore, I am now in a dilemm: Should I support the Second Reading of this Bill or should I not? If I support the Second Reading, I will miss a very good opportunity to make the electoral process open, fair, popular, equal and direct. My proposal is specifically on a complete reform of the functional constituency election. If I do not support the Second Reading, then I will not be able to achieve everyone's objective, that is, to hold the election as soon as possible, so as to bring the work of the Provisional Legislative Council to an early end.

I do not intend to comment on the President's ruling, but I think there is a need to respond to the Administration's comments on my amendments. I hope these responses can be placed on our official record of proceedings.

First of all, I insist and I firmly believe that as long as the amendments to the Bill are not in contravention but in line with the Basic Law, then there will not be any problems. There is no need for the amendments to be fully in line and not in contravention with the decision of the Preparatory Committee made on 23 May 1997. My stance is therefore different from that of the Government, which insists that both of them should be complied with. If we elevate the Preparatory Committee's decision in 1997 to a constitutional level, it will give rise to a series of interesting and thorny problems.

Firstly, what is the nature of the Preparatory Committee's decision in 1997? Is the decision law?

Secondly, if this decision is tantamount to law, then is this a piece of law applicable in China with the exception of Hong Kong, or is it a piece of legislation to be implemented in Hong Kong? Please note that Article 18 of the Basic Law stipulated that, "The laws in force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be this Law, the laws previously in force in Hong Kong as provided for in Article 8 of this Law, and the laws enacted by the legislature of the Region." Please note the term "legislature". "National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law. The laws listed therein shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by the Region." It is also stipulated in Article 18 that, "The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress may add to or delete from the list of laws in Annex III after consulting its Committee for the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Administrative Region and the government of the Region. Laws listed in Annex III to this Law shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region specified by this Law." Therefore, the question whether the decision of the Preparatory Committee is a piece of law which has constitutional status merits further deliberation and study on this provision.

Thirdly, has this decision actually added provisions or proposed amendments to the Basic Law? If the Preparatory Committee's decision is consistent with the Basic Law, which one should enjoy the supremacy? The decision of the Preparatory Committee or the Basic Law? If the Basic Law has the supremacy, how should we deal with the third table under Schedule 2 of the Bill proposed by the Government, that is the argument on the social welfare or social service sector just mentioned by Members? In fact, the third sector listed in the third table is obviously in contravention of the Basic Law. It is because the decision has limited the social services sector as mentioned in Annex I (if Annex I is adopted by the Preparatory Committee as the basis for formation of the Election Committee) of the Basic Law to the composition of the social welfare organizations. This idea is a bit different from the debate just now. The decision of the Preparatory Committee is in contravention of the Basic Law, and it has totally removed the grassroots sector mentioned in the decision of the National People's Congress (NPC) on 4 April 1990. No matter it is the decision of the NPC in 1990, or the Election Committee as mentioned in Annex I of the Basic Law, the proposal of the Government is obviously in violation of the Basic Law. Of course, the arguments raised by Members just now have centred on the absence of grassroots organizations in the constitution of the Election Committee.

Fourthly, if the decision of the Preparatory Committee should take precedence, then what about the status of the Basic Law?

Fifthly, if the Preparatory Committee's decision is not law, but since it is an act of our sovereign state, it therefore has a binding effect on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), as well as on the SAR Government and the Provisional Legislative Council. Then, will the status of the SAR Government and the Provisional Legislative Council be lowered to become the working committees of the Preparatory Committee, and at the same time elevated together with the Committee to the level of central departments?

Sixthly, if the Provisional Legislative Council was the working committee of the Preparatory Committee, it would become a central government organ. Does it mean that the Provisional Legislative Council would no longer be a legislature of the SAR and therefore it would not have the power to enact laws in Hong Kong? If the Provisional Legislative Council was no longer the legislature of Hong Kong but just the working committee of the Preparatory Committee, and yet it could still have the power to enact laws for Hong Kong, is it tantamount to the central authority and its authorized units having deprived the local legislature of the right to enact laws?

Seventhly, the Preparatory Committee the right has already been disbanded, then what is the working relationship of the Preparatory Committee with these two committees, that is, the SAR Government and the Provisional Legislative Council?

I have raised a lot of questions. In fact I can put forward more. But it seems a list of eight questions are already suffice. Based on those questions and the relevant judgment on the case of the HKSAR v MA Wai-kwan, David and Others in 1997 (first, there is an obiter dictum; second, it is on the legality of the Provisional Legislative Council, and third, it is on the Preparatory Committee's decision made on 24 March 1996 ─ the decision to stipulate on the formation of the Provisional Legislative Council ─ but it did not comment on the Preparatory Committee's decision on 23 May 1997; and this is the decision we are now discussing, a totally different issue which is the method for the formation of the first Legislative Council), my modest view is that the government stance of requiring the Legislative Council Bill and its amendments not to be in violation of the Preparatory Committee's decision on 23 May 1997 can at best be regarded as an argument rather than a conclusion. May I further modestly submit that, before we can have a clear ruling by the court, it is unwise or even wrong for the President to rule that any proposed amendments are out of order because they are not in compliance with this decision. It is because this is tantamount to the President ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think you have already strayed beyond the scope of the question, would you please speak to the original question? If you would like to comment on my ruling, this is not the appropriate forum.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have to state my stance clearly, but I am not challenging or commenting on your ruling. I just wish to respond to the Administration's comments on my amendments, especially when it thinks that all my amendments to the functional constituency election are not practicable. You have already ruled that my amendments are out of order, therefore I am now in a dilemma of whether or not I should support the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope you, Madam President, can let me finish my speech, so that I can state and explain my stance clearly.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Certainly, but please do not comment on the ruling.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): It is because this has also obliged the President to decide or rule whether this decision has constitutional status, in addition to interpreting, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, certain legal concepts, including the content of this decision. Such an important issue in fact should be submitted to the courts for ruling. I am of the view that all my original amendments in fact are not out of order, and those were my views which have all been submitted to the President for ruling.

Although it has been ruled that my amendments cannot be proposed at the Committee stage, I still think that at present we have a very good opportunity to overhaul the composition of the legislature, so as to make the election of 50 out of 60 seats popular and fair without removing the functional constituencies. My proposal is that the 30 functional constituencies seats should be grouped into five functional constituencies, that is, industry, commerce, culture, labour and social and public services. All the relevant persons in each sector can become candidates. We can raise the eligibility criteria of these candidates, in fact they have already been listed in the provisions, to the level that they should possess ample knowledge and sound experience in their own constituencies. The right to vote in the functional constituencies shall be available to all the voters in Hong Kong. In other words, any registered voter can have one vote in geographical constituency, and also one vote in the functional constituency election. Therefore, when they go to the polling station, they should get six ballot papers, one for the geographical constituency, and the other five for each functional constituency. They can therefore vote for the most appropriate persons. As a result, the election can be brought in line with Article 21 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, of which elections held should be popular and fair. All permanent residents, subject to certain necessary restrictions, should have the right to vote and each vote is also of equal value. We can therefore retain the concept of functional constituency and also making our election more popular and fairer.

We actually should not look at the concept of functional constituency as people from different sectors electing their own representatives because this will give people an impression that they are just striving for personal interests. When Members put forward their amendments, hoping to expand one particular functional constituency and the sectors in the Election Committee, it will cause misunderstandings. People will think that their motive is fighting for their personal interests in the election or their constituencies' interests, so that they can have more voices in the legislature to speak for themselves. We can in fact regard this as a transitional arrangement before we reach the stage of popular and fair geographical elections, hence we have to retain some people who have ample knowledge in the fields of industry, commerce, culture, labour, and social and public services, so that they can contribute their ideas to this Council for deliberation.

I am in a dilemma because it is impossible for me to put forward all these amendments at the Committee stage.

I still have four batches of amendments which cannot be tabled because some of them have been ruled by the President as inconsistent with the Basic Law and the decision of the Preparatory Committee, including the amendments to clauses 4, 5 and 6. Some of the amendments have been determined acceptable by the President, and I will put forward my arguments later when we discuss the relevant amendments. On other parts including the disqualification of voters as well as the eligibility of candidature, I think the restrictions should be relaxed.

Lastly, on the question whether the election of the Election Committee should adopt the "block vote system" or the "proportional representation" system, I am of the opinion that since the geographical constituency election has already adopted the proportional representation system, there is no reason why the Election Committee should not adopt the same system. If we think that proportional representation is a good system, then it should be adopted on a comprehensive basis. This is in fact the exact amendment I moved to the proposals of Mr Chris PATTEN in 1994. I think that the three types of election, that is, the geographical, functional constituency and the Election Committee elections should all adopt the proportional representation system. I have proposed a "list system" at that time but adopting the "d'Hondt formula". The present proposal does not adopt the "d'Hondt formula" but the "largest remainder formula" and I think this is also acceptable.

Therefore I hope that when we discuss the relevant provisions, the President and Members will support my amendment. If my amendment is not passed, the "single transferable vote system" proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi can also achieve the same effects, albeit the method will be different. If my amendment fails, I hope you can support Mr CHAN's amendment. If both amendments fail, I hope Members can support the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU's proposal, that is, all voters must cast 10 votes to elect 10 candidates under the "block vote system". A voter should not give his vote to one particular person and then deprives other people of their chances.

Madam President, I so submit. I still cannot decide whether I should support or oppose the Recond Reading of this Bill. But I think we must enact legislation on the election of the Legislative Council.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We are only a few minutes from One o'clock, I now propose to adjourn the meeting until Two o'clock and Mr Paul CHENG will be the first one to speak.

12.57 pm

Meeting suspended.

2.03 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT: Mr Paul CHENG.

MR PAUL CHENG: Madam President, I should have told you that my comments again would be very brief that when you called for the lunchbreak at 12.57 pm, you must have been hungry. (Laughter)

Madam President, the Selection Committee representing a cross-section of our community elected all of us to bridge the legal gap from 1 July until the first election next spring. I would like to remind colleagues that we, as a body working in partnership with the Administration, are first and foremost responsible and accountable to the community to ensure that we establish a fair and balanced system for the first election of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region next year.

It is therefore important that we put the interests of the community foremost in our deliberations on the Legislative Council Bill. We must put aside self-interest and party politics and vote in line with our own conscience and our own conviction. I myself, as an independent legislator, have kept an open mind and listened to all the reasons and fair play. How I vote today on the various amendments will represent my best judgement, keeping the community's interests in mind to ensure that next year's election will yield a Council which the community can be proud of and count on to ensure that Hong Kong continues to prosper under the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" concept.

Thank you very much.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Allen LEE.

MR ALLEN LEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI has already spoken on behalf of the Liberal Party, I did not intend to speak at the Second Reading debate. However, a funny idea has just crossed my mind. Were it not for the defeat of the Liberal Party's "plan for a political through-train" in 1994 by just one vote, we would not now be formulating some election methods for the first Legislative Council after the establishment of the Government of the Special Administrative Region (SAR).

Up to this day, I still deeply regret the failure to achieve a "political through-train". At the same time, I hope this Council can adopt a set of election methods which are reasonable and acceptable to the general public today, so that there is a good basis for the election of the first Legislative Council next year. Under all circumstances, it is the Liberal Party's view that in a free society, elections must be open and fair.

At about noon just now, the media told me it was remoured that the Xinhua News Agency had rung me yesterday and asked me if I were not going to vie for the National People's Congress because I had severely criticized the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong. It has also been reported that I had then apologized to the Honourable TSANG Yok-sing (it is a pity that Mr TSANG is not in the Chamber now). When Mr TSANG returns later, Honourable colleagues could ask him whether I have given him any telephone calls or even apologized.

I think in whatever we do we must have a clear stance. The Xinhua News Agency just will not ring me. They have never done so in all these years to make requests as to what I should do in the Legislative Council or how to vote. Did the British Government do that in the past? No, they never did.I never rang any Honourable Members. The Liberal Party thinks we know clearly what the social welfare sector refers to. We put forward our views because we think we can stand any challenge in front of the public. Let me tell everybody this: I would not change my mind even if Mr TUNG Chee-hwa wanted me to, not to mention the Xinhua News Agency. All the rumours directed against me only served to show how people will talk.

I think today's debate is like a replica of 1994. I think the most important thing is to do whatever is in the interest of Hong Kong. The election for the first Legislative Council is our first step towards democracy following the establishment of the SAR. There will be a lot of elections to come. Unfounded rumours and unnecessary personal attacks will never escape the sharp eyes of the Hong Kong people.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all , I would like to thank you for this meeting today, so that the legislative process of the Legislative Council Bill could be completed as soon as possible. This arrangement not only complies with the schedule of the bills Committee but also allows the parties concerned sufficient time to consider in detail and decide carefully on how to introduce amendments, so as to perfect the Bill.

I trust Honourable Members would remember this special day, not because we have to hold a meeting on Saturday, but because we are here to enact the principal law for election of the first term Legislative Council since the establishment of the SAR, so as to ensure that the election could be conducted in an open, fair and honest manner that is acceptable to the public; that all candidates could run for the office on a fair basis, and that the whole process could be conducted with a high degree of transparency. At the same time, we also aim to make use of this oppurtunity to let all those who are concerned about the arrangement for the first term Legislative Council election, be they local people, or people from other regions of the world, know that our democratic development would follow closely the blueprint set out in the Basic Law towards the ultimate goal of the election of all Members of the Legislative Council as well as other representative councils by universal suffrage. Therefore, I feel obliged to thank the Honourable Ambrose LAU as well as the other 32 Members who signed up for the Bills Committee. Judging from the number of members, we could tell how much Members are concerned about the Bill. Due to the time constraint, the Bills Committee has to hold several lengthy meetings, at which Members have expressed many useful opinions in the course of discussion. I would like to take this oppurtunity to thank Honourable Members for their hard work. Because of the complicated nature of the bill and the limited drafting time, we very much welcome Members to propose amendments to further improve the Bill. In fact, we are going to move several amendments in response to opinions raised by Members.

The Basic Law has provided a specific constitutional blueprint for the implementation of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". During the drafting process of the Basic Law, many people of Hong Kong have taken part in the drafting and consultation work. Under the Basic Law, the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong are given constitutional protection, and the people of Hong Kong could also exercise their political rights to elect representatives to the Legislative Council. According to the blueprint set out in the Basic Law, starting from the first election for the Legislative Council, the people of Hong Kong could participate in geographical elections and elect 20 representatives to the Legislative Council, and the number of representatives would increase in the following two elections. In this respect, the Basic Law has already written very clearly that all Members of the Legislative Council will ultimately be returned by universal suffrage. In fact, the Basic Law has also provided a mechanism whereby the society, if a clear consensus has been so achieved, can decide on the composition of the Legislative Council after 2007 in accordance with certain provisions. The present electoral arrangements are in fact moving towards this direction, that is, universal suffrage for the Council. As such, the issues that facing us is not retrogression of the democratic development. According to the blueprint set out in the Basic Law, the Legislative Council will be developing towards universal suffrage in the next 10 years.

In our march towards that goal, we expect to do much better in the voter registration exercise next year, so that more people could participate in the geographical election for the Legislative Council. We are now actively conducting a door-to-door voter registration exercise, with the number of households involved estimated to be around two million.

Just as in the past, any package for political reforms will give rise to different response from all walks of life in society. However, I must stress that all those proposals in the Bill as well as our amendments have been made only after careful consideration of all aspects and interests, balancing the opinions of different sectors of society. One of the most controversial part of the Bill is the definition of the electorate for functional constituencies. I must point out here that functional constituency election is not a part of general election. According to our existing concept, functional constituencies should be composed of the major organizations that are both representative and important to our society, as well as professionals with recognized qualifications. The electorates of the 21 old functional constituencies have been delineated in accordance with these principles. In drawing up the electorate list for the nine new functional constituencies, we have also adopted the same principles; in addition, we have also consulted the public in an effort to render the list more representative and widely acceptable.

We will propose, later on, amendments in the light of the discussion results of the Bills Committee. These amendments will cover areas like the first meeting of the first term of office of the Legislative Council, arrangement of business, provisions regarding incumbent Members ceasing to hold office, the choice of ex-officio members for the Election Committee, as well as the right to be registered as voter in a functional constituency. Certain Members will also propose amendments in relation to the delineation of electorates for functional constituencies, as well as the allocation of seats among various sectors of the Election Committee. They also cover the inclusion of exempted societies and registered non-profit making companies in the social welfare functional constituency, and the request for additional seats for the labour subsector under the third sector of the Election Committee. Regarding these amendments, we do not think they are soundly founded. We must point out that in delineating the electorates of the functional constituencies, the most important consideration must be representativeness, not the size of the relevant electorate. Besides, the proposal made by the Administration has also catered for a balance of interests among different sectors of society. The amendments proposed by some Members would inevitably upset such balance and lead to disputes in society over the delineation of electorates of the functional constituencies. As such, we urge Members to take into serious consideration this factor when they vote on individual amendment. We must also understand that if the amendments in relation to social welfare functional constituency and textiles and garment functional constituency were approved of, our voter registration work later would encounter a lot of difficulties. In view of such, we hope that Members would take note of this fact, lend support to our original proposals and vote against the amendments concerned.

I would like to respond here to the issue of "secret weapon" as referred to by one or two Members or even the press. What I have said was that we would introduce amendments when so required, and our major reason as well as objective for proposing amendments would be: if any of the amendments passed today would cause difficulty to our voter registration work in future, we would certainly make proposals in the light of the then situation so as to cater for our needs; we would also explain to Honourable Memebers if our needs could not be catered for. The Administration cannot unilaterally change legal procedures by administrative means, nor could we replace such procedures. Each and every amendment that I propose need to go through all the required procedures in this Council, that is, I will propose the amendments and Honourable Members will then debate on the same before voting on their passage.

Finally, I wish to reiterate that our ultimate objective is to have all the Members returned by universal suffrage. We have already applied the concept of universal suffrage in the elections for geographical constituencies, and the number of seats for geographical constituencies will also be increasing continuously, with a view to replacing all the seats for the Election Committee and functional constituencies. In considering any proposed amendment, I hope Honourable Members will make their decisions prudently in the interests of society as a whole.

Madam President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Legislative Council Bill be read the Second time.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Legislative Council Bill.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 31, 34, 43, 44, 45, 53 to 56, 60, 61, 63 to 66, 68, 69, 71, 72 and 74 to 79.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 4, 6 and 9.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for constitutional affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (3) and (6) of clause 4, subclause (3) of clause 6 be amended and that the subclause (4) be added to clause 6 as set out in the paper circularized to Members. All these amendments are technical in nature.

Proposed amendments

Clause 4 (see annex III)

Clause 6 (see annex III)

Clause 9 (see annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has given notice to move the addition of subclause (7) to clause 4 and Mr Andrew WONG has also given notice to move the addition of subclause (4) to clause 9, which are related.

I propose that the amendments proposed separately by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs and Mr Andrew WONG be debated together in a joint debate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr WONG to move his amendment.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to clause 9 by adding subclause (4) which provides that the consideration of any bill or other business of the Legislative Council is not to be affected by the end of a Session and may be resumed at any subsequent meeting, but is to lapse at the end of a term of office or on a dissolution of the Legislative Council. This amendment could clarify the question of whether any unfinished businesses will lapse at the end of a Session.

I beg to move.

Proposed amendment

Clause 9 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to speak on Mr WONG's amendment as well as his proposal, but will not ask the Secretary to move his proposed amendment unless Mr WONG's proposal has been negatived. If Mr WONG's proposal is agreed, that will by implication mean that the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' proposal is not approved.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, according to the usual practice, any unfinished businesses of the Legislative Council can be resumed in the next Session; but is to lapse at the end of a term of office. We have accepted the the Bills Committee's suggestion and agreed to set out in writing that any unfinished businesses of the legislative council should lapse on the dissolution of the Council. As such, we will move an amendment in this connection later.

The amendment moved by Mr Andrew WONG is, in fact, largely similar to ours. However, since we believe that the arrangement for businesses within the same term of office should be handled by the Legislative Council in accordance with the rules of the House Committee instead of stipulations in law, we oppose the Honourable Member's amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now debate the amendment moved by Mr Andrew WONG as well as the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' proposal. Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the addition of subclause (4) to clause 9, moved by Mr WONG, be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the strength of voices on either side is more or less the same, in order to be fair, Committee will proceed to a division. The division bell will now ring for three minutes.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That the addition of subclause (4) to clause 9, moved by Mr WONG, be approved. Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): One Member has not pressed the button. Before I declare the result, are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.

Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendment.

Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Timothy FOK and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr KAN Fook-yee and Miss CHOY So-yuk abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 24 Members in favour of the amendment, 17 against and 11 abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 4, 6 and 9 as amended.

DR Leong che-hung (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move under Rule 49(3) of the Rules of Procedure that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the remaining motions of the Legislative Council Bill, the committee of the whole council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the remaining motions of the Legislative Council Bill, the committee of the whole council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has rung for one minute. Does any Member wish to speak? I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In the event of any further divisions, the division bell will ring for one minute and the division shall be held forthwith immediately.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 4, 6 and 9 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, as the addition of subclause (4) to clause 9 proposed by Mr WONG has been agreed, you may not move the addition of subclause (7) to clause 4 as it is inconsistent with the decision already taken. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any proposed new clause shall be considered after the clauses of a Bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended in order that my proposed new clause 9A may be considered ahead of the other clauses of the bill.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, as only the President may give consent for a motion to be moved, without notice, to suspend the Rules of Procedure, your request cannot be dealt with in Committee. I therefore order that Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed.

Chairman (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, you have my consent.

(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider my proposed new clause 9A ahead of the other clauses of the bill.

President (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' proposed new clause 9A ahead of the other clauses of the bill.

President (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?"

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

Council went into Committee.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee.

CLERK (in Cantonese): New clause 9A First meeting of first term of office of Legislative Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clause 9A as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time. The objective of the clause is to set out clearly the arrangements for the first meeting of first term of office of the Legislative Council.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clause 9A be read the Second time.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): New clause 9A.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clause 9A be added to the Bill.

Proposed addition

Clause 9A (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is : That new clause 9A be added to the bill.

I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr Andrew WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any proposed new clause shall be considered after the clauses of a Bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended in order that my proposed new clause 9B may be considered ahead of the other clauses of the bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, as only the President may give consent for a motion to be moved, without notice, to suspend the Rules of Procedure, your request cannot be dealt with in Committee. I therefore order that Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, you have my consent.

Mr ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider my proposed new clause 9B ahead of the other clauses of the bill. I beg to move.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider Mr Andrew WONG's proposed new clause 9B ahead of the other clauses of the bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

Council went into Committee.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee.

CLERK(in Cantonese): New clause 9B; Emergency sessions of Legislative Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clause 9B as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.

Clause 9B has two subclauses, the first one makes it possible for an emergency session of the Legislative Council to be convened after the end of the term of office or the dissolution of the Legislative Council; the second one makes it possible for the persons holding office as Members of the Legislative Council which has just been dissolved or the term of office of whom has just been ended be deemed to be Members of the Legislative Council, "for and only for the purpose of subsection (1)" and not for any other purposes. Certainly, after the end of the term of office or the dissolution of the Legislative Council, the Members concerned are not holding office any more, but for the purpose of an emergency session, they shall be deemed to be Members of the Legislative Council.

I beg to move.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clause 9B be read the second time.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Basic Law does not provide that the President of the legislative Council must, at the request of the Chief Executive, convene an emergency session of the Legislative Council during the period after the end of the term of office. Mr Andrew WONG's amendment may incur the risk of legal proceedings in the court. We must not make any decision hastily but should study the issues involved in this amendment carefully. Nevetheless, the situation referred to in the amendment may not happen at all; even if it may, the possiblity is very small. we should, therefore, have enough time to conduct a comprehensive study. We do not see any need to handle the issues involved hastily under this Bill. Therefore, the Administration is opposed to the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, do you wish to reply?

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, clause 9B is a necessary provision because in case that situation does happen (although the Secretary says that the possibility for that to happen is very small, we still have to prepare for any possible cases), and should that happen and no session could be convened, what are we going to do?

Surely the Basic Law is silent on this, but that does not necessarily mean we cannot make such a provision in the Legislative Council Bill; likewise indeed, although the Basic Law does not contain any provision that authorizes the Chief Executive to convene ordinary sessions, we have still included a clause to that effect in the Bill. Therefore, I think we need to have arrangements similar to those we used to have to make it possible for emergency sessions to be convened after the end of the term of office or the dissolution of the Legislative Council. How could sessions be convened if nobody is deemed to be Member of the Council any more? For this reason, we must include this clause in the Bill, or damages beyond remedy may be caused.

I so reply, unless my speech is not regarded as a reply by the Chair since there may still be other Members who wish to speak.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I called upon you to reply, so the speech you have made just now should be your reply.

I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): New clause 9B.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr Andrew WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clause 9B be added to the bill.

Proposed addition

Clause 9B (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 10, 11 and 12.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clauses 10, 11 and 12 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. These amendments are all technical in nature.

Proposed amendments

Clause 10 (see Annex III)

Clause 11 (see Annex III)

Clause 12 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 10, 11 and 12 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 13 and 38.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has given notice to move the addition of subclause (1)(ba) and (2) to clause 13 and Mr Bruce LIU has also given notice to move the addition of subclause (ba) to clause 13, which are related.

I propose that the amendments proposed separately by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs and Mr Bruce LIU be debated together in a joint debate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments in a joint debate. I will first call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to move his amendment. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the addition of subclause (1)(ba) and (2) to clause 13 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

The amendments seek to provide for the procedures of handling any changes in nationality or right of abode as reported by incumbent Members. The amendments have been proposed after thorough discussion by the Bills Committee.

Proposed amendments

Clause 13 (see Annex III)

Clause 38 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will call upon Mr Bruce LIU to speak on the amendments proposed by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs as well as his own amendment, but will not ask Mr LIU to move his amendment unless the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' amendments have been negatived. If the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' amendments are agreed, that will by implication mean that Mr Bruce LIU's proposed amendment is not approved. Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my amendment is very similar to the Secretary's except for one point, that is, the deletion of the sentence relating to Members' change of nationality, so that the office held by any Member returned from elections for the 12 functional constituencies will not become vacant should his or her nationality be changed from non-Chinese to Chinese.

I seek to delete that sentence because I will move another amendment to specify that the exemption is applicable not only to Members returned from elections for the 12 functional constituencies but also Members returned from all elections should their nationality be so changed in future. The wordings of my amendment may be different, but the practical effect is just the same.

For this reason, as far as the logic of voting is concerned, I hope Honourable Members will lend their support to my amendment so that more flexibility could be allowed when we discuss the allocation of seats for non-Chinese nationals. Given that the restrictive effect is the same, my amendment is meritorious in the flexibility it offers, lest inconsistency will be resulted and the Ordinance flawed even if my later amendment or that moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi or Dr LEONG Che-hung is agreed to.

I hereby urge Honourable Members to take into consideration the logic and effect of voting and lend their support to my amendment which is technical in nature.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now debate the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs as well as Mr Bruce LIU's proposed amendment.

Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I seek a clarification. Since we could all speak more than once in Committee, may I ask whether the actual situation would be as serious as that referred to by Mr Bruce LIU?

Certainly, the effect of Mr Bruce LIU's amendment is largely the same as that of the amendment proposed by the Administration. But Mr Bruce LIU's amendment is related to the various arrangements and options to be proposed later in respect of the 12 seats that can be hold by persons not of Chinese nationality. Nevertheless, would the passage of the amendment moved by the Administration really has such an effect on the various proposals concerning the the allocation of that 20% of the 60 seats, that is, 12 seats, including the proposals of Mr Bruce LIU, Dr LEONG Che-hung and Mr CHAN Choi-hi? I would like to have a clarification on this point.

Perhaps Mr Bruce LIU or the Secretary may care to clarify this.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as I have referred to in my speech earlier on, subclause (2) of the Secretary's amendment has set out clearly that "Subsection (1)(ba) does not apply to a Member elected at an election for a functional constituency specified in section 35(3)"; and my point is, because of this provision, Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment as well as my amendment will become meaningless once the Secretary's amendment is agreed to.

Madam Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order. May I have your consent to postpone the vote on this question, so that we could deal with the nationality question first and then vote on the issue when everything has become clear? Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU's proposal may well be a reasonable request, but as we all know, the Bill before us is very complicated, I am afraid revising the order of an agenda item would lead to further changes to our Agenda. Mr IP Kwok-him, do you wish to speak on this? I will let you speak first.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, regarding the nationality issue, I think each of us here has already formed his or her own opinion. As regards the relationship between clause 13(2) and other clauses, I believe we all understand it very clearly, so I do not think there is any need to postpone the vote until after we have discussed the proposals made in respect of the nationality issue by other Members. In fact, we are all aware of the situation. I therefore suggest we proceed to vote on the amendment straightaway.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): thank you very much for your opinion, Mr IP. I do think we should proceed in accordance with the existing Agenda for the benefit of smooth conduct of business. Mr Andrew WONG.

Mr Andrew Wong (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, could the Secretary offer some clarifications on the question concerning whether the decision will be inconsistent with or even contradictory to the amendment moved by the Administration should either of those amendments proposed by Mr Bruce LIU, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, or Dr LEONG Che-hung in respect of certain seats or the allocation of seats be approved?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to reply or do you wish to clarify the points raised by Members just now?

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the answer is very simple and that is: we do not think there would be such an effect.

Chairman (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the addition of subclauses (1)(ba) and (2) to clause 13, moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

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

Mr Bruce LIU claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU has claimed a division, the division bell will now ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to vote. The question now put is: That the addition of subclauses (1)(ba) and (2) to clause 13, moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, be approved. Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If Members do not have any queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Andrew WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the amendment.

Mr HUI Yin-fat abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 48 members in favour of the amendment, five against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, as the amendments to clause 13 proposed by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs have been agreed, you may not move your amendment as it is inconsistent with the decision already taken. Mr Ronald Arculli.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam Chairman, I should like to change the terms of my amendment to the effect that my proposed paragraph (bb) of clause 13 be renumbered as subclause (1)(bb) of clause 13 as contained in my revised amendment sheet which has been tabled.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI, you have my consent.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam Chairman, I move the addition of subclause (1)(bb) to clause 13. The reasons why I have provided for the addition of this clause is that under clause 13 of the Bill which refers to Article 79 of the Basic Law, the President of the Legislative Council has the power to declare that a Member is no longer qualified for office under a number of reasons and the first of these reasons is when a Member loses the ability to discharge his or her duties as a result of serious illness or for other reasons.

My amendment, with absolutely total respect to the Chair, provides for the situation where the President of the Legislative Council has been found by a court to be of unsound mind under the Mental Health Ordinance. Now, Article 79 does not seem to have dealt with that situation, so we can hardly have a President sitting in the Chair of unsound mind, and therefore unable to disqualify herself or himself from office. It would seem very strange that those of us sitting down here would be so disqualified by the Chair, but for worse, the Chair would not be disqualified.

Unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the Administration to see the wisdom of my amendment, but I would certainly like to challenge them to dispute the logic of that. I see no other way of actually providing for that eventuality, however unlikely it is, although those of us in this Chamber and some up in the Gallery may well take advice and have a look at themselves under the Mental Health Ordinance because I suspect we must be a little crazy to be in this room any way (Laughter) Madam Chairman, without any disrespect, even more so sitting where you are now. (Laughter)

So I would like to ask the Administration to explain why they think or how they think the President in those circumstances will be disqualified, and if there is no satisfactory answer, which I suspect there is not, then I hope Members would support my amendment. It is really a technical one. It is simply to cover up, you know, some silly loopholes that might otherwise exist.

Thank you.

Proposed amendment

Clause 13 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

Secretary for constitutional affairs(in Cantonese): The Administration believes that the amendment is not the best way to achieve the result intended by the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI. Article 79 of the Basic Law has listed out the various circumstances under which a Member of the Council is no longer qualified for the office. The point of concern raised by Mr ARCULLI, in fact, is not the situation where a Member or the President of the Council is no longer qualified for the office, but the need to have a mechanism to tackle the situation where the President of the Council is unable to exercise his authority or perform his duties. In our opinion, instead of making legislation in this respect, the most appropriate arrangement is to set out clearly in the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council the ways to tackle the siutation. As such, the Administration is opposed to the amendment.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI, do you wish to reply? I am sorry, but over there a Member has put up his hand, that is Mr Andrew WONG. I will let him speak first.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, instead of speaking on the amendment proposed by Mr Ronald ARCULLI, I am going to speak on the way how clause 13 has been handled by the Government. We have already expressed our strong dissatisfaction at the meetings of the Bills Committee.

The previous law has provided not only for the situations where a person would be disqualified but has also handled together the instances where a person is disqualified from being nominated, being elected and holding office. all these have now been separated into three parts in this Bill, with the part on "holding office" being dealt with in clause 13. If clause 13 does not include the parts on nomination and election which I referred to just now, the person concerned can still hold office even if any of the situations not set out in this clause but in the other two clauses happens. Here the Government refers again to Article 79 of the Basic Law and states that the Article, which is not part of the provisions of the Ordinance concerned, authorizes the President to exercise his absolute power under other circumstances. However, I have yet to find out what those "other circumstances" really are.

Mr ARCULLI and I have raised our points at the Bills Committee meetings and opined that the Government should address this issue squarely. Nevertheless, the Government seems to be holding a very rigid and inflexible interpretation of the Basic Law as it claims that situations other than that set out in Article 79 shall not be included in the Bill. I find this very unsatisfactory. I will appreciate it very much if the Government could introduce amendments to rectify all the anomalies after the Bill before us today has passed into law.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam Chairman, I think the Honourable Andrew WONG and I did raise issues at the Bills Committee and it really should not be for me to say this. But after discussion with the Administration, the only gap that was left was really this particular amendment that I am now moving because the other instances where a person cannot be nominated or cannot be elected or should lose or cease to hold office is actually dealt with, sadly, not in a direct way but in a bit of a roundabout way in a proposed amendment to clause 38.

The Administration will introduce an amendment to say that if any of the things which will be contained in a promissory oath when a person becomes a candidate, should any of the instances set out in clause 37 apply to that person after he or she is elected as a Member of this Council, then he or she would have committed what I call a statutory misbehaviour. Then we come back to Article 79, subparagraph 7, which says the President of the Legislative Council can disqualify a Member of the Council for misbehaviour if two thirds of the Members of the Council so endorse that particular course of action. So I think there is in fact a mechanism to cover the instance that Mr Andrew WONG is worried about. But as I said, sadly it is not in a direct way, but I think the Administration took into account their view, rightly or wrongly, in my view, too narrowly of Article 79. But then, you know, who is to say that "I am always right", except me.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: that the amendment moved by Mr Ronald ARCULLI be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move the addition of subclause (3) to clause 13 and the amendment to subclause (1) of clause 38 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

This amendment is proposed in response to the request made by the Bills Committee to unify the provisions relating to the situations in which an incumbent Member is no longer qualified for the office and that relating to the situations in which a person is disqualified from running in an election.

Proposed amendment

Clause 13 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 13 and 38 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 16, 17, 18, 20 and 22.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clauses 16, 17, 18, 20 and 22 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. P ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Proposed amendments

Clause 16 (see Annex III)

Clause 17 (see Annex III)

Clause 18 (see Annex III)

Clause 20 (see Annex III)

Clause 22 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 16, 17, 18, 20 and 22 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 23.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Prof NG Ching-fai.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any schedule shall be considered after the clauses and any proposed new clauses of a Bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure that Rules 58(5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended in order that schedules 1, 2 and 3 may be considered now together with the other clauses as they are interdependent.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In order to handle the request made by Prof NG Ching-fai, I order that Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof NG Ching-fai, you have my consent.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rules 58(5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider schedules 1, 2 and 3 together with the other clauses as one single question as they are interdependent.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Rules 58(5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider schedules 1, 2 and 3 together with the other clauses.

I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

Council went into Committee.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Schedules 1, 2 and 3.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Prof NG Ching-fai.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to subclauses (3), (4), (5) and (6) of clause 23, deletion of item 5 from part 2 of schedule 1, deletion of items 7(1) and 7(2) from and the addition of items 7A and 23(4) to part 3 of schedule 1, amendments to section 1(5), items 4 and 5 of table 5 of part 1 of schedule 2, and amendments to section 8 of part 3 of schedule 2 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Madam Chairman, during the Second Reading debate this morning, I explained the importance of including higher education sector among the new functional constituencies. Now I only wish to reiterate the fact that higher education is multi-functional in nature, and that it serves each and every sectors of society. If the sector is given a seat in this Council, the acceptability of this Council will certainly be further enhanced. This morning, an Honourable Member referred to our work today as a very solemn task and urged us to put foremost the interests of society as a whole in our deliberations. Madam Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to state that my amendment is fully in line with this principle. I urge Honourable Members to support my amendments. Thank you.

Proposed amendments

Schedule 1 ( See Annex III)

Schedule 2 ( See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in the Second Reading debate earlier the day, a number of Members said that many amendments were originated from certain functional constituencies, trades or parties. I, however, never doubted the motives of those Members who put forward amendments. I think that as someone who has received higher education he should do so. Yet I would like to remind Honourable colleagues that just 39 months ago, we had a similar debate in this Chamber. At the time there was a so-called "94 plan", supported by the "Breakfast club", the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, the then Liberal Democratic Federation, the New Hong Kong Alliance and the then Liberal Party. To save the "through-train", some proposals were made to the so-called "PATTEN reform package" as regards the nine new functional constituencies.

What were the nine functional constituencies? I looked up records and noted that there were two seats for the labour sector, not one as we have today; and we also had these functional constituencies: transport, textiles and garments, insurance, communication and technology, culture and sports, fishing and agriculture, and retail and import and export. Some Members may ask: What is the difference between what we had then and what we have today? The difference is that the labour sector has one seat less: at the time the labour sector had two seats. And one further difference is that the "94 plan" grouped retail and import/export into one but not separated as they are now.

No mention has ever been made about the higher education functional constituency. According to the information given to us from the Government, the idea of such a functional constituency had never shown up during the Sino-British talks from beginning to end. Of course, I think it is a pity to a certain extent because many sectors worked very hard to have their representatives. I do respect sectors such as higher education, hotels, catering, Chinese medicine and even social service which we talked about this morning. It seems the fad calls for direct elections for the 60 seats but no one calls for 60 functional constituency seats, which is not what is in fashion and is therefore hard to achieve. The biggest problem is many sectors think they should have their own voice in the legislature but the reality is that the number of seats has been fixed. Which seat should be sacrificed to make way for higher education? I recall the representative for higher education saying, in response to my ideas, that if an opinion poll was taken by comparing the higher education sector and the fishing and agriculture sector, Hong Kong people would certainly accept the former. I think we would have a hard time coming to a decision. Many other Members and I who took part in the debate about the "94 plan" do not want to see the insurance sector rejected as a result of our failure to include the higher education sector.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): The nine new functional constituencies in the Government's Legislative Council Bill has been a cause of concern among the community. It is obviously a very difficult task to choose nine among the numerous functional constituencies to the legislature. In addition to having to face lobbying by the relevant sectors and to face policy-related pressure, the Government needs to consider the factor of orientation in its policy. Whatever course of action the Government takes, it should hinge its decision on the general interest of Hong Kong, and it should also listen to the opinions of different sectors, as well as stick to the principle of consistency. We should bear in mind the purpose of setting up functional constituencies is to provide a channel for representatives from the business, professionals and grassroots to voice their opinions in the legislature so that the discussions in the legislature and the work it does can cater better to the interests of society.

As the Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa has indicated during his visit to Washington, all these are temporary measures to guarantee balance and continuity in the democratization process in the next 10 years. Although these are transitional measures, in choosing the nine new functional constituencies, we must not make decisions out of political pressures or administrative expedience. It is exactly because these are transitional measures that we need to act carefully so as not to rob the functional constituencies of their balancing effect at this crucial moment.

In the original 21 functional constituencies, the Government has already allocated a significant proportion of representation for the business sector. Even in the nine new functional constituencies contained in the present Bill tabled before this Council, the business sector occupies a material proportion of the representation in them. The arrangement is a recognition of the obvious and direct contributions of the business sector to Hong Kong, making it possible for the business sector to gain advantage over other sectors in the struggle for seats. However, some functional constituencies having made similar and equally important contribution to the development of Hong Kong but have done so in an indirect manner are not given the same attention. The higher education sector in Hong Kong has been giving enormous support effectively behind the scenes as the Hong Kong economy develops. Just because they are the silent workers, the Government becomes oblivious of them, and fails to give them the seat they deserve in this Chamber.

In fact, to achieve the balancing effect of functional constituencies, we should lay down a clear definition of each functional constituency in the light of their importance so that the principle of fairness and openness is not violated. Hong Kong's success today is due not to abundant natural resources but to quality human resources. People are not born with expertise. It is something acquired after training. The higher education sector plays an important role in this respect. It provides the favourable conditions for developments in finance, commerce, industry and culture in Hong Kong. In addition to training, the sector's contribution to research is substantial. Often, their professional knowledge and research results are closely linked with developments in people's livelihood, economy, technology and culture. Such knowledge and results often provide subjective and significant ideas, just like a "think tank" for the community. In fact, the Government is also aware of the importance of higher education. In the past 10 years or so, it has put in enormous resources to facilitate the rapid expansion of higher education. Whereas there were only two universities in the past, we now have eight tertiary institutions funded by the University Grants Committee. At present, about 7.5% of government expenditure is for higher education. If policy-wise the Government recognizes the importance of higher education to the development of Hong Kong, why does it adopt a stance that is totally different from its policy in the allocation of seats in functional constituencies? Is the Government acting out of certain administrative or political considerations?

Higher education is international in nature. Researchers and even executives in the sector have to be in close contact with their overseas counterparts and take part in exchange activities such as in international conferences, joint research ventures with overseas scholars and exchange programmes for teachers, postgraduates and students. I held office as Chairman of the founding committee and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation in the first five years since its establishment. I was also Chairman of the City University and before its change of name the City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. I fully appreciate the importance of higher education to people's livelihood and economic development. It is my conviction that if there is a seat for higher education in this Council, Hong Kong as a whole and its future development will be benefited.

Madam Chairman, taking into consideration of the interests of Hong Kong, I support Prof NG Ching-fai's amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-Chung.

MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in the Second Reading debate this morning, I urged Honourable colleagues to minimize debates on details. However, because the insurance sector was one of the sectors I represented in the former Legislative Council, I must say a few words for the sector.

First of all, I must say that I never objected to Prof NG Ching-fai's proposal for a seat for higher education. At the time I was not a member of the Preparatory Committee, so I could not give him any support. The higher education sector is a very important part in Hong Kong. They have my greatest respect. Although I do not have the luck to receive higher education, the fact remains that the Hong Kong Government has given it subsidy. All of us can see its importance, which is beyond doubt and should not be challenged.

Starting from 1991, we have the financial services functional constituency. At that time I represented four sectors. We must understand that the insurance sector is an important part of the Hong Kong economy. Indeed, it is different from stock trading, futures, and gold and silver trading. We can of course say it is related to banking. Anyway, it plays a very important and representative role in society. With some luck, the insurance industry may secure a seat in the legislature. Back in 1991, I said, "If you do not vote for me while I campaign in the election, I will not represent your interests." I triggered off a heated debate. At that time, the insurance industry was the tenth sector but, with my help, it was not the least one.

What I want to say is, I am speaking on behalf of both the relevant functional constituency and my good self. I must stress that I am not questioning the representativeness of the higher education sector. I do hope in future someone in the legislature can speak for the higher education sector. We have 59 representatives here (not 60 because the Chairman or the President cannot represent any functional constituency).

I wanted to spend several minutes to speak for the relevant functional constituency. I hope everybody can be fair, no matter what the outcome will be.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the best way to criticize one's views is to say that he is pursuing his own interests. In order to attack a political party, it is best to say that this party wants to seek sectoral interests. This kind of moral judgment is very dangerous. Can we say that the one who put forward those criticisms has no self-interests? As the saying goes, "The man who comes to argue about rights and wrongs is usually the wrongdoer himself." It is said that if you fight for the interests of your sector, you must be pursuing your own interests; then by the same token, if you fight for the interests of a particular district, you must be fighting for your own interests as well. This kind of exaggeration is in fact very ridiculous. This Council actually represents a composition and balance of different interests, society in miniature. The amendments of all Members should be respected, therefore, I think we should look at the truth and be reasonable in discussing all the issues. I am using this principle as the basis, and I fully support Prof NG Ching-fai's amendment to include the higher education sector into the nine new functional constituencies.

First of all, I must declare interest as a member of the education sector, and yet I do not mind arousing suspicion and support this amendment because I have the long-term interests of Hong Kong at heart. I think there is full justification for the inclusion of the higher education sector in the nine new functional constituencies.

Firstly, higher education has played a very crucial role in the economic and social development of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is only an island without any resources. It has such achievement today with a population of over six million is largely attributed to the wisdom and the combatant spirit of the people of Hong Kong. Education is then the key factor leading to the success of Hong Kong. Our ability to maintain our competitive edge hinges on our education. The funding for higher education in 1997-98 is amounted to $14.6 billion, and there are over 7 200 persons working in the higher education sector. We have both high quality and large quantity of people in this sector and the impact on Hong Kong is far-reaching. In his inaugural speech, our Chief Executive, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, mentioned that the future goal of Hong Kong is to become an internationally famous and important financial, trading, transport, information, cultural and scientific research and education centre. We have to rely on the development of our higher education in order to make Hong Kong an international education centre, and much in the same way all the other international centres have done. If we set eyes on building up a first class community, we must first have first class people and quality higher education. Furthermore, we have nearly 60 000 people working in the education sector ─ a sector receiving the heaviest funding from the Government among other industries every year. However, we now only have one seat representing the education sector in this Council, disproportionate to the importance of this sector. The industrial, commercial and financial sectors has more than four seats and the labour sector also has three seats. The education sector obviously has less seats in comparison with other constituencies.

Lastly, in the zero-sum game, in order to add one more seat to the education sector, one other seat has to be deleted. It is reasonable for Prof NG to put forward that the insurance functional constituency should be deleted because the financial sector has already occupied many seats. To add one more seat for this sector is just to gilt the lily. I am not trying to play down the importance of the insurance functional constituency, but I am just considering that the insurance industry is originally included in the financial sector. What I am deliberating is a balanced participation, therefore I support Prof NG's amendment. In order to have a healthy development in the higher education sector, it is reasonable to add the higher education sector into the nine new functional constituencies.

I so submit. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr NG Leung-sing.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. First of all, I would like to say that Prof NG Ching-fai has my deep respect for his strenuous lobby for the higher education sector. According to the media, the nine new functional constituencies are actually shortlisted from the 15 constituencies proposed by the Preparatory Committee. These sectors are selected because, as the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Mr Michael SUEN has just mentioned, they have higher representativeness and greater importance in the present social and economic environment of Hong Kong. This result is largely depended on a secret ballot conducted in Beijing by the Preparatory Committee before the transfer of sovereignty. It was through this process that the new constituencies are shortlisted. Since the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association which ranked eighth withdrew voluntarily at that time, the insurance sector rose from the tenth to the ninth position. As you all know, the members of the Preparatory Committee have come from different sectors, representing a cross-section of the community. They also possess sound working experience and high expertise, and they can be regarded as the talents who are widely accepted and respected by society. I therefore think that we should have trust and respect for the choice of the Preparatory Committee.

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government has worked out a more detailed proposal based on the voting result of the Preparatory Committee, and a final list of the new functional constituencies has thus been prepared. I believe the SAR Government must have fully studied and assessed the situation in various sectors, and I therefore think that the decision of the Government should also be respected and trusted.

Let us look at the insurance industry. The insurance industry has been developing very rapidly over the years, and become more and more important in the economy of Hong Kong. In 1995, the premium of registered insurers amounted to $43.8 billion, representing 4% of the gross domestic product (GDP). The insurance industry has provided over 50 000 job opportunities, representing 1.7% of our total workforce.

At present, Hong Kong has already become an important insurance market in the Asian Pacific region. The insurance industry in Hong Kong has a very bright prospect and it is still making progress. Mr CHIM Pui-chung has earlier mentioned that since the insurance industry serves many sectors in society, its contribution to the local economy will therefore be increasingly greater.

The expertise and skill involved in the insurance industry is somehow different from other branches of the financial industry, and it is also different from the banking and securities industries. As I am now a member in the financial sector, I also have some understandings of the insurance industry. Therefore, to a certain extent, I agree that the insurance industry should have an individual seat in this Council.

However, in saying so, I have no intention to deny the importance of higher education. In fact, both of them are very important, higher education is also equally important to Hong Kong. With the transformation of our production, the competitiveness of Hong Kong in future will be depended on the development of high value-added industries. The training of manpower is therefore very important. It is a critical factor for our future economic development. Higher education is the main forum for nurturing talents and we cannot deny its importance. The amendment of Prof NG Ching-fai, therefore, has indeed reflected another view in society and it should be respected. However, we have only limited seats in this Council. In order to meet all the needs and demands, we can only make a choice among various factors and proposals to which we attach importance. For those constituencies which cannot get a seat in this Council, I think they can still participate in and show their concern to our law-making process through other channels. I believe if we all have a common goal, that is, serving and building Hong Kong into a prosperous place, there are still many opportunities for development in the long run.

Madam Chairman, I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, it has been my principle, as a matter of philosophy and as a Member of this Council, to refrain from making wild guesses at other people's motives. I make it a point not to say someone is acting out of bad faith or has a bad motive. The reason is that there can only be two possibilities both of which will produce the same result: my personal relationship with the people concerned will deteriorate. If my guess was right, the person would get angry out of shame. If my guess was wrong, the person involved would think it was I who was acting out of bad faith or having a bad motive. So, it does not pay make such guesses. I hope Members would not do such things, but it seems that is exactly what is happening. But more importantly, although we need to refrain from so guessing, we must be cautious of being guessed at in this way.

The numerous amendments today may involve me, and indeed to no small extent because I belong to the higher education sector and I am also Chairman of the Insurance Agents Registration Board. Higher education is very important, and so is insurance. What shall we do? That was why Mr NG Leung-sing said we would hurt someone dear either way. As for me, I would say exactly the opposite: either way I would have headaches because both would be pushed to give support to either side of the rival parties. This leads me to a conclusion: all these disputes are the result of the concept of functional constituency, which is a mistake. No matter how good our intentions are, and no matter how hard we try to achieve a council set-up that can balance the interests of all sectors so that work can be done smoothly, we are quite certain that the people, or even the learned members among them, will cast doubts on us. All I can do is advise Members not to make guesses the way I mentioned. However, how many people can refrain from suspecting that others are acting out of bad faith or bad intentions?

It seems that the slightest move we make in response to today's numerous amendments will lead to suspicion. As such, if the intentions of the amendments are to enlarge the electorate base, I would sympathize with such intentions but I would not support them. If the amendments are meant to change the proposals now being made, I would likewise sympathize with them but would not support them. It is because if I supported them, Hong Kong people would cast doubts on the Provisional Legislative Council. If I could put it more directly, they would say we are trying to set up colonies, that is, to rig the election. I am not saying Members who table the amendments intend to do so. Rather, I mean the idea of functional constituency has inherent deficiencies. My proposal is to accept these functional constituencies but treat people in such constituencies as candidates to be elected by all voters in Hong Kong. In casting their votes, voters will elect those people they think are most suitable and trustworthy. This will guarantee specialist knowledge and exchange of ideas in the Council. I cannot forecast whether I will vote for or against the amendments to be put later on. I might abstain but I will try not to; so, forgive me if I do not. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my close partner in the days of the "94 plan", Mr Howard YOUNG, made his speech earlier on and brought back memories of those days when he and I were working very hard together for the plan. We became very good friends since then. Today, three years after the event, we are glad to see that Hong Kong continues to prosper as we do. This is in sharp contrast with the hard times in those days. To a certain extent, we have seen enormous changes taking place during these three years. In the "94 plan", we supported the inclusion of the insurance industry as one of the functional constituencies. This was a correct decision. The insurance functional constituency is certainly worthy of our support. However, circumstances have changed. I think we should discuss this. I need to say why I hold a different view about this.

When the "94 plan" emerged, there were only three universities. The rest were mainly polytechnics. Now, we have eight tertiary institutions. In addition, we have the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts. Under the auspices of the Government, remarkable developments in higher education have been achieved, compared with three years ago. The SAR Government is placing substantial emphasis on this cause and I believe there will be sustained development.

Secondly, I hope Prof NG Ching-fai could forgive me if I am giving away some of his personal information. Prof NG has gone through some mental struggle before finally deciding to table the amendment. Despite doubts about whether personal interests were involved, I would like to remind everybody that it was not Prof NG who made the request for higher education. Members of the Preparatory Committee should know this very well. It was the Vice-Chancellors and staff of the universities who made the request. At the time when the request was made, I believed Prof NG did not know yet whether he would engage himself in politics. I do not think it is tenable to say he was making the amendment out of personal interests. Prof NG discussed the matter with me before he actually submitted the amendment. At the time, he had not decided yet whether he would engage himself in politics. I think it is unfair to him if one says he is acting out of consideration for personal interests.

As changes take place in recent years, the demands of the higher education sector have become very clear. At the time when the "94 plan" emerged, we valued the Sino-British relationship. The Honourable Howard YOUNG, several other parties, and I held onto the seven diplomatic documents, hoping to achieve further consensus on the basis of the small but consensus already reached by both sides on certain diplomatic issues so as to defuse a political struggle. However, we unfortunately failed under the then prevalent circumstances. We felt there was good reason to support the inclusion of the insurance industry as one of the functional constituencies. Now, we feel we should choose another alternative, in the interests of society as a whole.

To make choices is difficult. As Honourable colleagues have said, the insurance industry is one that is definitely worthy of our support. Yet it is not entirely appropriate to use the phrase "kicked out" to describe the situation. Indeed, the insurance industry has had and will have its representative, who is an eloquent, articulate person who knows where the limits are. He spoke for the industry just now. He has a lot of friends in the commercial sector. I do not believe his voice will be drowned. When we look at higher education, senior people were appointed each year to the legislature in the past when we had the appointment system. The appointments were made not purely for economic benefits. They were made taking into consideration of training future human resources to enable the Government to develop high technology and to achieve better parliamentary systems. In this Chamber, I questioned the practice of "borrowing experts" from overseas or "seeking overseas assistance" before 1997, when Britain was the sovereign state. I was furious on a number of occasions. I berated people for that. I was doubtful about the justification of such practices. Now that the Special Administrative Region is established and a lot of expertise is required, it is hardly convincing not to support higher education. Due to a number of reasons, I think the circumstances now are slightly different from those in 1994. It is just logical to support the idea of giving a seat to the higher education sector.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I do know quite a bit about higher education. Before I went into private practice, I have taught at the University of Hong Kong for 16 years. I fully recognize the importance of higher education and its contribution to society. As regards the insurance industry, my knowledge is very limited because I can hardly find in it any aspect that I may identify myself with. As Chairman of the House Committee, I must stress that the credibility of the Council shall not be open to question. Indeed, I have already pointed that out earlier on. As a matter of fact, I also pointed out just now that the media and the public have questioned whether many Members of this Council were serving our own personal interest instead of public interest, and scrambling seats for ourselves without disguise. We definitely do not agree with this viewpoint, nor do we believe any colleagues will so act. Nevertheless, we must show people that we are not what they think. Having considered many factors, I could only abstain from voting although I am totally convinced of the importance of higher education. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the amendment moved by Prof NG Ching-fai seeks to separate the part of higher education from the education functional constituency as set out in the Bill to form another independent functional constituency, as well as to replace the insurance functional constituency proposed by the Government with his proposed new functional constituency. In view of the importance of the insurance industry, the Administration is opposed to the amendment. Moreover, as the insurance industry has all along been playing an active role in aspects such as enhancement of economic growth in Hong Kong, provision of retirement protection services, as well as creation of additional employment opportunities, it is well justified for the industry to stand as an independent functional constituency. the Administration will be submitting Bills, in the coming months, to introduce a series of proposals regarding retirement protection for Honourable Members' scrutiny.

On the other hand, while we recognize the importance of education, we should also be aware that it has to be a continuous process. Therefore, we do not think it necessary to separate higher education from fundamental education to form another independent functional constituency.

The Government's proposal to create new functional constituencies has been made only after thorough consideration of the recommendations of the Preparatory Committee and opinions from the general public. Although some Honourable Members have raised quite a number of points just now, there are still many Members who hold a different view. Since both sides have their own reasons, we should not say which side is better than the other. We have already introduced our proposals and made widespread consultation. Among the views received from the various strata of society, the majority is in support of the insurance industry. As such, we do not see any reason convincing enough to make us accept the proposal to replace the insurance functional constituency with a higher education functional constituency.

With these reasons, Madam Chairman, the Administration is opposed to the amendment of Prof NG Ching-fai. I hereby urge Honourable Members to support the stance of the Administration and vote against the amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Prof NG Ching-fai, you may now reply.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, first of all, I would like to express my deepest respect to Members who have spoken on this question. All of them have attached great importance and shown large respect to higher education. I would like to give them my gratitude.

Also, I note that many Honourable colleagues have said that they are now in a dilemma. It is true that we always have to face difficult decisions in our life and maybe this is why we are now sitting in this Chamber. We are not doing a simple job of saying "Yes and No". In fact, we have to make painful decisions. I also have sympathy with some situations which are just similar to the Hamlet dilemma, "to be or not to be", and I hope it will not be as tragic as that. After all, as Mr NG Leung-sing has said, it is not a matter of life and death, we can still make contribution to Hong Kong.

Under the principle of "one country, two systems", we do not have any natural resources but only the most valuable manpower resources. In fact, I need not stress further the importance of manpower. If I have to emphasize on this point, then the higher education sector is not only composed of talents itself, it also provides a bank of talents to all sectors in Hong Kong, including the insurance industry.

Secondly, I do not agree with what the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has said. Education of course should be a continuous process, and the higher education is the continuation of the basic education. In fact, higher education is not the end of the learning process. One can still have further studies after graduation. I have already mentioned on many occasions that higher education is different from basic education. The teaching staff of higher education are also involved in research work. Very often, they will be invited to make comments on different social issues; they are therefore multi-functional. If this sector can have a seat in this Council, the main reason must be they have diversified functions for the benefit of the overall interest of society.

Some Members on one hand support that the higher education sector should receive more attention and have a seat in this Council and think that this is just serving our own interests on the other. I am very grateful to Mr Eric LI who is sitting next to me. I did have my own struggles in proposing such an amendment, and it is not at all easy to propose an amendment which will cause suspicion. Maybe I have been serving in the education sector for over 20 years that I am well aware of its process of development, its present contribution and the substantial contribution it can make in the future. On the basis of this reason, I take an active part in lobbying for a seat for the higher education sector disregarding the condemnation (although it is not universal condemnation). For the doubting Thomases among us, you can rest assured. We are not working for our own interests. We should vote for the overall interest of Hong Kong. Anyway, I hope we can have a happy ending but not falling into such a dilemma like Hamlet. I understand it is difficult to make a decision, especially when some Members are aware of the importance of both the higher education sector and the insurance sector.

Lastly, when looking at the overall interest or individual constituency, the gross domestic product (GDP) is only one parameter but not the only parameter. Madam Chairman, once again I would like to thank colleagues for their solemn discussions on this issue. After all, this is a very important question in today's debate. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Prof NG Ching-fai be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

Prof NG Ching-fai rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee shall proceed to a division, and the division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That the amendment moved by Prof NG Ching-fai be approved. Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.

Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mrs TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.

Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mr Kennedy WONG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 23 members in favour of the amendment, 26 against and six abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to item 7(2), (4) and (6) in schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members. These include amendments technical in nature as well as an amendment introduced to add officer rank staff of skills centres into the education functional constituency.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to items 4 and 5 of table 5 in part 1 of schedule 2, section 8(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7) in part 3 of schedule 2, the addition of section 1(3A) in schedule 3 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Apart from technical amendments, an amendment is also introduced to add staff of skills centres to the education subsector in schedule 2 to keep it in line with the amendment made to item 7 in schedule 1, which is related to the education functional constituency. In addition, we also propose to amend the savings and transitional provisions in schedule 3, so that the qualified organizations on the provisional register of functional constituencies that was in force on 30 June 1997 could be saved, like any other voters on the register, as the basis upon which the first provisional register of functional constituencies after the enactment of the Ordinance is to be compiled.

Proposed amendments

Schedule 2 (see Annex III)

Schedule 3 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

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

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subclause(4) of clause 23 and the addition of items 15(3) and (4) to part 3 of schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members. This is basically a technical amendment introduced to require the newly added eligible societies and service organizations, as specified in my amendment to be proposed in respect of the social welfare functional constituency later, to fulfill also the conditions regarding the eligibility to be registered as a voter for functional constituencies provided under clause 23. In other words, before registering as a corporate voter for the relevant functional constituency, a body should have been operating effectively for the 12 months immediately before making its application for registration as a voter. Madam Chairman, I so submit.

Proposed amendments

clause 23 (See Annex III)

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr HUI Yin-fat.

MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, much has been said on this issue, so I only want to respond to one point raised by Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

Mr TSANG just now referred to the increase in the number of social workers from several hundred in 1991 to over 6 000 registered social workers at present and he said that this is tantamount to the present proposal put forward by Mr CHAN Kam-lam to effect an increase in figure. I think this is a very wrong idea. Mr TSANG has overlooked a fact, while the number of social workers has increased from several hundred in 1991 to several thousand at present, the persons involved are all social workers. However, the societies that Mr TSANG mentioned about just now are not the same as that in the past. The present social welfare organizations are essentially different from the social service organizations put forward by Mr CHAN Kam-lam. They should not be put together for comparison. the social work sector has been making every effort since 1985 to strive for a professional status, so we do not have any choice and must therefore oppose the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam. I will support the promise made earlier on by Mr Eric LI, Chairman of the Hong Kong Council of Social Services (HKCSS), to assure the social welfare organizations that their application for membership with the HKCSS will be approved. Should there be opportunities to demarcate the functional constituencies again, a much better arrangement is to add social services as a subsector under the third sector, so that the relevant bodies and organizations can be included. I therefore urge Honourable Members to vote against Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I am also opposed to Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. I understand that this is just a technical amendment, but since the changes to be made to the social welfare functional constituency at a later stage are also involved, I am not sure if I should proceed to debate now or wait until the respective proposed amendment has been put forward.

Should I speak on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment, or should I ...... My speech is mainly about the amendment that Mr CHAN has proposed in respect of the social welfare functional constituency.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Do you have a point of order?

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): No, but my point is: could I speak now?

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I do not think anyone would mind that because the time needed is just the same. I give you special permission to speak on both issues at one go.

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I do not agree to Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. Although I do not work in the social work sector anymore, I have indeed spent a considerable length of time working in the field. During the years 1976 to 1979, I was a community organizer in the Society for Community Organization. I was also ......

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Do you have a point of order, Mrs Selina CHOW?

MRS SELINA CHOW(in Cantonese): Yes, Madam Chairman. I wish to seek an elucidation. Although the Honourable Member's speech is related to the most basic and important part of the amendment, we should in fact be debating the very amendment concerned. If the Honourable Frederick FUNG is permitted to speak on another amendment, should other Members be debating likewise?

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, could you speak later, if you do not mind? It is because there might still be a number of Members who, according to Mrs Selina CHOW, also wish to speak on the issue. I understand that I have given you permission to speak, but would you accept Mrs CHOW's suggestion and speak later?

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Yes, I will accept it.

CHAIRMAN: Mr Ronald ARCULLI.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam Chairman, I am afraid, this is not a technical amendment. This is an amendment of substance. If you do not support Mr CHAN Kam-lam's further amendment later, you should not and cannot support this amendment, because there could be a rather confusion situation. So, although we are not debating what I call the substance of his real amendment, I think Members should be quite clear that if they do not support Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment, they should in fact vote against this one, which I ask them to do.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I speak on behalf of the four Members from the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL). We are opposed to the amendments to be proposed later by Mr CHAN Kam-lam in respect of those provisions that are related to the social welfare sector. We are also opposed to the technical amendment proposed by Mr CHAN just now.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

Secretary for Constitutional Affairs (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the delineation of the electorate of the social welfare functional constituency has all along been clear-cut and precise. The functional constituency is composed of registered social workers and corporate members of the HKCSS. Voters within the constituency must possess recognized qualification as professional social workers; as for the corporate voters, they should also be able to meet the strict requirements for membership before they become eligible to vote in the election.

The amendment proposed by Mr CHAN kam-lam seeks to include also exempted societies and registered non-profit making companies in the functional constituency. This amendment has aroused much response from among the social welfare sector. The societies involved in the amendment can be numerous in number and the definition of the same is not very clear. According to the amendment, any exempted societies or registered non-profit making companies one of the aims of which is to promote the co-ordination and improvement of social service activities could qualify as voters in the social welfare functional constituency. This proposal not only confuses social welfare with social service, but will also lead to serious implications.

Firstly, the definition of voters in the amendment is very ambiguous and does not have any concrete coverage. If such a definition is employed to verify the eligibility of voters, loopholes will bound to appear, thereby making it possible for those organizations which have the slightest relation with social welfare or social service to become a voter for the functional constituency. For example, some recreational bodies could also become a voter for the functional constituency if they have included in their objects the promotion of social service. Such a loose requirement is certainly very unfair to those organizations that are genuinely providing social welfare services for society.

Secondly, the objects claimed by the organizations concerned may not necessarily be in line with their activities. Under such circumstances, when certain organizations apply for qualification as voters, dispute over their eligibility as voters will arise and lead to unnecessary argument.

Lastly, the loose requirement concerning the eligibility to vote is not in line with the principle that the voters for functional constituencies should be formed by representative bodies or recognized professionals of the sector concerned. If we accept any society or company into a certain functional constituency on the ground of its objects as claimed, other societies or companies could also make use of the same ground and request to join other functional constituencies. Therefore, this amendment violates the principle that the delineation of electorates for functional constituencies shall be clear-cut and precise. The delineation standard for all functional constituencies would then be hampered and become very confusing, and the consequence could be very serious in that case. We believe that the delineation of the electorate for the existing social welfare functional constituency is representative enough and is well accepted by our society. The amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam runs counter to the opinion of the social welfare sector as well as the existing delineation principle for functional constituencies, as such, a lot of problems will be created if this amendment is put into operation.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Administration is in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam. I hereby urge Honourable Members to vote against his amendment.

4.07 pm

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, I have just noticed a minor technical problem which I need to take five minutes to handle. Council will take a break for five minutes and then resume.

Meeting suspended.

4.15 pm

Council then resumed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, I have just taken a few minutes to look carefully into the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam. As his amendment seeks to include the exempted societies and registered non-profit making companies into the electorate of the social welfare functional constituency, it is a substantial amendment. I will therefore call upon Mr FUNG to speak. Mr FUNG, please continue with your speech just now.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would like to put forward my reasons for opposing the amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam. When I first started to work, I was employed in a social welfare organization, so it can be said that I have a background in social work organizations. I also understand the nature of social work, and I think it is different from that of the non-profit making organizations or exempted organizations as set out in the amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam. Although I left the social work field in 1991, I have worked together with the social work sector for over a decade and I am already very familiar with the nature of their work.

First of all, when we talk about functional constituency election, especially the constituency of the professionals, what should our perspective be? All along, we usually cast our vote as an individual in political elections. It will be the best if we can have individual voters in the functional constituency election. However, it will be difficult to do so for some functional constituencies, for example, in the industrial and commercial sector which we also propose to give votes to the directors of companies and individuals. For those constituencies which are composed of professionals, the best method is perhaps we can have individual persons as voters in the election.

As far as I know, it used to be difficult to delineate the electorate in the social welfare sector because it did not have a registration system for social workers in the past. In the 1991 functional constituency election, we have corporate voters in this constituency. In 1995, after going through some development, we could have corporate votes as well as personal votes by social workers. Social workers are referred to as each individual social worker. We are now debating the 1998 electoral arrangement, of which the Government is proposing to stick to the arrangement of 1995. I have come to the view that if we have to make further changes to this constituency, the corporate votes should be eliminated and kept only the votes of professional social workers. In this way, this constituency will be on a par with other constituencies, for example, doctors, lawyers, nurses and so on. I think we should be consistent and equal in the meaning of professionals in functional constituencies. From this point of view, I fail to see any reason to add more corporate members and non-professional or non-registered social workers at this moment of time. In this way, instead of having more professionals and a well-defined electorate in this constituency, it will be further blurred and unclear in the composition of its electorate.

I have listened to the views of other Members and I have also met with the representatives of the Federation of Societies in East Kowloon District on this matter. I think the problem lies not with the social welfare sector but the decision of the Preparatory Committee and the Bill proposed by the Government. The reason is we have a definition for professional organizations, and there is a social services sector in the third sector of the Election Committee. But both the decision of the Preparatory Committee and the Bill of the Government have not included some social services organizations into this sector. The members of the Federation of Societies in East Kowloon District have told me that in the beginning, they have stated their request of hoping to become a member in this sector. Since the social services sector is already included in the Basic Law, why is it that they are deprived of the right to vote? I think this deserves our sympathy and support. Of course, the Government has to further deliberate the solution to this problem.

I agree that there are two alternatives to deal with this situation. One is proposed by Mr Andrew WONG during the Second Reading debate, stating if this piece of legislation is in contravention of the Basic Law, then can it still be applied? What can be done to address the omissions of this legislation? Second, should we base on the decision of the Preparatory Committee or the Basic Law? I think we have to first tackle the problem of constitution.

The second alternative is just another arrangement mentioned by Mr Eric LI, that is, whether we should include social service organizations in the third sector of the Election Committee when we amend this electoral legislation for the second term of the Legislative Council election.

No matter which way we choose, if we have to cast our vote today, it seems that it is very difficult to solve the problem proposed by the Federation of Societies in East Kowloon District. Does this mean that we can arbitrarily find a solution to entertain their request? When I held discussions with them, they said they did not know Mr CHAN Kam-lam had proposed such an amendment to give them the right to vote. They even said that they became aware of the amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam only in the seventh draft. In fact, members of the Federation of Societies in East Kowloon District have mentioned this point during our meeting at the Bills Committee, and it seems the amendment later proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam was not targeted at their requirements but they were given many extra prizes. In fact, they may not need or want these prizes, and I think this is the second reason for me to oppose Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. I hope Mr CHAN Kam-lam later can clarify why he will put forward a proposal that is far beyond the demand of the deputations. I think he owes us a clarification. However, this has also made me suspicious of and worry about the functional constituency election. I mentioned in the Second Reading debate that this is a small circle election, of which the voting process and the voting result will be easily affected, and where people or political parties in different constituencies will strive for their own interests. It is not surprising that people will have such an idea.

In addition, I would like to quote an example. The Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), Mr TSANG Yok-sing, has quoted some examples in the media, saying that some kaifong associations are under the HKCSS but some are not. As far as I can recall, he has said that the Shum Shui Po Kaifong Association is not under the HKCSS but the Shek Kip Mei Kaifong Association is on its list. According to my information, the situation is just the opposite. The Shum Shui Po Kaifong Association is under the HKCSS but the Shek Kip Mei Kaifong Association is not. Why some kaifong associations are included but some are not? In fact, kaifong associations are varied in nature. These two kaifong associations are in my district, and I understand that the Shek Kip Mei Kaifong Association has two offices, organizing cultural and recreational activities, carnivals, dinner gatherings and also tours. However, the nature of the Shum Shui Po Kaifong Association has already gone beyond the general recreational activities. It has a school, an elderly centre, a youth centre, and they have also employed social workers to undertake the work of the elderly and youth centres just mentioned. Therefore, the Shum Shui Po Kaifong Association is more like a voluntary agency than a kaifong association even though it is named such.

On the basis of the above reasons, I think the development of the social work sector and the social welfare sector should aspire to include only registered social workers in future. All the non-registered social workers should not be included in this constituency. I oppose the amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam to add those organizations into this constituency, and I will even help to "kick out" the HKCSS in the next term as well. Thank you, Madam President.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, with regard to my speech in the Second Reading debate, I would like to raise some technical questions and ask Mr CHAN and the 10-odd members of their party for advice.

During the Second Reading debate, I said that Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment would "open up the door to let everyone in". Through Mr Michael SUEN, the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, the Government also formally explained in detail that Mr CHAN's definition is rather confusing and would easily lead to confusion. It is extremely dangerous to assume that all non-profit making organizations are engaged in good deeds. It is up to these organizations to define their purposes and no matter how they define them, the most important point is whether they put their purposes into practice. If we feel that an organization is entitled to a political right and confer the eligibility on it simply because it claims it is non-profit making, it is difficult and indeed impossible for us to stop the so-called non-profit making organizations which do not really practise this purpose from joining, although most groups or organizations which petitioned Mr CHAN Kam-lam or us are really serving the community.

When many Members and my colleagues from the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) were discussing the issue, they seemed to be under an impression that only two to three hundred organizations at the most are involved. I do not know how many non-profit making bodies are really regulated by the Societies Ordinance and the Companies Ordinance. But I am sure that there are tens of thousands of them. These tens of thousands organizations might not have contacted the DAB only. Anyone can introduce these organizations. We do not know how many organizations are registered now and how many will be registered by the time of the election. Why are members of the HKCSS different from those of these merely eligible organizations or organizations with similar aims? I can give two reasons. It is clearly stated in our charter that our members do not just enjoy political rights but also have to fulfil social obligations. Rights and obligations are equally important. We vet the qualifications of each basic member. In vetting their qualifications, apart from interviewing them, we also look at whether their constitution states that they are non-profit making organizations and whether they have been formed for at least a year. They must have articles of association and similar documents and must submit an audit report and annual report to us every year. They must comply with the terms and regulations of the HKCSS. After becoming our member, they have to work together with our Council to promote work for social welfare purposes and represent the whole social welfare sector. These obligations and rights are inseparable. What can we do if these non-profit making organizations fail to meet these obligations? Mr CHAN Kam-lam's present amendment can definitely not deal with such cases. All I need to do is to put down a name and specify that this organization has so and so aims, and then it can be included. Even Mr CHAN Kam-lam cannot ensure that the aims will be upheld by it afterwards. It seems that there is no way of guaranteeing it after the election. Anyone can engage in vote-rigging. However, if a member of the HKCSS fails to me its obligations, we are empowered to expel it from the HKCSS. To a certain extent, it has to go through the procedures of a long-standing organization ─ we are celebrating our 50th anniversary this year ─ recognized by the community, as well as being widely recognized by the SAR Government, the Preparatory Committee and the social welfare sector.

I have to mention other organizations which approached the DAB, since each of these organizations would like to be mentioned. The service joint conference of each organization includes several hundred names they mentioned, including the Hong Kong Basketball Association, the Fukien Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, the Yeung Kai Secondary School Alumni Association and so on. Are these organizations doing social welfare work? I think we are all quite clear that what they do has nothing to do with what we call social welfare. One very special organization is the Hong Kong Sports Association for the Mentally Handicapped. This association is quite well known among the mentally handicapped and is a member of the HKCSS. Maybe the DAB does not know that I am their president. I have asked the President and it seems that even she has no idea why its name should appear here. How did this list come about? Many organizations which normally would not be associated with one another are put under the same category. How confusing this is. As I said, many of these organizations, such as the sports association, can be included in another constituency under the existing system, such as other sports, commercial or association constituencies. There are many possibilities and they need not come under this constituency. Otherwise, it would become a constituency that everyone can join. This is even more chaotic than Mr Chris PATTEN's nine new functional constituencies. It is by no means better and might even be more confusing. Is this in keeping with the spirit of the decision of the Preparatory Committee? I hope we can discuss this.

The HKCSS has no intention to be the only authority in the social service sector. However, in the social welfare sector, in the seven policy areas of the Health and Welfare Bureau and the Social Welfare Department as clearly pointed out by Mr HUI Yin-fat, that is, family and child welfare, social security, elderly care, medical social service, rehabilitation, discharged prisoners' service, community development and youth service, there is no doubt that the HKCSS is an authoritative co-ordinator. We are only an organization with 50 years of experience in social welfare. We have never said that we are the only authoritative social service organization. If people say that the HKCSS is trying to protect the interests or authority of its own constituency, I believe this is utterly unfair. As Mr HUI Yin-fat said, we had never said so. Before people say this, they should consider whether we are different in nature from certain alumni associations, commercial associations and sports associations. If people say that we intend to monopolize social service, is this not extremely unfair to us? As Mr Frederick FUNG just said, even kaifong associations are organized in different manners. Actually, my family has been kaifong workers for three generations. I am now the vice-chairman of an important kaifong association. I know that some kaifong associations have declined while some others have grown tremendously and some even co-operate closely with the Social Welfare Department. One can hardly say that one kaifong association is the same as another. This is wholly inconsistent with the reality. This being the case, do we have to unconvincingly argue about the boundaries between social service and social welfare?

Mr CHENG Kai-nam has asked a good question. I did not have time to finish just now. If I were given two choices, as Chairman of the HKCSS, would I choose to have the HKCSS included ─ we do not want to be "kicked out", we will get out ourselves ─ and given the right to vote, or have everyone taking part? It is very simple and clear. The stand of the HKCSS is very clear. If all the other social organizations are invited to join in, we would welcome them wholeheartedly. However, I hope that there will be two constituencies. This has been our proposal all along and has been clearly put on record. We want one constituency for professional social workers and another for other social services. We are birds of a feather. This is very clear. However, it is very difficult to fight for this arrangement in reality. Therefore, we have to be content with the second best.

Today, I am the Chairman of the HKCSS. However, a short while ago, we held our annual general meeting and a new election will be held in a week. I might be "kicked" out if I say something wrong today and I may not be elected chairman. But as we have said, Members must be impartial. I can openly pledge that if I am re-elected as Chairman of the HKCSS, I am willing to call on organizations of the HKCSS to withdraw from this election. I do not want this vote, not even over 200 votes. We could even give up over 6 000 votes. If we can help avert quarrels and avoid a general chaos in the social welfare sector, we do not mind making some selfless pledges? Some Honourable colleagues stressed that our meeting today gives people an opportunity to question whether we are selfless. Of course I do not think we have selfish motives. But is there any point in arguing about it? No. With concrete action, I hope to elicit a response from the DAB and other Honourable colleagues. I do not even want the vote. We do not want the political right. The reason why we are making this point is that we hope that we will respond to public comments in today's meeting. We cannot let people say that we refuse to listen to other people's views and consider ourselves to be always right. We should make a clear response to public comments. My motives in proposing this amendment are selfless. Under this circumstance, even though the Government is against all the amendments, I believe it will surely listen and the public will support it. I hope everyone can respond with concrete action now. I also hope that the Administrative or the DAB will join me in asking the SAR Government to propose a supplementary amendment, which will not only include all social service organizations in the third sector of the Election Committee. As a representative of the HKCSS, I am also willing to support the HKCSS's demand to reserve the social welfare sector for professional social workers, so that they will enjoy equal treatment as other professionals like members of the education sector and medical and health personnel.

I would also like to clarify one small point. Mr TSANG Yok-sing said that the social welfare sector had asked the Preparatory Committee to place it in the grassroots category. This is not true. I can tell everyone clearly that our professional social worker sector had strived to join the professional category. I knew that we would get fewer votes in the professional category. We did not need votes at all. I consider our professional status of utmost importance. However, when the Preparatory Committee placed us in the grassroots category, we did not object and we accepted it. Why? It is because some social workers thought that since we serve the grassroots level directly, it might make us appear if we were distancing ourselves from the grassroots people if we refused to be placed in the grassroots category. Some social workers also thought that given the fait accompli, we would share our fate with the grassroots. Would that do any harm? I think that we have accepted it with that attitude. Thus, Chairman TSANG, please do not misunderstand this. The HKCSS and the social welfare sector had never fought for anything ─ no matter in what category ─ for the sake of votes. I hope you will respond to this with selfless action. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, among so many amendments, this amendment might also provoke some discussions. Actually, I hope that the discussions that this amendment provokes will be healthy and rational. It is only after serious thought and taking into account the views of the social worker sector, the DAB and over 200 social service organizations that the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) has decided to support Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment.

I would like to express two views. The first one is about the definition of the social welfare sector, and the second one is about who can become voters of the social welfare sector.

First, I would like to talk about who can become voters of the social welfare sector. We wonder if the voters of the welfare sector should only comprise over 200 members of the HKCSS and over 5 000 registered social workers? Is it appropriate for us to exclude a group of community organizations which has been silently providing social service to the grassroots for a long time from the social service sector?

We have taken into account some arguments in favour of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment put forward by the joint conference of social service organizations fighting for the right to be voters in the Legislative Council election representing some 300 registered societies. Maybe I should try to cite two examples.

First, they are of the view that ever since there are functional elections for the Legislative Council, many social service organizations have been trying to gain participation through the functional constituencies. It was only before the establishment of the SAR Government that they had a chance to participate in the election of the Selection Committee and the work of electing the Chief Executive and the Provisional Legislative Council through the religious, grassroots and labour constituency. However, after the establishment of the SAR Government, for no reason at all, they have suddenly lost the right to elect and be elected in respect of the first Legislative Council. Thus, they question why they are excluded and whether this is in keeping with the principles of a fair, open and democratic election.

Second, in their opinion, since Hong Kong came into existence as a part, social services have never been provided exclusively by some voluntary organizations or social workers. Various kinds of legally registered service organizations such as district organizations, kaifong associations, residents' associations and clansmen associations have spent money and made efforts on and devoted much time and energy to serving the general public. By helping the poor, supporting social charity, reflecting public opinion, improving people's livelihood and developing civic education, they have resolved much social conflict for the Government, functioning as a strong community support force. Due to the above reasons, they consider that they should be included in the social welfare sector. We agree to this.

Third, let us look at the question of definition. Should we define the social welfare sector purely as a social worker sector? Under existing practices, the social welfare sector has no doubt purely become a social worker sector. Whether this is consistent with the spirit of the Preparatory Committee is an issue we should think about deeply. We have seen how this social welfare sector has evolved. In 1991, only the HKCSS could exercise its six votes. In 1995, over 1 000 social workers were added. Now, it has extended to comprise over 5 000 social workers and over 200 social service organizations. From these changes, we can clearly see that the social welfare sector has become a social worker sector. Of course, we are not trying to sort out whether it should be called the social worker sector or the social welfare sector. However, we should consider whether we should view this sector from a wider and representative perspective or a narrow perspective. The HKPA hopes that we can look at it from a angle more focused on representativeness.

Madam Chairman, I am convinced that the social workers, with their good reputation of being the "Big Dipper" and who have always supported democracy, fairness and openness, will generously agree to enhance the representativeness of the social welfare sector.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as a prelude to today's meeting, the discussions during the last few days have provided much material for the press. However, today, we should adopt a calm and rational attitude in considering the various amendments, especially the more controversial ones. The amendment under discussion may well be the most controversial one among all the amendments today. This morning, when we arrived at the Chamber, the voices of protests spoke for it. In the midst of such high emotions, we cannot allow ourselves to be muddled up or make mistakes. First, let us see what is wrong with this amendment of the DAB.

Fair elections are based on accurate and generally accepted definitions. The DAB repeatedly spoke of their lofty aim, which is to extend the range of social service to include those organizations which the DAB considers as serving social service functions. The question is whether the principles practised by these organizations, the purposes they serve and their clientele are recognized by the general public and most people as those usually perceived to be pertaining to the social service sector. The most important criterion is actually "fulfilment" instead of how the organizations define their purposes or nature.

Among the numerous lobbying papers today, there is one called "A Declaration by the Joint Conference of Social Service Organizations Fighting for the Right to be Voters in the Legislative Council Election to Members". Basically, it calls on Members to support Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. Taking a careful look at the organizations listed, we can find that some of them can indeed be deemed as social service organizations in name, such as district residents' associations and kaifong associations. However, there are undeniably some not very active associations which are more fraternity organizations than service organizations. Particularly baffling is the fact that many of them are clansmen associations, commercial associations, residents' associations, sports associations, foundations, alumni associations, even alumni associations outside Hong Kong. Maybe I can cite a few examples here: the Cheung Chau Shun Tak Clansmen Association, the Wing Chun Clansmen Association (HK) Limited, the On Kai Clansmen Association, the Kam Tung Clansmen Association and the Man Sai Clansmen Association; among commercial associations are the Chinese Merchants Association, the Tsang Shing Commercial Association and the Po On Commercial Association; among residents' associations are the Wai Bun Hong Kong Residents' Association and the Ng Wah Hong Kong Residents' Association (there are no Chan Cheung Wong Ho or Chow Leung residents' associations. It seems that the joint conference is not concerned about representativeness). Besides, there are the Sai Kung Kin Man Sports Association, the Hong Kong Dragonboat Association and the Hong Kong Football Association. I wonder if the Honourable Timothy FOK would wish to regard the Football Association as a social service organization. There are also the Tsun Lung Basketball Foundation, the Hong Kong Nam Sing Secondary School Alumni Association, the Mui Chow Hong Kong Alumni Association, the Hong Kong Xiamen Tai Tung Secondary School Alumni Association, the Yeung Kai Secondary School Alumni Association and so on.

I have no idea how representative the above organizations are. Although they might regard themselves as social service organizations or perhaps they wish to become such organizations, we apparently do not know too much about their work. As we have all heard, no matter how imaginative one is, one cannot regard some of those organizations as serving social service functions. During the past 12 years, the community has not had very strong opinions about whether the HKCSS is qualified to be a mechanism for vetting social welfare functions. Just now the Honourable TSANG Yok-sing said that there are two organizations providing the same service and having the same purpose. However, one has joined the HKCSS and therefore has the right to vote, while the other has not joined and therefore has no vote. Is this fair? But upon deeper thought, we will find that Mr TSANG is in fact challenging the whole concept of functional constituencies. If the DAB is against this role of the HKCSS, it must surely be against the mechanisms of all other functional constituencies for determining voter eligibility. If the DAB says that they are only fighting for the right to join the social welfare sector on behalf of social organizations and not out of self-interest (since their party leaders have unanimously claimed that they are not acting out of self-interest), we might choose to believe that they are really not acting out of self-interest. That being the case, then there is something terribly wrong with their line of thought, logic and judgment.

Madam Chairman, during the Second Reading debate earlier, Mr TSANG apologized to you on behalf of the DAB. He said that you had come under criticism because you had allowed the amendment. As far as I recall, only Mr Allen LEE of the Liberal Party has publicly commented on this issue and written to you questioning this decision. I feel it is necessary to make a clarification here. Members have always questioned the decisions of the President as to whether she should approve an amendment, especially an extremely controversial amendment. Members are fully entitled to demand an explanation. Members have a copy of Mr Allen LEE's letter to the President and the President's reply. We might not fully agree, but we absolutely respect this power of the President. This is the spirit of debate and must not be confused with or be seen as personal attack. Of course, I believe that Mr TSANG did not mean to cause a rift between the Liberal Party and the President. I hope and believe that it will not result in a rift.

I call upon Honourable colleagues not to support Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. Just now we heard Mr Ronald ARCULLI said "poor old Kam-lam", and we also heard Mr TSANG said "poor Mr CHAN Kam-lam". I believe that we should pity Mr CHAN Kam-lam, since the amendment he proposed simply does not hold water. I hope that Honourable colleagues will not support this amendment. If your support of this amendment leads to its approval, it would in fact be perverting the meaning of openness and fairness and there is no difference from Chris PATTEN's introduction of direct elections indirectly through the nine new constituencies then.

CHAIRMAN: Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam Chairman, this particular amendment has given me a great deal of worry and left me in a quandary. Fundamentally, it appears that the social welfare sector represented by Mr HUI Yin-fat could more correctly be placed in the professional sector and the other welfare associations in the grassroot sector. Since this has not been done, I feel sorry that there has emerged a rather acrimonious division between the two groups who are both serving the needy and could be complimentary rather than confrontational.

Since these grassroot organizations have been omitted from the list, I would have been inclined to support the Bill and not the amendments this time in the hope that these organizations would be included next time in the second Legislative Council election after the confusion has been sorted out because apparently there is a great deal of confusion about who has the right to be member.

However, I have been rather angry to hear some abusive criticism of Mr CHAN Kam-lam. I am grateful that Mr Eric LI tried to pour oil on the trouble waters and proposed expanding this constituency at the second election. I agree with Mr LI on that and I also hope that Mr CHAN Kam-lam would consider delaying his proposal until the second Legislative Council election. If he could do that, he would save us a lot of headaches. However, it is up to him entirely as to whether he does that. But because of the unfair attack of Mr CHAN, I will abstain from voting on the issue. I enjoyed the speech by Mr ARCULLI but was rather shocked when he ended by threatening that the Liberal Party would vote against the whole Bill at the Third Reading if Mr CHAN's amendment was passed. I think it would be very irresponsible and I hope the Liberal Party will reconsider that point. This Bill is urgent and to vote against the whole Bill seems to be going too far in disapproving one part of it.

Madam Chairman, I am afraid that I have to abstain for the reasons I have given.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, this amendment is undoubtedly the "meat" of today's debate and indeed the most controversial one. As a member of the Bills Committee, I feel that in the process of fighting for the right of social service organizations to vote in the Legislative Council election, the advocates might have made a great mistake in the way ideas are expressed. Of course, I fully sympathize with Mr CHAN Kam-lam as we actually know that this might not be his own proposal. As the DAB wants the amendment and he is responsible for this, he has to take the lead in selling it. We understand this point. I was present when some organizations came to meet the Bills Committee. As I understood it, this was not what they fought for in the beginning. The organizations did not tell us that they wanted to join the social welfare sector. I found their initial demand very clear and reasonable. They said that although the third sector of the Election Committee comes under the heading of social services, it also includes the religious sector. You might say that religion is also a kind of social service. It also includes culture, sports, performing arts, labour and social welfare. At that time, I got the impression that they wanted a new item under the third sector called social services. I found this demand reasonable and not too problematic. The whole incident also bears proof to the fact that very important functions are performed by these organizations in society. But what sort of a problem has it developed into? Madam Chairman, you have to admit that the Bill on the election method for the first Legislative Council can only be passed if it follows certain stipulations of the Preparatory Committee. What did the Preparatory Committee say about the composition of the Election Committee? Apart from being returned by the original 21 functional constituencies (excluding the Urban Council and the Regional Council), its members can only be returned by the 15 groups which might or might not be chosen as the nine new functional constituencies. One cannot add anything that is not on the list. Despite our sympathy, there was nothing we could do. We pointed this out in the meeting. When the meeting was resumed after a brief suspension, they changed their position and demanded to join the social welfare sector. I believe their motive was to seek recognition. Unfortunately, it was seen as an infringement on the recognized social welfare profession and led to considerable repercussions in the community. This is indeed extremely unfortunate. These were followed by accusations like "scrambling for seats for self-interest". We all sympathize with Mr CHAN Kam-lam who had to deal with this. I know that Mr CHENG Kai-nam is responsible for public relations in the DAB. If he was charged with this matter, he might have packaged it better and it might not have aroused such repercussions. However, what is done cannot be undone.

In my view, it is inappropriate to include these groups in this election by extending the definition of social welfare. First, if this principle is applied to this sector, other sectors should also adopt the same principle. For instance, in the tourism sector, there are travel agencies, hotels and airlines. However eligible hotels must be members of two specified associations. In Hong Kong, there are many licenced or unlicenced hostels. If they are eligible as long as they provide hotel services, might those so-called "single prostitute flats" be also included in the tourism sector, since they are just like hotels? Can we allow this? Of course not. They have to join an association and be recognized. These associations have their own vetting system and the relevant bodies are not allowed to join these associations until they have met their requirements. Once these bodies have joined these associations, they will be qualified voters.

Thus I feel that what these groups should do is to try to become a member of the HKCSS. I do not think the HKCSS will reject them. Which organizations have applied and have been turned down? They have not specified. Unfortunately, the way they have handled it gives the community an impression that they tried all sorts of tricks before using the social workers to squeeze their way in. I was pleased to hear Mr Eric LI say that the HKCSS might become really professional in the future. Many years ago, I was also a member of the Social Welfare Advisory Committee. I know that social workers have been fighting for professional recognition for a long time. They want social workers to be qualified through a professional examination. We should respect their goal. We should safeguard this sector, in particular the dignity and professionalism of social workers. This is extremely important. Thus I do not agree to diluting the community's understanding of "what is social welfare" since 1985 by various means. Of course, due to the stipulations of the Preparatory Committee, we cannot just add a new item to the third sector. However, I understand that this is binding on the first Legislative Council only and not on its second term. If someone proposes to add a few items to the third sector of the Election Committee in the second term, such as residents' and kaifong associations, I would find it totally acceptable. However, I feel that it is inappropriate to do this in today's debate and under the present circumstances. Therefore I oppose Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment, since he is proposing it on behalf of the DAB. Of course I believe it is not the DAB alone which holds this view. The petitions submitted by the organizations we met that day had letterheads. I have looked carefully at the names of those committee members and I found that they are not exclusively members of the DAB, so we should not think that only the DAB is fighting for its own sake. The names of IP Kwok-chung, LEUNG Ying-biu and even the Honourable WONG Siu-yee are also on the list. It is not known whether only the DAB will cast their votes today or whether they will be joined by the so-called "Democratic Progressive Party". However, I feel that the way to fight for this is to consider including it or making new proposals in the second Legislative Council election.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAU Kong-wah.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the debate on the amendment pertaining to this constituency has continued from this morning till now. Among the speeches made this morning, I had paid special attention to Mr Allen LEE's speech. He talked about a rumour. At first I thought that this rumour contained some kind of message. But it turned out that it did not. He said it was rumoured that the Xinhua News Agency had called him and that Mr TSANG Yok-sing had spoken to him on the phone, which was not true. This seemed to me to be making a fuss about a rumour. But what is it supposed to tell us? I have no idea. Does it mean that every rumour we heard in the future must be recounted in this Chamber?

The second thing that was being made a fuss about is the fact that Mr Allen LEE has made many comments to the media this week questioning the necessity of this amendment. He questioned why kaifong associations are included. Since he cited this example, I studied a list of the HKCSS to find out whether kaifong associations are among its members. I discovered that three kaifong associations belong to the HKCSS, including the Aberdeen, Causeway Bay and Chai Wan kaifong associations. Why should these kaifong associations have a vote while other kaifong associations not? This is my question. From the social workers' point of view, why should these kaifong associations not have a vote? It beats me. Just now Mr Frederick FUNG said that the Sham Shui Po Kaifong Association has no vote too, but it provides very good service such as offering courses and running a centre for the elderly.

I have read a book entitled Comprehensive Services of Social Work written by a group of social workers. One social worker describes such organizations as follows: "Actually, according to the annual reports of the Social Welfare Department between 1993 to 1995, non-governmental organizations provide most of the social welfare services in Hong Kong. More importantly, among these organizations are many community organizations which are very familiar with the environment of the local community and its cultural features, such as kaifong associations. From the point of view of social workers today, kaifong associations already represent a kind of social welfare service. Their role in social welfare service is indisputable." Although I have no predilection for kaifong welfare associations, I still find it unfair. Besides, social workers have also begun to recognize the role of these grassroots organizations. Apart from kaifong associations, another social worker mentions in the context of clansmen associations, social or community networks. He says that we have to establish networks to look after the community. He describes these networks as follows: "They are most clearly demonstrated in the role of the family as the primary providers of care and welfare and by the contributions of clansmen associations, neighbourhood organizations and volunteers." I have always felt that these organizations are more traditional and old-fashioned and cannot help people. But the truth is not the case. Social workers find that these organizations have a certain role to play in the community and form a supplementary force for many institutions.

What is the Government's attitude? I have read the 1991 White Paper. Actually, the whole social welfare sector has been debating for the past decade over how these grassroots and social organizations, kaifong associations and clansmen associations should be treated. I find the Government's conclusion offers a certain bearing. The tenth paragraph of the 1991 White Paper puts it very clearly, "Social networks ...... are most clearly demonstrated in the role of the family as the primary providers of care and welfare and by the contributions of clansmen associations, neighbourhood organizations and volunteers." This is the Government's view. Since I have studied this paper, I am clearer about what the whole debate is all about. Of course, Mr Eric LI and Mr HUI Yin-fat also mentioned in their various speeches that we do not necessarily have to have that vote. When the Government first proposed this motion, if the HKCSS had withdrawn and declared that it would not want that vote, it might have been to the satisfaction of all. Social workers should certainly be entitled to one-man one-vote. But the problem now is, while they want one-man one-vote and one vote for each organization, at the same time, they feel that other organizations should not be given the vote.

I would like to compare some organizations on the list of the HKCSS with some which are not on the list. For instance, the Hong Kong Housing Society is a member of the HKCSS. According to this Bill, the Hong Kong Housing Society has a vote. But why does the Hong Kong Housing Authority not have a vote? If the Hong Kong People's Council on Public Housing Policy has a vote, why does the Federation of Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories Public Housing Estates Resident and Shop-owner Organizations not? Even stranger is the fact that among the tertiary institutions, the City University of Hong Kong and the Shue Yan College each have a vote. But why do the Lingnan University, Polytechnic University and Baptist University not have a vote? This is where the problem lies and this is where the unfairness is. If citing these organizations is not enough, I will refer to the organizations subsidized by the Community Chest, which are quite similar. In terms of the degree of recognition, I believe the Community Chest has a similar list, but these organizations do not have a vote. While the Chung Shak Hei (Cheung Chau) Home for the Aged of the HKCSS has a vote, the Buddhist Li Ka Shing Care and Attention Home for the Elderly of the Community Chest does not. The Children's Cancer Fund of the HKCSS has a vote, but the Hong Kong Anti-Cancer Society of the Community Chest does not. The Adventure Ship Limited of the HKCSS has a vote, but the Hong Kong Sea School of the Community Chest does not. The Kwai Shing Estate Residents' Association of the HKCSS has a vote, but the Hong Kong Housing Authority North Point Estate Residents Association of the Community Chest does not. The Causeway Bay Kaifong Welfare Advancement Association of the HKCSS has a vote, while the Community Chest's North Point Kai Fong Welfare Advancement Association does not. This is where the problem lies. How did this situation come about? There may be many historical factors involved, but we have to be able to explain it if we want to talk about fairness and impartiality. I have only mentioned the list of the Community Chest, not those of several hundred other organizations. When it comes to human rights, even if a person has been done an injustice, we have to protect him. Now that some organizations are obviously not protected, should we say that they cannot have this protection? I do not agree to this unless some Honourable colleagues can come up with better solutions to protect the political rights of these organizations.

Besides, the whole debate might have mixed up the different concepts, confusing political rights with professional interests. In scrutinizing this Bill, we are not talking about professional interests but political rights. If we talk about political rights, we have to emphasize fairness and openness. If we talk about professional interests, it would be more exclusive and relatively isolated. As I have just said, no one denies the professional status that the social workers want to fight for. However, is this the only channel to establish one's professional status, or is it a channel to represent the social welfare sector? Personally I am more inclined towards the latter, which is more important. Madam Chairman, I feel that the HKCSS or its representatives are in a rather awkward position. They ask for one vote for each organization. However, no matter how great the contribution of those organizations not among the list of the HKCSS the work of which covers social service, the HKCSS treats them as old friends when it comes to providing services, while denying them the right to vote when it comes to election. Is this not like being warm and cold to someone in turn? I have this kind of feeling. How are we going to resolve this? Of course, the best way is to set up an independent functional constituency for all professional social workers and another for all organizations in the social service sector. But the reality is, we have both one-man one-vote and one vote for every organization. What are we going to do with those organizations which are not protected and deprived of their rights? This is a question that all Members have to answer. If they cannot come up with an answer, it would not be a fair, just and open election. However, I believe that Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment provides this protection to a certain extent.

I so submit. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI has indicated that he wishes to speak for the second time. I believe that Mr Eric LI wishes to respond to the speeches made by several Members just now. Mr LI.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. I will try to be brief, since I do not wish to waste too much of everyone's time. Just now an Honourable colleague from the DAB asked me to explain several things. I am perfectly willing to do so.

First, he asked why some kaifong associations are members of the HKCSS while some are not. Earlier, Mr Howard YOUNG also mentioned that given the 30 functional constituencies now, if we look at the overall interests and the overall political structure, we would easily see why some have chosen not to become voters although they are eligible. Many companies can apply to become a member of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC) represented by the Honourable James TIEN. But we will not lay down a law to state that all companies eligible to apply for membership of the HKGCC have a vote. Many accountants (at least a few thousands) have not joined the Hong Kong Society of Accountants. Since they have not applied to become members, they have given up their rights to vote or their political rights. This is voluntary and a choice of theirs.

As to why some kaifong associations have the vote and some kaifong associations do not, the reason is quite simple. It is because some have chosen to apply to become members while some have chosen not to. If they do not file an application, we cannot give them membership. If Members from the DAB think that those organizations and companies should be given the vote, then all 30 functional constituencies should be changed so that all those potentially eligible will be considered. It will then be up to the Government to decide who is eligible and who is not. In that case, I would agree to it and I would consider supporting it.

Of the three kaifong associations which have joined the HKCSS, the one in Chai Wan has the longest history. It had begun its work of helping the poor well before many social welfare service organizations were even founded. Therefore it has a long history. The Social Welfare Department has always allowed kaifong welfare associations to organize activities which fall within the scope of its subvented services. As far as I know, the kaifong welfare associations in Hong Kong have applied for subventions and organized subvented activities. This is accepted by the Social Welfare Department. It is not up to the HKCSS, but the Hong Kong Government to make a decision.

I am most familiar with the Causeway Bay Kaifong Welfare Advancement Association. My grandfather was its founder and my father the former chairman. My mother is the incumbent chairman and I am the first vice-chairman. I can tell everyone that the Causeway Bay Kaifong Welfare Advancement Association has a six-storeyed building. We organize many activities. Since our funds are abundant, we need not apply for subventions. However, we frequently organize activities jointly with the Home Affairs Bureau and the Social Welfare Department. We contribute money as well as our efforts. We are also an organization formally approved by the Social Welfare Department that can enjoy exemption from rates. We are one of the first kaifong welfare associations in Hong Kong. We did apply for membership and we choose to maintain a close relationship with the HKCSS. Other kaifong welfare associations are also welcome to join. Even if they do not have such factors, I will certainly consider their applications if they do submit them.

Members from the DAB wish to show their honourable intentions and have a good debate. I welcome this very much. I do not know whether other Honourable colleagues of the DAB are, as Mr LAU Kong-wah just said, insisting that the HKCSS has selfish motives and is scrambling for seats and votes. I hope they will prove it. I have no wish to argue further. If the DAB still thinks that way, I can only say with resignation that we have kicked up dust though we have done nothing.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, also speaking for the second time.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would like to clearly state my purpose in proposing this amendment and also to explain this amendment more fully.

My purpose in proposing this amendment is to increase the representativeness of the social welfare functional constituency, so as to include non-profit making societies and service organizations the aims of which are to engage in charitable and social services and which conform to the principles of the HKCSS in the electorate of the social welfare constituency besides the 260 organizations under the HKCSS and the 6 000 registered social workers.

As I said in my speech during the Second Reading debate, there are some ambiguities and unfairness in the Bill with regard to the voter eligibility criteria of some functional constituencies and the Election Committee. During its public consultations, the Bills Committee also received submissions from many organizations. The Government and the Bills Committee have accepted the views of some organizations and made relevant amendments to the Bill. During our deliberation of the Bill, we in the DAB, heard the views of many district service organizations. They pointed out that it is unfair to exclude them from the Bill so that they cannot participate in voting in the relevant functional constituency and the Election Committee and hence do not have the right to vote in the first Legislative Council election. The DAB agree considerably with this. In terms of their aims and the nature of the services they provide, these district service organizations are basically the same as the organizations under the HKCSS now. However, as these organizations are not members of the HKCSS, they have all along been deprived of their rights to vote in the social welfare constituency. We feel that this unreasonable and unfair situation must be rectified. Thus after repeated consultations with all sides, we have incorporated the objects of the HKCSS into this amendment as the most important requirement of the social welfare sector organizations. We feel that this would take into account the present leading role of the HKCSS in the social welfare sector, while enabling some non-HKCSS organizations to be included in the functional constituency on the basis of the criterion of the objects of the HKCSS.

According to the constitution of the HKCSS, their objects are: (1) to promote the co-ordination and improvement of social services; (2) to develop such resources as manpower, funding and information, for social services; and (3) to promote public understanding of social service needs and the role of the voluntary agencies in meeting those needs. The constitution also states that social service organizations the aims and principles of which are consistent with those of the HKCSS and the major work of which is to directly provide social services to meet the needs of the community may become basic members of the HKCSS, while those not providing direct services may become ordinary members. Both have the right to vote in the social welfare functional constituency.

During the Second Reading debate, Mr HUI Yin-fat repeatedly stressed that their members provide direct welfare service. I believe this contravenes what their constitution states. Organizations providing direct services are only some of the organizations under the HKCSS. At present, there are many district organizations in Hong Kong with aims similar to those of the HKCSS and which meet the membership requirements of the HKCSS. While friends from the HKCSS always tell us that their doors are open and eligible organizations are welcome to join, it should be up to the individual organizations to decide whether they would join the HKCSS. But we cannot accept that an organization must first join the HKCSS before it can vote in the social welfare sector. Why should qualified voters must be vetted by the HKCSS before they could secure the right to vote? Just now Mr Eric LI said that they are welcome to join the HKCSS anytime. However, if we use membership of the HKCSS as the prerequisite to the right to vote, it would deprive other people of their rights to decide whether they would join as members. Is this a reasonable arrangement? In the functional constituency elections, we want the constituencies to be representative and they must truly reflect the existing situation of the sector, not monopoly by one single association. Despite their recognition of the contribution of non-HKCSS organizations, people still refuse to put an end to this unreasonable situation. Mr Eric LI mentioned solidarity with the district service organizations and this sounds quite appealing. However, we might not give credit to such lip service and pretty words. If there really is solidarity, they should then solidarize with the DAB in affirming the non-HKCSS organizations' contribution to society, recognizing their social status, respecting their rights to choose and giving them their due rights to vote.

Friends from the HKCSS also said that an inclusion of non-HKCSS organizations in the social welfare functional constituency would undermine the professionalism of that constituency. In this connection, how does the Causeway Bay Kaifong Advancement Association under the HKCSS compare with the Wanchai Kaifong Association which is not under the HKCSS, and how professional the Hong Kong People's Council on Public Housing Policy is compared with the Federation of Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories Public Housing Estates Resident and Shop-owner Organizations? Further, what is so professional about the Social Service Group of the Hong Kong University Student's Union which is part of students' extracurricular activities and organizations such as the Hong Kong Aircraft Engineering Company Limited Veterans Club?

If Honourable colleagues would take a look at the membership list of the HKCSS, they will find that there are numerous similar examples of non-professional organizations. Mr LAU Kong-wah cited a large number of them just now. Mr HUI Yin-fat, the Director of the HKCSS, also admitted that any organization which fulfils the requirements of the HKCSS may become a member and its staff does not have to include social workers. Thus the objects of the HKCSS are not necessarily related to the profession of social workers. It is obviously not logical to link the professional status of social workers with organizations which serve the community.

The DAB has always taken the professional status of social workers seriously and respected the professionalism of social workers serving the community. We agree that the social worker sector should fight for a professional functional constituency. However, this is something for the future.

When the previous British Hong Kong Government first introduced functional constituency elections, there was adequate discussion about the voter eligibility criterion of the medical constituency. At first, the Hong Kong Government proposed that members of the Hong Kong Medical Association should form the electorate of the medical constituency, while the Medical Association proposed that all doctors registered under the Medical Registration Ordinance could vote. As a result, the registered dentists were included. Also, with regard to the labour functional constituency, from 1985 till now, all registered trade unions have a vote. No one has ever proposed that they have to join the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions or the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions first before they are given a vote. This further illustrates that it is a historically unfair treatment to require social service organizations to join the HKCSS first before they can vote in the elections. Friends from the HKCSS say that ever since the establishment of functional constituencies, the HKCSS has been the sole representative of the social service sector. If non-HKCSS organizations were included, it would lash at the vested rights of the HKCSS ......

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to elucidate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, a Member wishes to seek an elucidation.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): I will be brief. I was not aware that there was a social service constituency in the elections during the past years. I have only heard of the social welfare constituency. Would Mr CHAN Kam-lam please explain whether he is referring to the social welfare constituency or the social service constituency?

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

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I was referring to the social welfare constituency the sole representative organization of which at present is the HKCSS. I said the HKCSS has come to the view that its position would be challenged or the constituency would become unprofessional if non-HKCSS organizations should join it. We cannot agree to this.

Actually, among the various functional constituencies, the social welfare constituency has always had a unique development. As for comments expressing concern that the amendment of the DAB might cover several thousand organizations and would lead to unnecessary controversy, we feel that the number of organizations is not our greatest concern. Once the registration of voters begins, any organization fulfilling the voter eligibility criterion of the social welfare constituency can register with the Electoral Affairs Commission. The verification of voter eligibility should be the work of the Government and it is not up to the HKCSS to decide whether or to not give a vote to the relevant organizations.

The DAB has not listed the names of all the organizations in the amendment. This is because we find that we should not know about the names and number of eligible organizations, or those which choose to register as voters before voter registration begins.

Earlier Mrs Selina CHOW also mentioned the names of some organizations. Those organizations jointly signed a statement demanding the right to vote, but it does not mean that they necessarily fulfil the voter eligibility criterion stipulated in the amendment. In fact, during the initial stage of drafting, the DAB's amendment had already been discussed in detail by the Bills Committee, and the finalized amendment had incorporated the views of some Committee members and members of the social worker sector. Thus, we were extremely surprised to hear recently some unreasonable criticisms against my amendment by certain Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, and that someone even said that he will call on all from the whole social worker sector to go after the DAB in next year's election. Obviously, these remarks would not help to safeguard the professionalism of the social worker sector.

As for Mr HUI Yin-fat's suspicion questioning that the DAB's amendment might contravene the decision of the Preparatory Committee, we had already responded to this in the initial stage of drafting the amendment. In our view, the Preparatory Committee's decision confirms that for the 1998 Legislative Council election, the electorate of the 21 old functional constituencies shall be delineated according to the principle adopted in 1991. However, it has not stated that changes cannot be made to the electorate of the old functional constituencies. In this Bill, the Hong Kong Government has made changes to other constituencies, including the health services and education constituencies. In the education constituency, full-time research and administrative staff of ranks equivalent to the full-time teaching staff in tertiary institutions has been added to the electorate. As for the social welfare constituency, only members of the HKCSS were eligible voters in the 1991 elections. In accordance with the new Social Workers Registration Ordinance, the Bill has added registered social workers to the electorate. If Mr HUI insists on abiding by the election mode in 1991, we would undoubtedly have to cancel the registration of 6 000 social workers. Although Mr HUI Yin-fat is not a member of the Bills Committee, the DAB has exchanged views with him several times in respect of this amendment. If Mr HUI thinks that the DAB's amendment might have contravened the Preparatory Committee's decision, he might as well have told us this or he might have given us his valuable advice during the deliberation of the Bills Committee. It was a pity that, instead, Mr HUI put pressure on the President, trying to influence the President's independent ruling and asking the President to decline my request for an amendment. In the DAB's opinion, such an approach should not be encouraged at all and it should be severely criticized.

Mr Howard YOUNG of the Liberal Party had made some constructive criticisms about my amendment in the Bills Committee. The DAB is grateful for his views. He suggested at that time that we might consider using a method similar to that adopted by the performing arts sector in getting subvention from the Urban Council as a qualification requirement of some organizations. We have studied this but we still find that the criterion is fairly broad and, therefore, we have not accepted it.

Madam Chairman, the reason why the DAB has proposed the amendment is simply because we cannot accept using membership of the HKCSS as the voter qualification of the social welfare constituency.

The digital timer showed 15:01

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, time is up. Mr HUI Yin-fat, speaking for the second time.

MR HUI YIN-FAT (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would like to clarify two points. First, Mr LAU Kong-wah asked why some organizations cannot become members of the HKCSS. My only answer is that it is because they have not applied. If they have applied, they can certainly become its members. Second, Mr CHAN Kam-lam just said that I put pressure on you, Madam Chairman, urging you not to allow them to propose their amendment. I would like to ask you, Madam Chairman, whether I had put pressure on you and how I did so. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, the President will not be moved by any pressure. But, if there is pressure, I would gladly grin and bear it, but I would not be influenced. (Laughter) Mr Ronald ARCULLI, speaking for the second time.

MR RONALD ARCULLI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have already forgotten that I had spoken once, but I was trying to remind Members of something then. Actually, Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment is by no means a technical one. I was impressed by Mr HUI Yin-fat and Mr Eric LI who have put forward plenty of arguments. But if people refuse to understand them and accept their views, then they can say anything they like. As Mr Eric LI just said, why do the majority of voters for the 30 seats of the functional constituencies have to be members of certain organizations while the others do not? This is fair, just and open from a certain point of view only. It is useless keeping the door wide open if one does not wish to enter. I remember that I have asked Mr TSANG Yok-sing if any organizations had filed applications for membership with the HKCSS but were turned down and whether the HKCSS was really monopolizing the sector. If there are such cases, they should be revealed. I would really be sympathetic. This is very simple.

Applying the same principle to the legal functional constituency, for instance, the staff of the Legal Service Division of the Provisional Legislative Council will only be given the vote if our amendment is passed, since they are not members of the Law Society of Hong Kong. Those who are not members of the Law Society do not have the right to vote. Why is it that functional constituencies have historically recognized the members of a certain association and a certain chamber of commerce? The reason is very simple ─ it is because they are registered. The professions or the commercial sector lay down different requirements for persons applying for their membership. People might say that the Government is shirking its responsibility as it should be carrying out the registration. In this election, if a person from the medical sector has registered as a doctor, one needs not join the relevant association. This is absolutely common. In this constituency and other constituencies, if there is a certain organization but there are no specific legal channels of registration, a relevant organization can then serve as a substitute. It is that simple.

If the DAB thinks that it is only fair in so doing, why does it just pinpoint at the social welfare constituency? Why not the functional constituency of the Honourable James TIEN? Any member of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce who has obtained a business registration certificate can vote. Limited liability companies can do so as well. If people refuse to understand certain arguments, there is no need explaining any further. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, just now Mr Eric LI called on the DAB not to insist that the HKCSS is trying to scramble for seats and seize territory. The DAB has never suspected that the HKCSS is trying to seize territory and scramble for seats and it has never said so. Rather, I hope that Mr Eric LI and friends from the HKCSS will not insist that the DAB is now trying to scramble for seats and seize territory.

Although I have not known Mr Eric LI for long, I believe that we certainly have a basis for co-operation in serving the community and in other areas. After listening to Mr Eric LI's family history, I sincerely wish that his family members will continue to proliferate so that there can be many kaifong associations in Hong Kong which serve society without government subvention.

Madam Chairman, judging purely from the perspective of democracy, we all know that functional constituency election is not the most desirable election method. That is precisely why the Basic Law stipulates that the Legislative Council of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) shall ultimately be elected by universal suffrage, meaning that functional constituency elections will be abolished sooner or later. However, it does not mean that we have to totally abolish the method of functional constituency election immediately, since we have accepted this so far. Thus I feel that it is wrong to turn functional constituency elections into direct elections in disguise, it is because we should have definite direct elections instead. While retaining functional elections, we should also try to make improvements to the unfair and unreasonable phenomenen which has come into light. We see the problems of functional elections and that the purpose of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment is also to eliminate some unfairness that can be eliminated in the social welfare functional constituency.

Mrs Selina CHOW questioned in her speech what I said about certain bodies with the same purposes and of the same nature, however, one have a vote while the other does not. I originally would like to give examples to show that I was not making it up. However, my Honourable colleague, Mr LAU Kong-wah, has already cited many examples. Mr LAU compared pairs of bodies, while one is a HKCSS member, the other is not, or, to make reference to Mr Howard YOUNG's description, while one is a five-star hotel, the other is just like a "single prostitute flat". But what other reasons can someone give to indicate that there are differences between these bodies?

Mr Ronald ARCULLI asked why they did not join the HKCSS. Fortunately, as Mr ARCULLI is a sedate sort of person, he was not referring to all functional constituencies, just the majority of them. He said that the majority of functional constituencies requires voters to be members of certain organizations and they would not be eligible unless they have become members. Then why is it that some functional constituencies do not require voters to be members of certain organizations? Mr CHAN Kam-lam also mentioned that in the labour constituency, there is no requirement that a trade union has to be a member of a particular federation before it can enjoy the right to vote.

My Honourable colleagues have said several times that a body should decide by itself as to whether it will join an organization. Membership of the organization should not be a prerequisite for obtaining the right to vote. We are discussing whether this rule is reasonable. If we use the rule itself to justify that it is reasonable, then there is no need for us to discuss this at all. Now that the rule is that a body must join the organization before it can vote, why should we question why some bodies do not join the organization? I am worried about whether someone would later suggest that only those who have joined the Liberal Party would get one more vote while those who have not joined would not. After this, someone will ask why it does not have a vote, then, they will say that it is welcomed, and it is not disallowed to join. Can this be justified?

If we look seriously at the content of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment — I hope that Members will really look at its wording instead of just barking at the moon — we will realize that the accusation that it would expand the definition of social welfare service is unfounded. The case is not as what some Members said that any non-profit making organization or which even proclaiming itself as a non-profit making organization will do. This is not possible. The amendment does not say that self-proclamation as a non-profit-making organization will do. Mr Frederick FUNG told us that some organizations are not what their names suggest. Why this kaifong association can be eligible while the other cannot? Mrs Selina CHOW read aloud a long list of names of organizations. Can we tell their nature from their names? Just as Mr CHAN Kam-lam has done, if we go through the register of the HKCSS, we will find the City University of Hong Kong and the Shue Yan College. We should not say that it does not include commercial associations. The Five Districts Business Welfare Association is a member of the HKCSS, while the Hong Kong Sze Yap Commercial Industrial Association representing one less district is not. The Hong Kong Life Guard Club and Raja Yoga Centre Limited are also its members. I must first state that I have no doubts about the contribution the organizations the names of which I quoted made to social welfare. I certainly believe that the HKCSS accepted them as members strictly according to its constitution. I believe that these organizations have made much contribution in regard to social welfare. I am just saying that one might not be able to tell this from their names. Just as Mrs Selina CHOW has done, only reading aloud their names may not enable us to really find out whether they are involved in social welfare and whether they have made contribution in regard to social welfare. Who should make the decision? There are the provisions of its Articles of Association and its purposes. Before a body can register as a voter, the relevant government department is responsible for making a decision. It is not the case that the door is open to any self-proclaimed social service organizations.

Of course, I believe that not every organization the names of which were read aloud by Mrs Selina CHOW would be eligible to become a voter in the social welfare constituency after being screened on the basis of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. I believe it is not the case. If we simply take a look at Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment and say that it will completely change the nature of functional constituencies or expand or twist the meaning of social welfare, it would not be a fair and realistic accusation.

Just now Mr Eric LI declared forcefully that we should not only say that we are not acting out of self-interest, as this is what everyone says. Instead, he said, we have to prove it with our actions. Therefore he took the lead in taking action, calling on the Government to make a supplementary amendment to remove all members of the HKCSS from the constituency, such that we will have a direct election. Further, he suggested that these social service organizations should be added to the third sector of the Election Committee. I believe members of the DAB and I would applaud and welcome this. However, I hope that Mr Eric LI has not made these pledges so confidently as he believes that the Government would not do so. Since this contravenes the decision of the Preparatory Committee, I doubt whether the SAR Government will make this supplementary amendment. Not only would the composition of the future social welfare functional constituency contravene the decision of the Preparatory Committee, but the third sector of the Election Committee would also differ from that stipulated by the Preparatory Committee. Thus I find this not too realistic.

The next best alternative is what Mrs Elsie TU has suggested, that is, if, in the next election, the HKCSS organizations withdraw from the social welfare constituency in which the social workers have one-man one-vote, and if the social service organizations are given a chance to join, the DAB would be able to hold our fists like what Mr Eric LI just said and say that we would certainly give our support in the next election. But as long as members of the HKCSS continue to stay in the social welfare constituency, we feel that organizations which provide the same services as the HKCSS organizations should equally have a chance. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LO Suk-ching.

MR LO SUK-CHING (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I did not intend to speak, but I may have touched the button accidentally. So I would like to say a few words. (Laughter)

I do not find Mr CHAN Kam-lam poor. Instead, I think that he is a very courageous Member, since the amendment he has proposed reflects the views of a group of organizations in the community. For a long time, they have been unfairly treated by society. There are all sorts of reasons why they did not join the HKCSS. Under the rule of the British Hong Kong Government in the past, they felt that as their directions were different, they did not necessarily have to join, though they were actually doing the same things. They have contributed money and efforts in serving the community without government subvention, carrying out the same kind of social welfare work, just as some women's associations are serving women directly. Other examples of services of the same nature have just been given. Therefore, we should now consider whether we should give some organizations fair treatment and equal political rights.

Many arguments have been put forward earlier and I do not want to elaborate further. I hope that we could consider the situation realistically, since it is impossible to change this fact, as Mr TSANG Yok-sing just said. It is not a social worker constituency, where only professional social workers have the vote, but a social welfare constituency, comprising individuals and groups. Groups do not necessarily cover only those social welfare organizations which are members of the HKCSS; there are many other organizations which fulfil the criteria of the HKCSS. The purpose of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment is to put them on an equal footing and give them equal treatment since their nature is the same.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

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

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, just now Members of the DAB have already spoken and I am not about to state my views in detail again. However, there is one thing that we must state clearly and that is the DAB has great respect for our social worker friends.

We sincerely and fully recognize the services they provided and the contribution they made to society. The amendments that we and Mr CHAN Kam-lam have proposed represent the views of the DAB. From the beginning till now, it has never been our intention or wish to lash at or challenge the social workers profession. Just now Mr Howard YOUNG described how some approached us in the course of the Bills Committee's scrutiny of the Bill and expressed their disappointment for not being able to participate in the first Provisional Legislative Council election by means of our public consultation. We also felt that they should be respected for having served society and the community for so long. Mr LO Suk-ching has made this very clear and I do not wish to repeat it. During this period, we have tried hard to find out whether they could have such a chance. After discussions of the Bills Committee, we concluded that the Preparatory Committee's decision had made it impossible for individuals or organizations which have long been serving the community to directly participate in voting in the third sector.

I recall that in the course of our discussions, Mr Howard YOUNG asked whether we could consider adding a third item to the social worker or social welfare constituency. I remember that he was sitting behind me and I distinctly heard him say that we could consider this course. However, I was very sorry when I heard what Mr Howard YOUNG said just now and read what the newspapers reported. Mr YOUNG said that this was a tricky idea of the DAB.　I was indeed very sorry to hear this. If we had tried to find a solution in the course of scrutiny by the Bills Committee, we should have been able to give such a chance to every social service organization.

Second, I have listened carefully to other Members expressing their views on the fact that some organizations have approached us to express their views. They analyzed the nature of the existing members of the HKCSS and suggested that if the organizations which had expressed their views are sports associations, they could reflect their views through the sports and culture constituency. However, with the criteria proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam, these organizations can be included in this sector. I do not believe that our clever Government cannot come up with certain criteria for vetting the eligibility of some organizations. At present, we only think that these organizations should be given a chance by way of our legislation. It is a matter of principle. I hope that Honourable colleagues can understand that if they have a chance to join the Bills Committee, they would have felt the pressure and sympathized with and understood their demands.

I very much agree with the views of some Honourable colleagues, such as those mentioned by Mr TSANG Yok-sing. For instance, in the second Legislative Council election, if friends from the HKCSS feel that the social welfare constituency can represent the profession of social workers, all social service organizations can withdraw together and join the third sector, so that they can participate in the second Legislative Council election through the Election Committee. If this is the case, we, the DAB, would give this full support and I would find it totally acceptable. However, we cannot say that now that this is the case, we can deprive the organizations that do not have a chance to take part in the first Legislative Council election now of their chances. I hope that friends from the social worker sector will not mind. It is because the work of social workers is very sacred and one of their most important jobs is to promote "civic education". If more organizations and Hong Kong people can participate in the elections of the three-tier councils or the Legislative Council, this fruit of civic education is what social workers have been dreaming of and also the aim they seek to achieve.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to declare an interest before I begin. From 1963 to 1964, I was Chairman of the Social Service Group of the Hong Kong University Student's Union. I can confirm that the King's College operated a free school for primary school pupils (some street children in Sai Ying Pun). During the summer holidays, we visited some villages and helped the villagers repair bridges and roads. Thus, even if its name sounds somewhat strange, it is actually a very old social service organization. (Laughter)

Before Mr IP Kwok-him spoke, the problem was that the speeches of the members of the DAB seemed to imply that it was perfectly justified for those eligible to become members of the HKCSS to join the members who constitute the social welfare constituency. But as I understand it, this was not the way that things had developed, as two questions were involved. First, what constitutes the social welfare sector as a functional constituency for electing a member of the Legislative Council? Second, what constitutes the social welfare sector, the social service sector or the grassroots sector which is part of the third sector of the Election Committee?

It seems that the organizations and the DAB initially demanded for joining the Election Committee instead of becoming voters for a functional constituency. What is the crux of the problem? It is the decision made by the Preparatory Committee on 23 May 1997. According to a certain interpretation of this decision of the Preparatory Committee, if one wants to become a part of the third sector of the Election Committee, one would have to "tamper with" the 17 constituencies out of the 17 plus 15 groups mentioned in the Preparatory Committee's decision. Those 17 constituencies include the social welfare constituency. By adding some social service, grassroots organizations to this constituency, they would be able to vote in the third sector of the Election Committee set out in schedule 2.

I hope that the DAB will state more clearly what exactly they want. If they want the former, that is, to become voters for the functional constituency to elect a representative, then they can only state that clearly. Otherwise, can anyone think of an alternative?

The alternative I just referred to is an alternative to be adopted in the future. But I now feel that the crux of the problem is that the Preparatory Committee's decision has contravened the Basic Law (Laughter). Under these circumstances, Madam Chairman, you are facing a difficult problem. You have ruled that some of my amendments are in contravention of the Preparatory Committee's proposal. But you think that you have very skilfully allowed the DAB to propose their amendment regarding the social welfare constituency...

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, are you trying to discuss my ruling again? (Laughter)

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I was not joking. Very skilfully, they could make the social welfare constituency ......

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I am not joking either. I only hope that you can really debate over the motion. If you want to discuss my ruling, you may propose a motion to do so some other time. Now, please speak to the present question.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I was not discussing your ruling. I was stating a fact. The whole thing is like this: your ruling was absolutely correct. Since the social welfare constituency has no definition at all, any amendment can enlarge its scope. I have pointed out where the crux of the problem lies. If it is because of the latter, those who propose waiting until the next election cannot be blamed, however, some organizations will be deprived of the right of forming the Election Committee in this election. This is an irreversible decision of the Preparatory Committee. This only works unless one says that the definition of the social welfare constituency can be expanded indefinitely but I do not know whether it is reasonable to expand it to such an extent, and yet it cannot be expanded indefinitely. Technically speaking, it can be expanded indefinitely, but it goes against reason to expand it indefinitely. Many examples just given can illustrate this. Since so many businessmen can join the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce and the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, why do we not have only one seat for the commercial constituency and let all shops and companies in Hong Kong have one vote each? We can conduct the election this way. It is possible to make such a change. But obviously, this does not comply with the Preparatory Committee's decision.

I hope that Members can look at this more clearly. If the DAB just hopes that grassroots organizations can participate in the Election Committee, it should not have exaggerated too much in saying that this is reasonable and that they are serving the community. Serving the community means willing to join the HKCSS. The HKCSS has a rather special status. Its premises is specially granted by the Government. However, it does not close its doors to people who wish to join. As Mr LO Suk-ching said, these organizations did not want to join then probably because the HKCSS was closely related to the British Hong Kong Government. Since it was closely related to the Government, those organizations were unwilling to join. But there is no use complaining since the Government only recognizes that Council. Probably, its composition can be changed, that is, people may recognize another association which has nothing to do with the HKCSS and its members do not overlap those of the HKCSS. But this association has to be set up first. It is wrong to merely argue that they are eligible.

Lastly, let me respond to what Mr TSANG Yok-sing said. Mr CHAN Kam-lam said that trade unions need not join a federation and Mr TSANG Yok-sing repeated that argument. The trade union laws of Hong Kong do not recognize federations, which are not trade unions. One has to understand that it is not feasible to use membership of federations as a voter eligibility criterion of the labour constituency. I have not studied carefully how many out of all the other functional constituencies use membership of a certain organization or federation as their criteria and what the individual criteria are. Both cases exist. However, if one says that it is wrong for members of the HKCSS to form the social welfare constituency, its argument can hardly be tenable.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.

MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have been listening to all speeches made and I was wondering how my views and those of my Honourable colleagues differ from those of our friends from the HKCSS or the social worker sector. If we say that there should be one-man one-vote in the next election, we will support it wholeheartedly. If we are going to work together to give these organizations a chance to participate in the next election, we also support this.

I have to make it clear that giving the social workers one-man one-vote does not solve the problem of these organizations not having a vote. Where does our difference lie? I am actually talking about this election. It might be said that today's discussions are very interesting since we are not focussing on Yes or No. Rather, it seems we are trying together to think of a way in which these organizations can have the right to vote. This is not what I expected. If we all agree that social workers should have one-man one-vote in the next election, we might think of another way through which these organizations can vote, since the next election will no longer be bound by the Preparatory Committee's decision. This way, our problem would narrow down to this: these organizations demand the right to vote in this election, could we find a way to let them participate? Our motive in proposing this amendment (the reason I talk about motive is because of the story that Mr Howard YOUNG told just now) has to do with those organizations' demand. To me, this is just like a resident coming to see me in my ward office in a housing estate, asking me to help him see justice done. I have to help him. It is as simple as that. Our motive is as simple as that. After much reflection, I find that there are no such irreconcilable differences between us and friends from the HKCSS and the social worker sector. In the past, when we debated with the social worker sector over the issue, despite some rash words and except those people who suddenly came up with abusive comments, our discussion was basically constructive and we were really having a discussion. I hope that we could put aside those bickerings.

What I want to say is that we should now work together to think of a way to give them a chance in this election. We think that this proposal and amendment of ours will give them an opportunity to vote, without making other people fear that their number will increase indefinitely. Just now Members seemed to agree or at least we and the social worker sector agreed, that we should propose one-man one-vote for the social worker sector and find them another way. Many friends from the social worker sector present are good friends of mine and we have worked together for a long time. After this controversy, I have rather mixed feelings but I feel that I should still continue to fight for what I believe to be right. It is not our intention to target at the HKCSS and the social worker sector. During the past few weeks, I had worked with members and organizations of the HKCSS in serving the public in the districts almost every week.

No matter who wins in the end, I think this is a good debate. I believe that Members present have never tried to present the history of social service and social welfare in Hong Kong in such great details. Why do we find that it is unfair for there to be an established practice? This morning I said that we hope to seek justice for some organizations. Many years ago, when there were no social workers or voluntary organizations, the former Government helped kaifong associations in carrying out their work in the districts. There were also many voluntary organizations similar to the one Mr Andrew WONG participated in when he was very young. Later, social worker organizations and voluntary organizations came into being. Apart from the traditional organizations or the new professional organizations, why is it that the organizations we are concerned about can still exist and take root in the districts? They can still work and give play to their functions, though they may not receive government subvention or come under good regulation. However, they carry on with their work though. Mr LAU Kong-wah talked about being "warm and cold to someone in turn", depending on someone's need. I would like to point out that the former Government was alternately warm and cold to the social service organizations over the years, depending on whether it needed them. In fact, the Government should give this much thought. Now that the SAR Government has been established, it should not simply consider whether some organizations are professional organizations and whether they are members of the HKCSS. Rather, through this debate, it should examine what attitude we should adopt towards these organizations which have served the community for so long.

Therefore, I earnestly call on Honourable colleagues to be fair to these organizations and grant them a right by supporting Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr NGAI Shiu-kit.

MR NGAI SHIU-KIT (in Cantonese): I do not wish to speak now. It is because I wish to respond to Mr Andrew WONG's remarks but he is not here, therefore, I am not going to speak.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wonder why Mr TSANG Yok-sing is so partial to me. Each time after I have spoken, he would mention my name four times. (Laughter) Sometimes I feel that if I do not respond, I might be letting him down. Actually, I agree very much with what the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI said about "things said but not heard". Such a sensible man as Mr TSANG Yok-sing seems to have failed to hear what we said and he even misunderstood our reasoning, irrespective of he has done that deliberately or not. Actually, it is a matter of who should decide and how to decide whether some groups or individuals are eligible to join a certain functional constituency. The DAB insists that it is unfair because some people should be eligible but they are not eligible now. Have they been deprived of their rights? Let me ask: has he applied for the qualification? The answer is no, he has not. He assumes that he may not be eligible even if he has applied or he may say that he does not know why the Government has left him out. However, he has actually not learned about that only today. If one wants to be eligible to vote in the social welfare constituency, he has to become a member of the HKCSS, just as architects need to be a member of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects if they want to vote, or eligible voters have to be members of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers or the Medical Association. We have known this for 12 years, not today. Have we come to realize this after we have suddenly waken up ? This is the first point I would like to raise.

Second, as Mr Ronald ARCULLI said, is there any proof that the HKCSS really monopolizes the sector and refuses to let other people in? Is there any proof? Has it refused someone's application based on some subjective instead of objective criteria? No. Some people even suggested that there was some conspiracy on the part of the British Hong Kong Government. I have no idea how the British Hong Kong Government could manipulate the HKCSS. I have to mention Mr TSANG Yok-sing, since he has mentioned my name several times. Mr TSANG Yok-sing said one must be a member of the Liberal Party before one can vote on behalf of the Liberal Party. One must certainly fulfil the criteria of the Liberal Party and join the Party before one can vote on its behalf. Is the DAB not the same? I cannot suddenly vote on behalf of the DAB today. He asked if it is practical. The criterion has been there for 12 years without much complaint from anyone. Let us say 11 years, as there are complaints this year. There has been no complaint and it seems that they have always based on objective criteria in vetting eligibility. Now, the DAB suddenly wants to discard this vetting mechanism, claiming that they want to open that door. What substantive criteria are they going to base on when they open that door? Are they going to discard all criteria? Or, do they think that so long as they have stated their purposes in their constitution, they do not need to have criteria? In practice, there are bound to be problems. If there are problems in practice, and the criteria cannot be enforced, it will result in unfairness. Someone has claimed that it is not open. In fact, it is not right to say that it is not open. Basically, this involves another issue. Of course, I am not against their participation. We support it very much. But if fundamental changes are made to the criterion long adopted by the functional constituencies, people would ask: why discard it in this particular case? Why do we not raise this question in principle during our discussions but selectively restrict this to a particular constituency? We cannot blame those from the HKCSS for being angry. Mr CHENG Kai-nam shouted himself hoarse, he could not help making them angry. It is because this would deny them the role they have been playing for such a long time and which has been accepted and recognized by everyone. They just cannot help reacting strongly. Mr CHENG Kai-nam said when people come, we have to listen. We should also listen to the views of the HKCSS. We cannot just listen to the views of some people who approached us. We should listen to the views of all sides and make our decision after taking all views into consideration.

Before I finish, I would like to respond to one point made by the Mrs Elsie TU, whom I respect very much. I hope that she will not misunderstand us in the Liberal Party. We feel that this amendment and all consequential and related amendments would fundamentally undermine the balance and fairness of the Bill proposed by the Government. There is a big problem at stake. If the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam's amendment is carried, we feel that it would greatly affect the whole electoral arrangement. That is why we, the Liberal Party, declared that we would not support the Third Reading of the Bill if this amendment gets through.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have an impression that in the speech I made just now, I also mentioned the names of other Honourable colleagues in this Chamber besides Mrs Selina CHOW's. However, in her earlier speech, Mrs Selina CHOW questioned the views of the DAB and also raised some questions, such as whether there are any examples of one organization can join while another cannot. Therefore, I have no alternative but to make a response.

I used to abide by one principle in debate, and that is, I would only respond once. I believe Members have heard me touched upon all the questions Mrs Selina CHOW just asked. Therefore, I will not respond for the second time. However, I have learned a lesson. In an earlier debate, Mrs Selina CHOW asked questions after I had spoken but I did not respond. As a result, the media said on the following day that I had not prepared well and failed to answer after Mrs Selina CHOW had asked follow-up questions. This time, I will repeat what I have already said. However, I will also try to find out how I am inferior to others, not only in terms of understanding, since Mrs Selina CHOW said I failed to understand other people's arguments, but also in terms of expressiveness. After I have explained something again and again, there will still be people who do not understand me, for example, there will be people asking me to specify the criteria I referred to. Have the criteria not been listed item by item in Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment? They also asked why they are selectively applied here and not there. We have already explained how this functional constituency differs from the other constituencies, and how the HKCSS differs from the chamber of commerce. I have explained it publicly in the media. They also talked about the right to vote and said that only members of the Liberal Party can vote, and that the same applies to the DAB. That was not what I was talking about. I was saying whether it would be reasonable if one day it is specified that one has to be a member of a certain political party before he can qualify as a voter. I was talking about this. I am sure other Members understood what I meant. Perhaps this misunderstanding ......

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW, please sit down first. If you wish to elucidate, please wait until Mr TSANG has finished his speech.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): That was not what I said.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): Of course not, but that was what I said! (Laughter)

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, just now Mr TSANG was referring to what I said.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): I was just referring to what I said.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TSANG, hold on. Let me say a few words as an outsider. I believe there is a misunderstanding. Mrs Selina CHOW, he did not say you said that but he was referring to what he himself had said. Mr TSANG, please continue.

MR TSANG YOK-SING (in Cantonese): What I meant was, as a voter, there is no reason why one must belong to a certain organization before one can vote in the functional constituencies. Of course, Mrs Selina CHOW also repeated what other Members said, and it has long been stipulated that one must be a member of an organization before one can vote. But we cannot prove that a rule is right with the rule itself. This is mathematically possible but we are now questioning whether this rule is right or not. Just now Mrs Selina CHOW mentioned eligibility and how it should be defined. She has mixed up two kinds of eligibility. We are talking about voter eligibility, that is, how to become a qualified voter in the social welfare constituency, while Mrs Selina CHOW was talking about the eligibility criterion for membership of the HKCSS. One can apply to become a member of the HKCSS. Since there are no examples which prove that applications have been rejected, why should we still question this eligibility criterion? We are now questioning why these two kinds of eligibility have been confused? We have said what we want to say. If Members present have already made up their minds as to who is right and who is wrong, as Mr CHIM Pui-chung said earlier, there would be no point in debating further. However, I have just responded to show that I am right and not in a hurry to leave. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): DR LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since it so happened that so many Honourable colleagues been praised the medical constituency today, I feel that I should also say a few words. It is because some Honourable colleagues said that the medical constituency has been always operating in a black box, but many Honourable colleagues have refuted this today.

As we all know, it was originally designated in the functional constituency election in 1985 that only members of the Hong Kong Medical Association could vote. But the Hong Kong Medical Association refused to accept that and proposed that all registered doctors should vote, and it was then extended to cover also registered dentists. However, we must not forget that the registered doctors and dentists have to meet certain criteria. This is the spirit of functional constituency election.

In respect of Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment, I foresee that ─ as Mr Andrew WONG said ─ an infinite number of voters might be added to a particular functional constituency. Madam Chairman, allow me to go back a little bit in history. Actually, when Hong Kong first introduced the embryonic form of election in 1985, this rule already existed. I believe that after the 1985, 1991 and 1995 elections, the majority of Hong Kong people have already accepted the composition of the electorate of the social welfare constituency. Also, as we have heard today, the constituency has become more professional so that we hope that in the future registered social workers can vote. These are examples of a convention which has been practised for over ten years. At this stage, the Bill is already complicated enough. Do we have to introduce these new rules of the game at this time to make Hong Kong people even more confused? I think we need to think this over. Mrs Selina CHOW mentioned that many organizations are not eligible to directly elect their representatives in the Legislative Council. While I sympathize with this very much, I wonder whether we have to change the whole set of game rules at this stage because of this. I hope Members can consider this.

Lastly, today I have actually made two very good proposals. The first one is to make the social welfare constituency a professional constituency as soon as possible, and the second one is to think of a new election method for the HKCSS and these organizations in the next election. If the Government could respond positively to this later, I think it would dispel the doubts of many people. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI, speaking for the third time.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I know that I am speaking for the third time, so I will try my best to be brief. However, the reason why I have sought to speak is that, as Chairman of the HKCSS, I hope that the discussion in this Council today is concluded by voting on the basis of constructiveness, not on the basis of "sweet words" as just referred to by Mr CHAN Kam-lam. I hope that I have not wrongly received the positive response made by Honourable colleagues of the DAB. I heard Mr CHENG Kai-nam and Mr IP Kwok-him say that they wanted to promote one-man one-vote for professional social workers in the social welfare constituency next year ─ I hope that I have not got it wrong ─ and to think of a way.....

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI, a Member has requested to educidate. Mr CHENG Kai-nam, please proceed if you wish to elucidate what Mr Eric LI has said.

MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): I was referring to the next election.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Sorry, I do not have headphones, so I cannot hear him clearly.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG, can you speak up, he cannot hear you clearly.

MR CHENG KAI-NAM (in Cantonese): I was referring to the next election.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): I understand that, and in fact I was referring to the next election, too. We do not have divergent views. We are striving to change the social welfare constituency into a constituency which comprises professional or registered social workers who can each cast one vote. If the Hong Kong Council of Social Service and other service organizations can act in concert to fight for votes in the third term of the Election Committee, I will be very glad, it is because at least there is some progress, and there are positive and constructive responses. No matter what the results of the vote are today, I will try my best not to care too much about our debate today, and so will Members from the DAB. In fact, we will not. I am a voluntary worker and I will fight for an opportunity to co-operate with them. I find that the whole incident has caught us unwares without much brewing. Therefore, we have not reached a good conclusion although we actually have good basis for co-operation and we only managed to make certain substantive progress now.

However, I would like to say that I originally wanted to fight for the above in the next election, besides, I also wish that the DAB can offer me a free ride. Although the Preparatory Committee has made a decision, if the SAR Government is positive enough, it can petition together with us to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or even through the National People's Congress deputies to be elected in December. It could possibly be a feasible approach, but we do not know whether we have sufficient time, and whether we have sufficient time for registration. Even if it is not possible, I still wish to say, though prematurely, that I am thinking of introducing a supplementary bill in respect of this election. It does not really matter if it cannot be done as we can look ahead. But if it cannot be done, Members still have to cast their votes today. I feel that we should deal with this calmly and rationally. This amendment is proposed suddenly after a very short time of preparation, even the Government has not clearly mastered how the constituencies should be defined. Under these circumstances, Members should not ask for an amendment abruptly, but they must proceed with this step by step. We have heard this many times. Is it safe to make amendments under these circumstances? I find that this is precisely what we must consider today. If we just follow the DAB in making an abrupt amendment, and then make another amendment again a year after, how can we ask people who have joined the functional constituencies and have the rights to vote to withdraw when the political climate and sentiment may be worse then? Even the DAB said that not everyone will listen to their words. If it is so easy to join and then withdraw, will the DAB agree than that it would be more difficult if we put them in the functional constituency in this election but ask them to withdraw in the next election? I think that such a discussion is more practical and I wish that we can give it thorough consideration.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Liberal Party objects to this amendment proposed by the DAB not only out of our wish to keep the integrity of the original functional constituencies and the professionalism of the social welfare sector intact. There is one more reason which is related to what Mr TSANG Yok-sing has said.

Mr TSANG has asked why the eligibility to the right to vote is related to the membership of any association. This is roughly what he says. I would like to point out that it happens not only to this sector, but also to the majority of the numerous functional constituencies in Hong Kong, such as the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce with which Mr James TIEN is more familiar. If a person wants to vote in that sector, he must join the General Chamber of Commerce. If a business operator says he can register, he has to be a member of the Chinese Manufacturers' Association with which Mr NGAI Shiu-kit is more familiar. But he can vote only if he is a member of the Chinese Manufacturers' Association or meets its membership requirements. Certainly, a person cannot say that since he operates a factory, he can vote without joining any association for there is such a system which is followed by the majority. I have earlier quoted an example of the tourism sector. Conversely, if there is no need to become a member of a certain association before one can vote in a functional constituency, I am afraid that it is somewhat similar to the so-called Governor PATTEN's proposal in 1992. It was the case at that time: the nine new constituencies did not require voters to join any association. So long as a person said that he was a member of or works in the sector, he would be eligible. However, this muddled up the original concept of functional constituencies. Therefore, it is one of the reasons why we in the Liberal Party object to the DAB's amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs. Do you wish to speak?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have listened attentively to the invaluable views expressed by Members. I will not repeat their points. I just want to look at this question from a different angle. Actually, one or two Members have spoken from this angle, but their views were not comprehensive enough. It is very important to understand our concept and policy in relation to the composition of functional constituencies. As we all know, the existing 21 constituencies are our basis. Basically, we hope to maintain the existing 21 constituencies. What we are mainly focussing on is how nine new constituencies can be added to replace the extended constituencies in 1995. Thus our focus is on how the nine constituencies should be formed. I find it perfectly all right for the method of composition we just talked about to be applied to a new constituency. However, we are not discussing about a new constituency, but one of the 21 existing constituencies. A Member mentioned that we have also made changes to the 21 constituencies. But we employed certain criteria in relation to the basic method of composition and the eligibility criterion, and we considered why eligible voters had to be members of organizations or have professional qualifications. If professional qualifications were required, we also considered which professional organizations could confer these qualifications. We employed certain criteria in respect of the above.

Some Members mentioned that these criteria have been employed for several years and they have not just been proposed today. For instance, one has to join a certain organization before he can exercise the political rights he can enjoy as a member of the organization. We are all well aware of this. It is not only today that someone proposed: "one has to be a member of this organization before he can exercise his political rights". Perhaps someone will say that this is not too satisfactory. As Mr TSANG Yok-sing said, this is not an ideal system, but it is a transitional arrangement. We are heading towards the goal of universal suffrage. In the course of heading towards this goal, we have at least ten years' time for functional constituency elections. We have to remember what functional constituency elections are all about. We are well aware of the arrangements for the 21 existing constituencies.

We have made some minor changes this time, for instance, changes have been made to this constituency. The reason for this change is that in the past we had no way of defining their profession. However, we passed a law in 1995 which allows us to clearly and explicitly define what constitutes a professional qualification. This is consistent with the concepts we had in the past. Before the Bill was enacted as law in 1995, we did not have a way of defining. But since we now have something that complies with the criterion we mentioned before, we have added it to the Bill. Some Members mentioned that slight changes have also been made to the higher education constituency, in line with the ever-changing social environment. Society changes everyday and new things keep propping up. These simple and necessary changes are made to meet our needs. We should not negate everything and say that something is unfair and unjust. It is not a matter of unfairness or injustice. We all know what the criterion is. If one wants to exercise his right, he has to join. That is why our criterion is that one has to be a member of the relevant organization for at least 12 months before he can exercise this right. One cannot set up an organization, join the constituency right away and exercise his right. This is not allowed. As we all know, this rule is not made today. Since the rule has always existed, I hope that Members can think about it carefully from this angle.

We are subject to certain restrictions, and we know that we may not be able to satisfy some people's expectations and aspirations in some cases. Just now Mr Andrew WONG has made this very clear. I think that he pointed out the dilemma we are in. Actually that is the problem we are facing and that method is precisely what we have adopted in the hope of achieving our goal. Therefore, we cannot mix up two different things or the methods we are going to adopt.

Having said that, I also mentioned that given such a broad and not very clear definition, if the Government is to implement it now — someone may say that it is quite simple, we should just let the Government implement it as the Government can certainly do so, with a team of 180 000 civil servants. Why does the Government employ 180 000 civil servants? Certainly, for performing these tasks. But we have to consider that we are all racking our brains if a Member cannot come up with an idea, other Members might also not be able to do so. Actually, we all know very well where the problem lies. First, it is a conceptual problem. Second, it concerns old practices. Third, it concerns whether it is practically feasible. We have to ponder about it clearly. We are not preoccupied with justice, disputes between parties or vote rigging. It has nothing to do with those. The most important thing is that we have to see where the problem really lies.

Members have touched on different levels, but no Member could present the problem fully. I hope that I can present it fully for consideration by Members. Members really have to consider it very carefully and they can definitely not say that they are only going to enact a law now and leave the rest to the Government. If the Government fails to handle it, it proves that the Government has not tried its best. If we enact a law without considering all the details, we have to face the problem of picking up the pieces in the future. I have also said that before. Some reporters asked me what I would do if I have to do something else. I have no secret weapons. How come I have secret weapons? I can only talk to Members just like what I did before and move them in a sentimental, righteous and reasonable way. Members have to understand what problems I am facing. I will explain to Members why I cannot do so. If Members have any brilliant ideas and can think of a solution to this problem, they can tell us. But Members have to understand that we have limited time now. The reason why the President allowed us to hold this meeting on Saturday was because our time is really limited and we still have a lot of work in the future. We cannot stop here and wait for a solution. We have a whole lot of tasks waiting. If we do not figure this out now, perhaps the work that follows will be even more difficult. If there is any delay because of this, it might affect whether the election can be held in late May next year. This is a very big problem. The papers I have circularized to Members have also stated very clearly that every step we take is linked to the next. If we miss a step, we cannot proceed to the next. If we cannot take that step, we will be postponing matters and I really do not know how long the postponement will take. If that is the case, even though we keep on saying that we will hold the election as soon as possible next year, we can actually not do so. This is something that deserves deliberation by Members rather than a quarrel. Members really have to think about this seriously.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, I have already notified you in advance that there will be a dinner break from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm. I suggest that after resumption, Mr CHAN Kam-lam will speak in response before Members vote on the amendment. I announce that the meeting will be suspended for an hour and resume at 7.30 pm.

6.36 pm

Meeting suspended.

7.35 pm

Council then resumed.

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

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my amendment has aroused general concern in the community, in particular, it has generated heated debate within the Provisional Legislative Council. I thank Members for making the issue clearer through discussions and letting us understand it better.

I would like to specially apologize to the related constituencies. As my amendment has generated some misunderstandings or responses, I hope that what happens in the future can serve as proofs and get rid of these misunderstandings. We fully understand that friends in the social welfare sector may think that this amendment will seize their interests or deprive them of their rights. Does the DAB do this for their own interests, seizing a seat, or for a fair and advanced mode of election? I believe that it may not be useful for me to say too much to defend myself. Perhaps history or facts will prove everything.

I strongly agree to Mr Andrew WONG's opinions. Though he claimed that some of my suggestions may lead to infinite extensions, he also expressed that we can only adopt the present mode unless there is another association. Times keeps on progressing. When we find something unreasonable, we should propose an amendment. I sincerely thank the Mr Ronald ARCULLI for his concern and sympathy with me and for calling me "poor CHAN Kam-lam". He used the word "poor" which may not mean pitiable, but possibily really poor. I also fully understood that Honourable colleagues have different ideas about this issue. If Mr Ronald ARCULLI really sympathizes with me, I hope that he can put his sympathy into action later, and vote for my amendment.(Laughter)

Dr LEONG Che-hung thinks that it is a historical question which should not be changed at this time. But I think that it is precisely the right moment to make changes exactly because it is a historical issue. Many issues under colonial rule before might also be unreasonable. I find that it is an excellent opportunity for us to make changes or look into these now. If we do not do so, we really would have failed to perform the responsibilities history has devolved on us.

Mr Eric LI said that the amendment is abrupt. I perfectly understand it because he was away from Hong Kong throughout the whole Bill Committee stage of the Bill, and he suddenly found out the seriousness of the issue after he had returned to Hong Kong. It is similar to the case of the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs who said after he had returned to Hong Kong from his travel abroad that, "to my surprise, there are so many amendments". He was astounded. Therefore, when he found that he had to spend time solving the problem, he felt great pain. I find that the problem has not just emerged today. Therefore I think that we must make serious considerations, face the reality and make a decision.

It is true that we agree to fight for one-main one-vote in the social welfare sector, but it does not mean that we should overlook the right to vote for some existing groups. t is all the more necessary for us to respect their position and esteem in society more. The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs said that our base is the existing 21 functional constituencies. We fully agree to this. We have not refuted this idea but though there are still numerous changes in the existing functional constituencies, I do not want to quote them as examples. We think that to make slight amendment or expand the criterion may not result in great difficulties. It is only because the Government has been clinging obstinately to its course, unwilling to listen to Members' advice in the whole course of deliberation. Why does this new change not take place in other functional constituencies but only in the social welfare functional constituency? I think we have to look at the facts in respect of this question. During our scrutiny of the Legislative Council Bill, many Members have proposed many amendments, in fact, most of them are related to the functional constituencies. Apart from changing the positions of some voters, they contained new requests. Therefore, I think that my amendment is not unique.

I have clearly stated in my amendment that organizations have to meet the 12-month requirement unlike what some Members have said that so long as they conform to the regulations of an organization they can become voters electors regardless of when they apply. Therefore, I hope that we can all agree that this amendment has been proposed after consideration of various factors. I want to restate that we have proposed this amendment purely because we do not agree that membership of the HKCSS should be taken as a prerequisite for eligibility as voters in the social welfare functional constituency. Should the amendment be passed, it will only give an equal opportunity to the social service groups which have not yet joined the HKCSS to choose their representatives in the social welfare sector with other colleagues to speak in this Council on their behalf. I think the action has nothing to do with damaging the esteem of social workers or the so-called other political purposes.

Therefore, I now ask Honourable colleagues to support my amendment to give the social service groups, which have been serving the public over a long period of time, a fair and just right to vote.

Madam Chairman, I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Kam-lam be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.

Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr Bruce LIU, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mrs Elsie TU and Mrs Peggy LAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 27 members in favour of the amendment, 23 against and four abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subclause (4) of clause 23, items 25(1), (2), (3), (4) in schedule 1 and the addition of item 25(5) to schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members. These are all technical amendments.

Proposed amendments

Clause 23 (see Annex III)

Schedule 1 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY So-yuk.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move a revised amendment to subclause (4) of clause 23 and item 26(2) in part 3 of schedule 1 as well as the addition of item 26(4) in part 3 of schedule 1, as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendment has been revised to withdraw part of my original amendment.

Madam Chairman, please allow me to tell Honourable colleagues now the details and reasons of my amendment. The amendment I just mentioned is to cancel the exemption of the provision of 12 months, that is, I now ask again to include the condition that all companies or individuals have to comply with this requirement of 12 months.

In the textiles and garments functional constituency, which we are now talking about, there should be three categories of people. Firstly, importers; secondly, exporters and thirdly, professionals. The companies eligible for election, as suggested by the Government, are the export companies only, or even only some export companies. All import companies, professionals and some other export companies are missed out, so it does not correspond to our so-called fair, just and open mode of election.

We find that carparks come under the transport functional constituency, I do not oppose but agree to that and I think that it should come under such a constituency. However, why do textile manufacturers not come under the textiles and garments functional constituency? Why are those textile manufacturers registered with the Government not allowed to have the right to vote?

Let me talk about the worries, or even misunderstandings which have been spread among the media or Members. The first misunderstanding is related to my motive in moving this amendment. Many people say that I am paving a way for myself or for the interests of my political party. I remember that when I went to the Philippines to petition for the fishermen, many people said that I am going to take part in the election as a representative of the agriculture and fisheries functional constituency. When I proposed the information technology motion, again, many people said that I must be taking part in the election as a representative of the information technology functional constituency. I want to ask Members a question. If a Member does something for Hong Kong with his own efforts, he has fulfilled his responsibility. If we take some actions because we see that the Government has done something unsatisfactory, it is the purpose of our existence and one of our duties. Why are Members proposing amendments deemed as doing something for their own or their parties' interests, or having such motives? I hope that Members can exercise their own judgement. If Members find what I said reasonable, they can cast a supporting vote. If they find what I said not sufficiently justified or unreasonable, they can cast a vote against my amendment or abstain from voting. However, I hope that Members would not misunderstand that we have any special interest in mind, as in fact, the companies for which I am fighting for inclusion in the constituency do not belong to any association or body. It can never be said that they have much connection with this association or that body, or that they must join a body as it knows them well. In fact, they are textile manufacturers in Hong Kong. After thinking over this carefully, I wonder if I know ten such companies, therefore, I am not doing this for people I know very well.

The second worry and misunderstanding is transportation companies can take part in the election of the textiles and garments functional constituency. We may possibly find Ah Ming, our driver among Members in the future. I want to elucidate very clearly to Members that this amendment does not include the transport sector or anyone from this sector.

Thirdly, many Members have mentioned that it is very difficult to distinguish whether a textile manufacturing company belongs to the transport functional constituency. Perhaps Members should take a look at this registration form for a textile company. It states clearly that each company which has asked for such a form has to state its business scope clearly. There are four business scopes: import and export, manufacturers, transportation companies, and others. My amendment seeks to include import and export, and manufacturers, but not transportation companies. It has been clearly stated that every company must put a "tick" to the constituency it belongs to when it fills in this form. There is a further statutory protection at the back requiring the applicant to declare the information is true. Therefore it can be clearly identified which functional constituency the relevant companies belong to.

Besides, some people have worries about the qualifications of the professionals. I am now going to read out the requirements for professional qualifications of people from the textiles sector and who can vote. They have to pass an examination for the related subjects, or hold a higher diploma awarded by the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. They also have to take a two-year examination preparation course jointly offered by the Hong Kong Institution of Textiles and Apparel, and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. After passing the examination, they have to have five years' recognized working experience before applying to become professional members of the Institution. At the same time, the Institution is the only professional body in Hong Kong which accepts and trains management personnel of the textiles and garments industry. The graduates of the textiles faculty of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University are all taught by the Institution's professors or lecturers and they are now members of the management staff of the whole textiles and garments industry. Their contributions are there for all to see. If these people are even not considered as professionals, who else are professionals?

There are some other worries. When I listened to the debate on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment, many Members said, "you may as well join an association, and then everything will be fine." Regarding the present amendment, will Members raise the same question? I want to say that in the textiles functional constituency, provided that a company has certificates of origin, it will have the right to vote regardless of whether it has joined any association. Those who have joined the association naturally have the right to vote, but those who have not joined will also enjoy the right if they have certificates of origin. In fact, some companies are export companies, but as the destination of their exports does not require any certificates of origin, they do not have the right to vote. This does not involve whether a company has joined any association. It is fine for some companies not to join any association, but not fine for some other companies not to join any association, therefore, it cannot be justified.

Other people have mentioned that if some members of these associations are professors or teachers, why do they not come under the education functional constituency? They should come under the education functional constituency. I want to tell Members that some of them are professional lecturers from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, but not all of them. We cannot disallow other people from joining an association because some people have qualifications of a certain functional constituency.

Secondly, in the information technology functional constituency, the Government allows the Hong Kong Computer Education Society to represent the information technology functional constituency. The members of the Hong Kong Computer Education Society are in fact from the education sector, but they are just lecturing on information technology. But then they are allowed to join. Even those who belong to the education functional constituency equally conform to certain professional requirement. They are not qualified just because they lecture on textiles and clothing. Moreover, it is also the case for the Hong Kong Medical Information Society within the information and technology functional constituency. For those who are in charge of information technology in hospitals, they do not have to join the medical functional constituency, and they can join their own professional functional constituency. I would like to ask, why can the members of the Institution of Textile and Apparel not be voters?

Having said so much so far, I hope that Members can understand the whole case clearly. I also hope that the Government can know where the faults lie and make them right. I do not quite understand why the Government still does not make any changes now that it knows that it has not prepared well, even after the issues have been brought into light? Why does the Government have to force the Provisional Legislative Council to be a rubber stamp? Perhaps some individual Members wish to be rubber stamps, but certainly not me. I believe that the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance are certainly unwilling to do so. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendments

Clause 23 (See Annex III)

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, firstly, I very much appreciate that Miss CHOY So-yuk knows so much about the garments industry though she does not come from the industry. If I have not got it wrong, probably four Members of the Provisional Legislative Council, namely, I myself, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Charles YEUNG and Mrs Sophie LEUNG are running garments businesses. In the last 20 to 30 years, the textiles and garments industry, restricted by things like certificates of origin and quota, has not been able to move away from Hong Kong as easily as other industries. Therefore, it has made significant contribution to the Hong Kong economy in these 20 to 30 years. On these grounds, we always want to get a seat in the Legislative Council. Certainly it is unfortunate that, in 1995, though under Governor Mr Chris PATTEN's political reform, it was agreed that a seat should be given to the textiles functional constituency, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, chosen by tens of thousands of workers to represent workers, was not representing the textiles sector as a whole.

What representative has the textiles functional constituency been fighting over the years for the garments sector? As a person from the industry, though I am a graduate in chemical engineering and not in textiles and garments, I have been running textiles and garments business since 1971. My factory was closed down only two years ago, but I still continue to run import and export business. To me, what does the textiles and garments sector refer to? It refers to we who do business, not the scholars. Talking about scholars, if we say that each scholar can have a vote, then if this idea is applied to a bank, and we say that any person who has studied something about banking can have a vote, there will be several thousand votes for several thousand bankers! What we are discussing now is to allow every company running textiles or garments business to have a vote. Miss CHOY So-yuk suggested that every student trained by the Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Apparel, or each person who has five years of experience should have a vote. There are many such people in my company. How can my company has one vote only, when my staff who are members of the said institution can have more votes! Turning back to the scholars, certainly we greatly respect scholars, particularly, those in tertiary institutions, but they are inevitably armchair strategists. They have been never engaged in the garments business. Do they really know what business is all about? Have they ever met clients or purchased materials? Have they ever worked in the production process? I think that these scholars just have knowledge about garments, but they do not have an all round understanding of textiles and garments.

I am now talking about the votes of companies in the textiles and garments functional constituency. In my estimation, there will possibly be only slightly over a thousand who can register as voters by the time. Miss CHOY So-yuk just said the total number of institutions for scholars is not too great. However, I think that the principle of corporate votes is votes by companies, not by individuals, or else the number of votes for scholars, students or those working in the trade will easily exceed that of textiles companies. Therefore, I disagree to amend item 26(2) such that a person can have a vote so long as he is a member of the Hong Kong Institution of Textiles and Apparel having the right to vote at its general meeting.

Secondly, Miss CHOY So-yuk has mentioned in respect of item 26(c) that any import and export, or the imported textiles products of any country should come under certain sectors. I think the majority of people from the textiles sector will not agree to this because if it is a TTR sector, for imported textiles products, I think it should come under the import and export functional constituency. The import and export functional constituency is specially designed for them because they are doing very small businesses. Anyone who operates a shop at the corner of a street has a TTR certificate so long as he imports cloth from China, even if he only has several bolts of cloths. I absolutely do not think that the role played by such a shop can represent our so-called textiles and garments sector in Hong Kong. Certainly ......

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY So-Yuk. Do you wish to elucidate?

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): I want to follow up.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Fine, you may follow up later. Mr TIEN, sorry for interrupting your speech, please continue.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): I will continue to discuss items 26(4b) and (4c). I agree to the opinion of Miss CHOY So-yuk. At present, textiles products must be supported by certificates of origin, CO, as suggested by the Government. However, almost over 90% of Hong Kong textiles products have CO, so do all products from the United States, but it does not apply to the products from some remote areas of course. We can agree to items 26(4)(b) and (c), but the problem lies in that item 26(4) has joined items (a)(b)(c) together, however, I find item (a) inappropriate for the reasons I have just given. To conclude, as a businessman in the industry, I oppose to the amendment for the reasons given. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as Mr TIEN has just said, Miss CHOY So-yuk can understand so well about this industry as a layman, I am very grateful for her concern about the industry and I appreciate her spirit. In regard to the amendment she proposed, it suggests that the Director-General of Trade shall, base on regulation 5A of the Import and Export Regulations, include some registered import and export textiles firms as voters in the textiles and garments functional constituency. As a core member of the Textiles Council who has served the industry for over 20 years, I find that I am obliged to represent the Textiles Council and those from the industry who have reflected their opinions to me, to raise objections to the Government and Honourable colleagues.

One of the major reasons is that her suggestion will certainly incur wrong matching of voters. Undoubtedly, as Miss CHOY So-yuk has just said, we allow a person to fill in what he likes in the application form and finally ask him to guarantee that what he has filled in is the truth. However, there is no system to check whether what he has filled in is the truth or not. This is the first point.

Secondly, she talked about filling in a firm's name, however, as Mr TIEN has said, it may be a retailer of some materials, but then it imports two bolts of undyed cloth or pocket cloth, and he gets registration before importing the cloth in order to conform to the government regulations. Although this firm is engaged in import and export business, it is not engaging in the manufacture of textiles or garments. On the other hand, firms that are engaged in import and export business may be related to textiles, as I have said, but most of these firms may be trading undyed cloth or other cloth materials. It is possible that it may import or export some cloth that has undergone the dying process and deliver the cloth to certain factories for producing garments. But it is after all only engaging in the buying and selling or import and export of textiles raw materials, but not running garments business.

We have also pointed out a moment ago that, as Miss CHOY So-yuk has clearly mentioned in her amendment, item (c) states that textiles are exported to regions where the countries have not signed any bilateral agreement with Hong Kong on the control of textiles products. These are precisely the places Mr TIEN was referring to and they are not remote. However, key exporting companies such as the United States, major European countries or even Japan are outside this group.

How can people selling flour be confused with those selling cakes, to use a simile? Based on the above reasons, I hope Members will object to Miss CHOY So-yuk's proposal.

Regarding the scholars, I have mentioned in the last Bills Committee meeting that we have known and met individual professors and we know that they give lectures to students. However, as they are in the education sector, they in fact know more about theories than the practical manufacturing process of textiles and garments. Most of the time, people from our industry have, on the contrary, been invited to their institutions to brief students in their faculties about the quality of staff and technologies demanded by the industry.

On the basis of these reasons, I hope Members can realize that this functional constituency is hard to understand because they have to comply with many regulations such as those of the World Trade Organization. Therefore, we are under many restrictions and regulation 5A accounts for just a small part of the restrictions on import and export. I hope Members will not support this proposal.

Thank you.

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

DR TSO WONG MAN-YIN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as I do not come from this industry, I originally did not intend to speak on this amendment. But I have just heard the Honourable James TIEN and the Honourable Sophie LEUNG comment on some professionals who teach this subject in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Mr TIEN has just said that there are about a thousand or more company votes. For the Institution of Textiles and Garments, even when all its members are included, there are about a hundred people or so, just 10% of the company votes. I personally find that in each functional constituency, it is right that there are people who are good at theories and some who are good at putting theories into practice. But most of the time, if we want to enhance our industry, or to increase the competitiveness of Hong Kong, we must have people strong in theories to give play to their functions at that level. Therefore, in respect of theory and practice, especially in Hong Kong, I hope that each functional constituency can accept some university lecturers to strengthen our competitiveness. Unfortunately, the proposal relating to our higher education sector was not supported by a margin of a few votes. However, in other functional constituencies, such as the engineering, architectural, medical and accountancy functional constituencies, university lecturers can choose to be a voter in the professional sector or remain in the education functional constituency. Therefore, I hope that the textiles and garments functional constituency will be broad-minded enough to allow people engaging in teaching and good at theories to join. As I have just said, they account for 10% at most and they can be voters in the textiles and garments functional constituency. Therefore, I hope that Members will give serious consideration to this

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee.

MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in fact, we must first define the textiles and garments functional constituency. Mrs Sophie LEUNG has only touched upon the garments sector, but we are indeed talking about the textiles and garments functional constituency now. Miss CHOY So-yuk has also said that the textiles and garments functional constituency is composed of three parts, namely, importers, exporters and professionals. Mr James TIEN has admitted that these three sectors belong to the textiles and garments functional constituency. Therefore, I am surprised. Given that Members agree, as we have, that people from these three sectors actually belong to the textiles and garments functional constituency, why are they excluded from the textiles and garments functional constituency? This is the first point that Members need to consider.

Secondly,Mr James TIEN has also mentioned that people holding TTR can indeed join the import and export sector. Initially I think this can be done, but it is a pity that the gate has been closed. Does the import and export sector include the textiles and garments sectors? Therefore, based on this, there is no way for them to join the import and export sector.

On the other hand, we need to see if we can easily distinguish between textiles firms and those which are not textile firms. In fact, Miss CHOY So-yuk has made it very clearly that the textiles firms have indicated clearly on the registration form whether they are members of the industry or textiles businessmen. Therefore, we think that there is sufficient reason for the inclusion of these three sectors in the textiles and garments functional constituency. This gate should not be closed. We are now talking about an unfair situation, that is, some people may belong to this sector, but most people wish to exclude them, though they are textiles and garments businessmen. We find that we should indeed support Miss CHOY So-yuk's proposal to include in the garments sector those textiles businessmen who have the door shut on them. This matches what Mr James TIEN has said as we are talking about textiles firms, not those in the functional constituency who are not textiles businessmen.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I object on behalf of the Liberal Party to the Honourable Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment to clause 26 of the Legislative Council Bill.

Firstly, I want to mention that a voter of a functional constituency must be a representative of its sector to a certain degree, and has close relations with the sector. For example, if a person wishes to become a member, partner, senior personnel or staff of a corporate voter of a functional constituency, or become a corporate member of the corporate voter, he must meet certain criteria. I know the origin of the textiles and garments functional constituency and it is in fact nothing new. All along, the manufacturing, production, export and textiles industries have been the mainstay of Hong Kong industries in recent years. Nowadays, textiles export is still the largest foreign exchange earner, with the tourism sector coming second. Although it was recently said that the tourist industry got a low ranking possibly as a result of a game of numbers. But until now, textiles export still ranks first among the Hong Kong industries which earn foreign exchange.

I understand that this particular functional constituency is not named as textiles products, but as the textiles functional constituency. One may say that textiles can be used either as a noun or sort of a verb. When used as a verb, it means manufacturing and production. In my understanding, the amendment proposed is aimed at granting each firm registered as a TTR a vote. Regarding this proposal, I find it reflects that the Member who proposed the amendment may not have thorough understanding of the textiles and garments functional constituency, as some Members have just suggested, certainly I admit that I also do not have a thorough understanding. But one Member of the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance probably should have a deep understanding of it, if he proposes it, he can directly explain matters to us. I am not sure whether he is doing so to avoid arousing suspicion or for some other reasons. I think we should have more chances to listen more, but as we are discussing this problem as laymen, I just think that those who successfully obtained TTR from the Trade Department may not be closely related to the textiles sector. Certainly the application form just mentioned should be examined by the Trade Department. I have much interest to listen to the Government's reply later to see whether there is a mechanism to monitor and verify whether the person who fills in the form really belongs to the textiles sector or the transport sector, as the Trade Department or the Industry Department requests these people to fill in the form. Or, with so many TTRs issued every year, does anyone keep statistics frequently of what information has individual companies filled in before the companies are eligible for registration as voters. Is there any mechanism which can avoid confusion? Some branches of the textiles industry may be somewhat or indirectly related to it. Such as what some Members have just mentioned, they may deliver from time to time a small quantity of uncontrolled textiles products such as cotton cloth. As far as I understand it, some medium-sized platform lorry drivers can apply for TTRs from the Trade Department for convenience's sake. It is indeed very common for a vehicle owner to get a TTR. However, I think it is too far-fetched to include those who provide delivery service occasionally in the textiles and garments functional constituency. I am afraid that if it is applied too broadly, people who should not be included in that sector would easily be included.

If this logic is applied to the tourism functional constituency, many tourists take taxis in Hong Kong and a taxi-driver provides services for the tourism industry, then does it mean that he should be included in the tourism functional constituency, but not the transport functional constituency? For imports, they are certainly related to the textiles industry. I remember some Members reasoned in the Bills Committee that imported cloth and dye belong to the textiles functional constituency because they are related. I instantly come up with an idea, should the oil companies be included in the tourism functional constituency because they deliver fuel for use by aeroplanes? If this is endlessly extended, the dividing line of the whole functional constituency will probably become very blurred.

Moreover, it is suggested that the Hong Kong Institution of Textiles and Apparel will be changed from one-association one-vote to one-man one-vote. If it is so, I think it will really contravene the main principle of one-company one-vote for the functional constituencies, and the dividing line of voters will become very blurred. Certainly, Members have quoted examples about why scholars can be electors of Institution of Engineers and the Society of Accountants. The situation is different because they are professional sectors, but the textiles sector belongs to the commercial and industrial sector. Let us look through the previous 21 functional constituencies. I remember that seven groups are professionals, who are scholars enjoying one-man one-vote. But now, it is certain that the textiles sector belongs to the commercial and industrial sector comprising mostly corporate votes. There could be individual cases as a result of history where some people used to be individual members. But there is no confusion of the two. Some scholars are confused with companies. The same applies to the tourism sector. There were originally three associations with no individual votes or votes for scholars. If we further extend it, I can say that the Hong Kong Polytechnic University has a subject on tourism and there are knowledged people who lecture on tourism, but these people, and the tourism industry, have not requested to include these people as voters in the tourism functional constituency. It is indeed unreasonable. They can be electors in their own professional functional constituency. Therefore, I find the rationale unacceptable. If we apply the rationale of the proposed amendment and extend its definition to other sectors, it will really bring about many jokes or an unreasonable result. But the Liberal Party will support including the Textiles Council of Hong Kong in the textiles and garments sector as suggested by the Government, so that it is eligible as a corporate voter. So doing, the Government is confirming their status in the textiles and garments industry and this truly reflects the situation of the sector. Therefore, the Liberal Party supports the Government's amendment in this respect. Besides, another amendment proposed by the Government is related to this clause, certainly I am not referring to the amendment by Miss CHOY So-yuk. As the Hong Kong Textiles Association has been registered for less than 12 months, its right to vote as its member is forfeited. It is definitely a right and fair election that the Liberal Party will support.

As to the amendment to add new item 26(4), I think the reference to textiles traders lacks specific legal basis. I hope that the Government can reply later whether just filling out a form is a sufficient mechanism or sufficient proof that there is a legal basis? What actually does textiles traders refer to? A spinning factory, cloth factory or garment factory, cloth firm, or T-shirt vendors at street-side? How are these distinguished? I think it is a rather abstract and ambiguous term without strict legal definition. Therefore, the Liberal Party objects to the amendment by Miss CHOY So-yuk.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr James TIEN, speaking for the second time.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to discuss with Members as to whom in the textiles and garments industry should be given the seats of the textiles functional constituency. Regarding the issue of scholars, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin definitely has her points, but in fact, I know very well the people in the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, or the former Hong Kong Polytechnic, such as Professor CHAN in the past and Philip YEUNG at present. They often play a teaching role and their students will then join the textiles and garments industry. Certainly, the industry includes spinning, weaving, dyeing and garments. We think that it is significant in that it providies many employment opportunities in Hong Kong, making great contribution to Hong Kong exports.

Dr TSO WONG Man-yin has also mentioned that there are over a thousand factories, but only a hundred or so lecturers, yet, why should we mind? It will have no problem if it just involves those a hundred or more lecturers. However, any person who has worked in the industry for five years can join the Institution. I can imagine that at that time a former Member, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, and tens of thousands of garment workers will join the Institution. The Institution has not specified the criteria they have to meet or that they must be university graduates. I do not know how much membership fee will be charged, possibly dozens of dollars. They will become members once they join. We are now discussing about corporate votes. I am a representative of a company, most members of the Institution are chairman of the board of directors, or directors, or general managers. It has one vote only. It is not the case that once several thousand or tens of thousands of people join the Institution, they will obtain a right to vote. It may not be a problem today. However, we are making legislation not for today only, but also the future. When we hold the election in 2000, the Institution may already have several thousand members whose right to vote will outnumber those who run businesses in this industry. I mean this scenario. Therefore I do not think that the scholars should join our textiles functional constituency. Dr TSO WONG Man-yin also mentioned the engineers, auditors and lawyers but they are certainly different as they are professionals who have obtained professional qualifications. However, is this required in the textiles industry? No. A person can work in the industry without having completed any specific course or obtained any licence. Anyone can join the industry. It may be too exaggerating to mention Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and tens of thousands of garment workers, however, any person from a company importing textiles, or even a clerk can join the Institution. What regulation does the Institution has to disallow them to join?

Secondly, item 26(4)(a) mentions imported textiles. What companies import textiles, and what they import? To take an example, Lane Crawford may import men's and women's fashion for sale. It thus belongs to the wholesale and retail sector. We do not regard it as running a garment business in Hong Kong. We are now talking about an importer of textiles and cloth. I have just said that most of the others are importing garments and they belong to the wholesale and retail sector. If there is really no functional constituency to which a company belongs, for example, if a firm imports cloth, it should join the import and export functional constituency, that is, the functional constituency in which Mr Henry TANG ran in the election in 1995. In the said functional constituency, many electors are companies that import cloth, dyes or toys. All import companies vote in this functional constituency, but not in the textiles functional constituency. I do not think that just importing several bolts of cloth or some dyes will enable a company to become a member of the textiles functional constituency. Certainly, I have said that I support those factories which export to other factories which do not require certificates of origin. We may agree that those factories are Hong Kong exporters.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG. Speaking for the second time.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, regarding the Legislative Council Bill, I can see that different amendments will be made to individual functional constituencies today. I think this Council has to seriously face and protect one basic principle, that is, to maintain and try its best to give play to the characteristics and merits of the functional constituencies. Members in an industry should elect a representative who is most representative in the industry. Those who serve the industry can also contribute to society as a whole. Therefore, I find that the composition of electorates in the functional constituencies must be well-grounded and there should not be any problem of wrong matching. Earlier I have mentioned some arguments about this. I welcome Miss CHOY So-yuk's proposal as it seeks to extend the mode from factory-based or manufacturer-based to import- and export-based. However, I think that we should look at the industry as a whole, but not partially by taking some parts to make up the number. An applicant should certainly fill in the form and he must then make a declaration at the back. I believe that if we really pass this Bill today, in order to maintain the principle of equality and fairness, or to uphold the spirit that a functional constituency should represent the industry, I think that the Trade Department or the Trade and Industry Bureau or even the Customs and Excise Department may have to increase several tens of thousands staff to tidy up the aftermath, and to do so within a very short period of time. Whether it can be done is still unknown because it is still open to question whether any firm that runs an import and export business is eligible as a an elector after importing two bolts of so-called undyed cloth. I think we must think twice or I am only wasting my breath speaking here as many Honourable Members might have already decided how they would vote for one reason or other. However, we still have to face over six million people. How can we tell them that the amendment related to this functional constituency is really just and fair? I hope that Members can think twice.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs. Do you wish to speak so that the Secretary can reply to what you said right away? I beg your pardon Secretary. Mrs Miriam LAU.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Sorry, Madam Chairman, it maybe because I am sitting over on the side. Madam Chairman, Mrs Sophie LEUNG has just said that we are probably wasting our breath today. However, I want to say something even if I am wasting my breath, as we should say it as long as it is reasonable. People can freely decide whether they would listen or not. Nevertheless, what we have said will be fully recorded in the official record of proceedings of the Provisional Legislative Council. The six million citizens in Hong Kong and several hundreds of millions people around the world will see what we are debating today. I think Honourable Members should decide how they speak and act today.

Madam Chairman, all along I am of the view that the first Legislative Council election must be open, fair and honest. This is the Government's objective which Members frequently mention. I ask Members, if they frequently mention these words, do not only say so, but do so as well, according to their conscience.

Madam Chairman, it is fair to expand the scope of electorates and many people think that it should be done. Why do we not let more people take part in the election? The Government may hold that the functional constituency does not need to be expanded, but I think otherwise. The question is how it should be expanded. I think there must be standards or principles for expansion. Any expansion of electorates, in particular the definition of electorates in the functional constituencies, must follow two principles. Firstly, the principles adopted must be fair, equal and not selective. Secondly, the groups or organizations proposed to be included as electors must be clearly defined and representative. Representativeness comes not from self-proclamation by individuals, but general acceptance by the public. If the registration and definition of electors for the first Legislative Council election do not follow these two principles, how can we make people believe that the Legislative Council election is open, fair and honest?

I have read Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment over and over again. I am a layman, and possibly Miss CHOY so-yuk is also a layman. People in the industry who have delivered speeches are the Liberal Party and Mrs Sophine LEUNG. There is an expert who has not made a speech yet and I do not know if he is going to speak later. However, there is one thing which I do not understand. Why is there such a strange recommendation? Item 26(4)(a) suggests that textiles firms that import textiles from any country or region may become electors. Although I am a layman, I know some of the cloth-vendors in Ap Liu Street and Ki Lung Street as they are my clients and I know them well. They have never given me an impression that they belong to the textiles functional constituency. They sell cloth, so they belong to the wholesale and retail functional constituency. But why is it suddenly suggested that these people should belong to the textiles functional constituency? I really do not quite understand it. If I have got it wrong, possibly because I am a layman as I really cannot get it, maybe these firms should also belong to the textiles functional constituency. I stand to be convinced.

Let us look at (4)(c), it states that some textiles firms may be eligible as voters as they export textiles that are entitled to a certificate of Hong Kong origin to a country or place with which Hong Kong does not have a bilateral textiles agreement to control exports of textiles from Hong Kong to the country or place. When it is mentioned that there is no bilateral control, that means there are some with bilateral control. Where are these firms? Does it mean that they cannot take part? I really do not get it. If it is so, it is then selective and is really risky to do so. The risk is it will lead to the division of people or companies in the same industry, resulting in divergence. Some belong here, while others belong there, while some have, others do not. I think this is very dangerous and I totally disagree to it. Can we say that the so-called textiles firms have made no contribution to Hong Kong when they export to countries with bilateral control agreement with Hong Kong? Do they not have made certain investments in our economy? Why are they left out? I have no idea.

Regarding the application form, Mr Howard YOUNG has elaborated on this and he hoped that the Government, in reply, can tell us how to read this form because I am not sure how it should be read. I have just received a copy of an undertaking by an applicant to show that they are telling the truth. Can the Government tell us what undertaking it is? Does it constitute a criminal offence if a person signed it, knowing that he is making a false statement? Is he deceiving the Government? What will be the result? Will the Government serve him a summons and prosecute him? Will he be put in jail, or asked to pay a fine? Is it the end of the matter when I have made the undertaking? Are there any examination and verification procedures? On the other hand, I hope that the Government can assist us to understand more about the background information on the amendment of Miss CHOY.

Regarding the Institution of Textile and Apparel, again I am puzzled. When I first read the amendment made by Miss CHOY, her proposal referred to all members of the Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Apparel entitled to vote at general meetings of the Institution. Following that, she adds clause 26(2) after clause 23(6)(7). In other words, she originally hoped that the members of the Institution of Textile and Apparel can be exempted from the 12-month membership requirement. This principle applies to all professional institutions. All professional institutions of the sectors among the various functional constituencies observe this rule. That is to say, for an individual member of a professional institution, he does not have to be subject to the 12-month requirement as a professional member. According to the guidelines of the Preparatory Committee, as far as I can remember, individual members of a professional sector, institution or group can vote. Suddenly, Miss CHOY So-yuk withdrew the amendment related to clause 23(b) this afternoon. Therefore, there is a big question mark in my mind now: is it professional or not? After Miss CHOY So-yuk has withdrawn the amendment, she seems to have admitted that it is not a professional institution. If it is not a professional institution, how can its members who are individuals have the right to vote? Why is it not that only institutions can vote? Would the suggestion made by Miss CHOY contravene the guidelines of the Preparatory Committee? Perhaps Miss CHOY can explain these later.

Miss CHOY is very concerned about the transport functional constituency which I represent, and so do I. She has mentioned that since carparks are included in the transport functional constituency, so, her import and export sector should be included in the textiles functional constituency. However, when I take a look again, apart from carparks, many trades related to transport are not included in the transport functional constituency.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs LAU, excuse me, please hold on. Miss CHOY, do you have a point of order or do you wish to elucidate?

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): I wish to elucidate.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, if she wants to elucidate, she should ......

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you want to elucidate, you may do so after Mrs LAU has finished speaking. In fact, you have time for a reply and you may elucidate during your reply. Mrs LAU, please continue.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): I believe that Miss CHOY So-yuk has a lot to elucidate. Regarding the transport functional constituency, for example, companies dealing in cars do not belong to the transport functional constituency although they are closely related to transport. It does not belong to the transport functional constituency, but the wholesale and retail functional constituency. Another example is the import and export of vehicles. If Members turn to page C302 of the Bill, we can clearly see that the import and export of left-hand or right-hand drive vehicles belong to the import and export functional constituency. Therefore, if it is only related to the import and export business, I think it should not be forcibly included in the textiles functional constituency. I ask that it should remain in the import and export functional constituency.

The Honourable WONG Siu-yee has said that there are no other functional constituencies for them to join while Miss CHOY So-yuk is now suggesting that some industries should be included in that particular functional constituency. This is a new suggestion. The problem is, it is now suggested that they should be included in the textiles functional constituency. If a Member thinks that they should be included in the import and export functional constituency, he absolutely has the right to do so with reasons. Why is this not done? Why does it have to be forcibly included in the textiles functional constituency? Under the pretext of expanding the functional constituency, those who do not belong to the industry are forcibly included in the functional constituency. Is this justifiable? No matter how just and sincere those who do so are, even though I trust them, the public will not. The first Legislative Council election must be open, fair and honest. Members should show their credibility. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I shall be brief. I have just heard Honourable Members' speeches. Initially, I thought that the amendment is all right, but after listening to their speeches, I find that there is a big problem as in fact the whole concept of functional constituency is in itself very confusing. For example, Miss CHOY So-yuk now suggests to add item 26(4). Then do these firms belong to the import and export sector or the textiles sector? There are quite a lot of overlappings. To me, although I do not agree to the demorcation of functional constituencies, the issue is clearly related to imports and exports, but not the activity of manufacturing textiles or garments. Therefore I think basically, the amendment has stated that the Director-General of Trade has requested the textiles firms to make registration in accordance with the Import and Export (General) Regulations for the purpose of importing and exporting products of a certain type only. Therefore, it is clear that it should not be included in the textiles and garments industry.

What is the problem concerning the Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Apparel? The Bill originally suggests that the Institution itself has one vote. It is certainly related to fashion design, or the textiles field must be closely related to and of great help to the manufacturing process. According to the person who has expressed his views to the Bills Committee, and he has made a list, the Institution has organized a number of courses which an association in Britain has also organized. The instructors are the same group of lecturers from the Hong Kong Polytechnic. The qualifications obtained in Britain are recognized, but not those in Hong Kong. I find that the first thing to be tackled is that, we should seek a recognition of the courses organized by the Hong Kong Institution of Textiles and Apparel in Hong Kong. Only under these circumstances will I fully support that the members entitled to vote at general meetings of the Institution should have the right to vote. However, until now, I cannot support it.

Originally, I wished to leave the Chamber under an excuse, but I find this problem very important. What surprises me is that I have not heard Members of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong(DAB) speak so far. I am most interested in listening to what the DAB Members will say. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Charles YEUNG.

DR CHARLES YEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would like to express my personal opinions now. Mr James TIEN has just said that he joined the industry in 1971, but I want to tell Honourable Members that I joined in 1967 as a worker, I then became a foreman, a factory director and finally the boss.

I believe I have over 30 years of experience in the industry as of today. Since I first started working, I have never been detached from the textiles and garments industry. From my experience, we come into contact with three types of people in our daily operation, and it is a well-known fact in our industry. Firstly, the factory owners who operate factories in Hong Kong. As we may all know, most of these factory owners run export business and they export to the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan or even Africa. They are factory owners and most of them concurrently run export business.

Secondly, over 80% of the materials consumed by these Hong Kong factories over the last 10 to 20 years are imported from China or other countries. Raw materials are a must for making garments. How is it possible if there is no cloth? Where does the cloth come from? Undyed cloth or gauze. We can say that over 80% of the raw materials, especially undyed cloth, used over the last 10 to 20 years are imported and we call these factory owners textiles importers. Some of them make garments while some others are raw material importers. They are two different types of people.

Apart from us, the so-called "red trousers", who join the industry as workers and climbed up step by step, another type of people is the many professionals we have employed, such as the factory directors, designers and quality control personnel who check to find out if our cloth or fashion conforms to international standards. We need a large group of professionals. Speaking according to our conscience, they have mainly graduated from the textiles and garments faculty of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Therefore, I think the achievement of our textiles and garments industry today has been a result of the efforts made by the local factories and exporters. Besides, it is also closely related to those raw material suppliers who import raw materials from China and even other places and supply us with competitive and low-price raw materials. Therefore, I think that we should not forget these people. Moreover, as the industry has such an excellent development so far and it is going to further develop in the future, we cannot overlook this group of professionals, designers and quality control personnel. Therefore, these three groups of people should be catered for.

However, looking back at item 26 originally drafted by the Government, we can say that it basically includes the factory owners and exporters only, but not the raw material suppliers who are also importers, or the professionals. The latter has one vote only.

I would like to remind Members that, as stated in the document provided by the Government, this functional constituency has around 5 000 voters now rather than 1 000 or 1 200; but 5 000. The institution we are now fighting for comprises only 107 professionals. The qualifications of these professionals, however, as some Members have just mentioned, are not recognized in China and Britain. However, Hong Kong has already reunited with China under "one country, two systems". Before the handover, this Institution was already recognized by a central government department in Beijing. Although it was not recognized by the British institutions, I want to tell Members that, it has been recognized by the Beijing Textiles Institution, which is itself recognized by the Ministry of Textiles, the host authority. I agree with Members who just said that the Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Garments is not recognized by Britain, but I want to tell Members that its professional qualifications have long been confirmed by the Chinese Textiles Association at national level, that is, the former Ministry of Textiles Industry. The professional qualification of the Institution includes recognition that it has been examined and verified by the Council of Chinese Textiles Industry, responsible for examining and verifying all related professionals and universities in China. The qualification is not only limited to the field of engineering, but everything. Though the Hong Kong Institution is still not recognized by Britain until now, I want to tell all Members that it has been recognized by the relevant department at national level in China.

I have mentioned three sectors before, firstly, factories and exporters; secondly, raw material suppliers, that is, importers; and thirdly, professionals. I want to explain some questions raised by Members. Mrs Miriam LAU has mentioned that Miss CHOY So-yuk's proposal is related to exporters not under bilateral textiles export control agreement, as stated in item 26(4)(b) just referred to by Mr James TIEN, who are "exporting textiles that are not entitled to a certificate of Hong Kong origin to any country". Mrs Miriam LAU has asked, why are those who have obtained certificates of origin not granted the right to vote? My explanation is that she has missed something. In fact, the Government has illustrated this in item 26(3), in saying that those who have certificates of origin (CO) already have the right to vote. I want to explain to Mrs Miriam LAU that they already have it. Mrs Miriam LAU perhaps should take a closer look, as the clauses originally drafted by the Government has stated so, it is not necessary for Miss CHOY So-yuk to add it. She needs only to talk about those who do not have the right to vote, as provisions have already been made for those who have. The factories which do not have CO should also be included. Therefore, I urge Mrs Miriam LAU to gain a clear idea and refrain from saying that those factories do not have the right to vote, for they have already had it.

Mrs Miriam LAU has just mentioned the cloth traders in Ap Liu Street and Ki Lung Street. Although some owners of shops in Ap Liu Street and Ki Lung Street remarked that they do not get as much as several hundred thousand or a million dollars from their business every year, Members know that our original cloth materials are mostly purchased from these traders. Though they may each have a shop only, they have warehouses which may be located in Kwai Chung, San Po Kong or Kwun Tong, but not at the back of their shops. The warehouses are huge and public warehouses may also be used. These people carry on business which possibly involve batches of 100 000 or 200 000 yards each, and billions of dollars. Can I tell Members not to look at their shops only, but their warehouses as well. They carry on businesses which generate huge sums of money merely through a telephone. This is what I want to explain. Certainly, these people have registered as textiles traders for the sake of carrying on import business. They are not factories or exporters. Regarding the election, if these people have successfully applied for TTR, they meet the requirements and should have the right to vote. Their business is not simply conducted in a shop.

Lorry drivers are also mentioned a moment ago. Perhaps I should make a further clarification here. The lorry drivers who deliver textiles are not included in Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment, as Members just thought that lorry drivers could apply. Even if a lorry driver delivers textiles, if he is not carrying on an export and import business as we have just mentioned, merely being a lorry driver will not do. How are we going to differentiate those included from those not? I have also received the document just mentioned by Miss CHOY So-yuk. The Government has stated clearly in the registration procedure of the Trade Department whether lorry drivers should fill in transportation companies, importers and exporters or factory owners in the form. The dividing line is very clearly drawn. Some other people said, "Have they given false information when they filled in the form? Have they violated the law? Is it a criminal offence? I have in mind another question. With have so many electors at present, including those factories which have CO as referred to by the Government, are they really doing business? Are there some which have closed down, or moved to China with only their names retained in the register? We have also mentioned the members of many institutions. How can I tell if they are still doing business in Hong Kong, and how much is their business turnover? How can we guarantee that they belong to the same sector? Members are worried that they have made false statements in the relevant documents. If so, we will have endless worries and the Government will not know how to handle those people.

Other Members have questioned, will this group of traders be similar to hawkers who just buy some clothes and then carry on a retail business? Are they textiles traders? I want to explain that it takes $2,000 to register as a textiles trader, and the registration has to be renewed every year. If a trader imports a batch of clothes, the Government will collect $40 when he imports fashion or textiles from foreign places to Hong Kong. In fact, no cash is paid, just $40 stamps. As the Government has said that the import and export of textiles in Hong Kong ranks first in the world, the Government does not wish to waste too much costs on administration. If a firm considers that it will have good business, it may just pay once and it does not need to pay $40 stamps every time. If $40 is paid at a time, it amounts to $400 for 10 times, and $2,000 for 50 times. According to the Government, it will not charge any fee after 50 times, therefore, traders should just pay $2,000. If a person wishes to obtain a TTR, he should at least make 50 deals or else he will suffer losses. Therefore, I want to explain to Members one thing, these group of people are not hawkers. If a hawker says, "I just do so for fun ", then I do not know what I can say. If another person says, for example, "I like to do so", again I do not know what I can say. However, I can only tell Members that these traders do not just make one or two deals.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG. Speaking for the second time.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I believe that we are not discussing the complicated relationship between one industry and another, or how much contribution a certain group has to the industry. We are now discussing about how we can work out a clear definition and concept of functional constituency.

For importers, if those who import cloth should belong to the textiles functional constituency, then taking our tourism functional constituency as an example, many travel agencies sell air-tickets and tickets are made of paper which is imported by paper traders, will the paper traders who import blank air-tickets belong to the tourism functional constituency? That cannot be possible. To take the aeroplane company I earlier mentioned as another example, oil companies supply aeroplanes with imported fuel, should they be included in the tourism functional constituency? It is, again, impossible. When we leave the airport, security staff at the exit will check our boarding pass, and they are directly related to the tourist industry. However, they are not included in any sector at all and no one has suggested that they should be included in the tourism functional constituency.

Let me give an example of importance. Tourists from foreign countries use 55% of their expenses in Hong Kong on shopping, followed by hotels accommodation. Where do the tourists go shopping? Maybe as what Mr James TIEN has mentioned, Lane Crawford or famous brand shops in Central. Do these shops have the right to vote? Yes, but they belong to the retail functional constituency, not the tourist functional constituency, even though they have made great contribution to the tourist industry. Therefore, it is not a question of how much contribution they have made, but there must be a clear principle to define which trades belong to a certain functional constituency.

Let me give another example. The tourism functional constituency has clearly stated that one of the conditions is membership of the Tourist Association. There should be no argument about this. However, not every member of the Tourist Association can vote, because it has been clearly stated that only the tourist industry members of the Tourist Association can vote. Many members of the Tourist Association are in fact retailers, and they are excluded from the tourism functional constituency. But they now have the right to vote in the retail functional constituency among the nine new functional constituencies.

Therefore, I think that we should not expand some functional constituencies. In fact, in nearly all the functional constituencies, particularly, the industrial and commercial functional constituency, almost every person can be described as belonging to more than 10 functional constituencies and can vote in any functional constituency. If that is the case, situation will become very confusing.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Siu-yee, speaking for the second time.

MR WONG SIU-YEE (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in fact I do not quite understand it. The Liberal Party is the only party which objects to this amendment. Mrs Miriam LAU, as a layman, has just made an impassioned speech, but what she said is somewhat misleading. I would like to state on the outset that I belong partly to the textiles functional constituency because my business includes running textiles factories.

Mrs Miriam LAU questioned why we should include those who do not belong to the textiles sector in the textiles functional constituency. It is possibly because this sentence has made Mr Andrew WONG misunderstand and think that we have really included those who do not belong to the textiles sector in the textiles functional constituency. It is indeed a very big misunderstanding. What we are discussing now is focused on the textiles and garments functional constituency. I believe our expert, Mr James TIEN, will not object to it. Mrs Sophie LEUNG, another expert, will not object to it, too. What we are discussing now is related to the textiles and garments functional constituency. This is the first point.

However, I agree to another point raised by Mrs Miriam LAU. She said that the Liberal Party in fact agrees to expanding the scope of electorates and that the election should be fair and equal and hopes that the functional constituency is representative. These three points are precisely the objectives of the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance. She has correctly mentioned our objectives, so I hope that the objectives and actions of the Liberal Party can be consistent. It cannot just point out its objectives but fail to take consistent action. In fact, Miss CHOY So-yuk puts forward the amendment with the hope that that particular functional constituency can be made more representative and to represent the textiles and garments functional constituency more fully.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr TANG Siu-tong.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have just heard many Members make their comments. Several of them may not belong to the sector and I do not belong to the textiles sector either. I am a doctor, Mrs Miriam LAU is a lawyer and Mr Howard YOUNG belongs to the tourism sector. I have all the way failed to understand their comments. Perhaps it is because they have only a smattering knowledge of the textiles sector, like I do.

However, I would like to point out that Article 5 of the Decision of the People's Republic of China on the Specific Method for the Formation of the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region states that the industrial functional constituency is divided into two groups: firstly, the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, and secondly, the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce. The other nine new functional constituencies may not belong to the industrial sector, but there is indeed specification on the textiles and garments functional constituency. In deciding that the textiles and garments sector be made a new functional constituency, we should consider this on the basis of some basic requirements.

Miss CHOY So-yuk has just mentioned that the textiles and garments functional constituency is made up of the export, import and professional subsectors. Mrs Sophie LEUNG has expressed clearly that she agrees to item 26(4) proposed by Miss CHOY So-yuk, about the textiles traders registered with the Trade Department. She agrees to this point, but she worries about how we can distinguish between real textiles traders and the transport companies Mrs Miriam LAU has just mentioned. This is another question. When we agree to Miss CHOY So-yuk's suggestion to include item 26(4) as a requirement for the related textiles traders, other problems in respect of enforcement are another matter. We should not mix up enforcement with principles.

As Mrs Sophie LEUNG also considers the amendment of Miss CHOY So-yuk right, I think we should offer our support.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I did not say I agree, I believe that the Dr TANG Siu-tong is confused. I said that if she wants to expand the electorate base by including the importers, she should take a comprehensive rather piecemeal approach, that is, she should not just focus on the non-regulated import and export operators. But she should include all those traders regulated by the World Trade Organization. Certainly some Members have also expressed that if they are that important, they should probably be included in the import and export functional constituency.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have all the way spoken on behalf of the textiles and garments sector on the question about this particular sector. Mr WONG Siu-yee asked why is it that only the Liberal Party is objecting to it, but has he ever thought that only the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance is supporting it? (Laughter) He also said that I support the textiles import and export sector, but maybe he has got it wrong! For "export", I do agree because before cloth is exported it must go through processes like weaving, spinning, knitting and even dyeing. I have not, however, said that I support the cloth importers.

As Mr WONG Siu-yee has mentioned the Liberal Party and the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, and so has Dr Charles YEUNG, I hope that he will not mind. As far as I know, the present Chairman of the Hong Kong Institution of Textiles and Apparel is Mr YEUNG Fun. Who is Mr YEUNG Fun? I believe Dr Charles YEUNG knows better!

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I hope that it is a debate, not an exchange kind of discussion that has been conducted at the Bills Committee meetings. Several Members have raised their hands to show that they wish to speak. I will allow them to speak, but I hope that Members will keep their speeches short, and will not repeat the points already made. Dr TANG Siu-tong.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Let me refer to the page Honourable Members have just received. There are four groups, namely, import, manufacturing, transportation and others. In fact, the transportation column has been crossed out to indicate that it is "excluded", so there are actually only the import and export and the manufacturing sectors. Therefore, when Members make consideration, they should consider whether these two groups are eligible to be electors of the functional constituency.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Miriam LAU.

MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would like to respond briefly to Mr WONG Siu-yee's remarks. Mr WONG Siu-yee has just said that he half belongs to the textiles functional constituency. Before then, I just knew that he is familiar with the taxi and public light bus industry, so I thought he belongs to the transport functional constituency. Can we be regarded as members of a certain sector when we have talked a lot about it? I think it will be very dangerous if we adopt this criterion in defining the electorate in functional constituencies. I find it a very dangerous act for Members to regard themselves as belonging to a sector when they speak on a certain issue.

Besides, I wish to respond to another point made by Mr WONG Siu-yee. He said that as the Liberal Party agrees to the principles of fairness, equal treatment and representativeness, we must act according to what we say. Mr WONG Siu-yee might not have heard my speech clearly. I said the Liberal Party insists on this principle, but it has, at the same time, criticized the proposal made by Miss CHOY So-yuk of the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance. It fails to effect equal treatment because some exporters are given the right to vote, while some others are not. Miss CHOY may need to explain it later. I would to make it clear. Under her proposal, can equal treatment be effected? If we cannot do so, it means that it is selective and unfair. They should respond to this point instead of asking me to reply.

Moreover, I have also criticized about representativeness and this demands a response. I question the representativeness of the suggested textiles traders and organizations. I stand to be convinced.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Henry TANG.

MR HENRY TANG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, we have 54 Members attending today's meeting and among them, four belong to the textiles functional constituency. I have pity on the other 50 Members who have to attend a crash course on textiles and garment making. (Laughter) Apart from the four Members who belong to the textiles and garments sector, more experts have emerged this evening among the other 50 Members who do not belong to the industry. Therefore, I wish to clarify several points.

In fact, there are many wild industries within the textiles and garments sector. For example, it includes toys, like the dresses worn by cabbage dolls, fishing nets used by the agriculture and fisheries sector to catch fish, slippers covered by a layer of cloth, or bags used to keep books; they are all textiles. Therefore, the scope of the textiles and garments sector is extensive.

I have considered the composition of this functional constituency in detail. Some may ask why are only some people engaging in the import and export or manufacture of textiles included? Why are only some of those which are required to make the so-called trade declaration included? By rough estimation, over 100 000 firms have to make trade declarations every year. I certainly welcome more voters so that its acceptability can be enhanced. However, I do disagree to the inclusion of all people who are only remotely related to the textiles sector. In fact, the principle is very simple.

An Honourable colleague has earlier mentioned that the materials importers should be included in the textiles and garments sector. I agree to it absolutely because the materials traders make up a very essential part of the present textiles and garment sector in Hong Kong. Members of the Federation of Hong Kong Cotton Weavers under item 26(1) in column 2 of schedule 1 mainly import gauze because most cotton spinning factories are set up in the Mainland. Most factories in the Hong Kong Cotton Spinners Association members are also located in China. They mainly weave cloth in the Mainland, and then import the cloth to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Weaving Mills Association members also weave cloth in the Mainland and then import the cloth to Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Association of Textile Bleachers, Dyers, Printers and Finishers Limited members also bleach and dye cloth and gauze in the Mainland and then import them to Hong Kong. Therefore, a majority of these type of materials importers are included in the associations listed under item 26(1) of column 2. Is Dr harles YEUNG aware of this? (Laughter)

Some Honourable colleagues also mentioned including associations or the business they do, but I think it unnecessary to include the textile trader registration (TTR) holders because I have considered that the application for TTR is very simple ─ an applicant is only required to fill in the company name, address, telephone number and business registration number. Some Members proposed to delete the transport companies, but in fact, TTR was not originally designed for textiles manufacturers. In consideration that some textiles not subject to control could be transported to the Mainland for processing in the past, for processes such as embroidery ─ when they export, they had to apply for export licences, and when they import, they needed to have import licences ─ the Government introduced the TTR system for convenience and servings in resources.

Any firm, be it an export, import or transport firm, can apply for a TTR for import and export. Under this system, they need only to make a declaration. But they do not need to apply for import and export licences. If import and export licences are necessary, they have to send someone to the Trade Department in Mong Kok to collect application forms. After the licences are issued, they should again send someone to collect the licences before they can transport the batch of goods. Therefore, for convenience and saving resources, it was decided to simplify this complicated system. We have considered that if we include all the people registered under this system, then, they will to a great extent overlap the existing manufacturers and associations some of which may only import and export goods from time to time. Therefore, they should not be included.

Therefore, after detailed and through consideration, I think that this functional constituency is already sufficiently respresentative and fair. There is no need to make any amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Charles YEUNG.

DR CHARLES YEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Mr Henry TANG has asked if I know the situation, therefore, I want to explain it briefly. I am aware of the situation. In fact Mr TANG has already explained the many controversies just arised. Mr TANG said that he agreed that the traders of undyed cloth and cotton materials should have a right to vote, and the Government has already catered for these electors. I hope that Members will not continue to debate about the import and export of cotton materials. If Members agree to Mr TANG's opinion, I hope that we will not continue to debate about export, import or factories unless Members do not agree to Mr TANG's opinion.

As far as Members' arguments are concerned, I think that it is very difficult to complete a course on textiles and clothing in such a short period of time. According to my understanding, it seems that Mr TANG and I have reached a consensus that the cotton and textiles importers should have the right to vote. The Government has already stated in the Bill and Mr TANG and I have reached a consensus that not only the manufacturing firms but also the cotton traders should have the right to vote. If he does not agree, I hope that he can explain it.

Nevertheless, we do have a difference in opinion. I hope that I can make Members understand this within a short time. The point is whether they have joined any association. The Government has listed 12 associations which are qualified members. I suggest that those who have not joined any association should also be included; this is where our views diverged.

If the Government said only the members of associations are allowed to vote, I think that there is no problem. However, the Government has listed out some eligible voters who are not members and this gives rise to problems. Firms can cast votes so long as they have certificates of origin. They do not need to join any associations and they can vote if they are textiles traders. As the Government has two standards, either members or not members of associations, therefore I make the point of asking: can we allow those engaged in the cotton business but have not joined any association to vote? As the Government allows both those that have joined and those that have not joined associations to vote, therefore I ask whether those cotton, cloth or raw material traders who have not joined associations can vote. This is only the starting point. Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment has also mentioned this point, so I support her amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Government opposes Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment which includes firms registered as textiles traders under the Import and Export (General) Regulations in the textiles and garments functional constituency.

We already stated very clearly to the Bills Committee that the main purpose of the scheme for the registration of textiles traders is to provide companies engaged in textiles business with a way of registration which is more convenient than the present licensing system to promote trade. Since the registrations scheme for the textiles traders does not stipulate that the main business of the registering companies must be textiles and garments, many registered companies are not engaged in the import and export of textiles. Thus they can hardly be considered as representing the textiles and garments industry.

At present, there are more than 23 000 registered textiles traders. According to Miss CHOY's proposal, no matter what business the majority of these 23 000 registered traders have put down on the application form, they will become eligible electors of the textiles and garments functional constituency. Apart from the companies principally engaged in textiles business, many shipping companies, freighters, transport companies and other companies not ordinarily engaged in the textile trade will be included. Though their main business is in other areas, they can dominate the whole textiles and garments functional constituency. We think this is unreasonable.

At the same time, this proposal might give rise to a sharp increase in the number of electors in the textiles and garments functional constituency. The reason is that as long as their business includes the import and export of textile products and they are willing to pay an annual registration fee, shipping companies, transport companies and freighters can become registered textiles traders. So long as these registered traders can prove that they have been operating for 12 months, they can become eligible electors of this functional constituency. This would seriously undermine the representativeness of the textiles and garments functional constituency. This proposal is therefore unacceptable.

We also oppose Miss CHOY So-yuk's proposal to include all members of the Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Apparel in the textiles and garments functional constituency. This proposal is tantamount to admitting that constituency as a professional constituency. According to the criteria we have always used for classifying functional constituencies, professional constituencies must have long-established and recognized qualifications, including statutory qualifications, and be composed of professionals. However, there is no evidence to show that the qualifications of the members of the Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Apparel fulfil this criterion. Thus we find that the amendment is inappropriate.

Madam Chairman, due to the reasons mentioned above, I urge Members to vote against Miss CHOY's amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY So-yuk, please reply.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, having heard the speeches of several Members from the Liberal Party, I am very surprised indeed. I do not know if I have expressed myself, or Members have comprehended, badly. Though I have spoken a lot, what I said are repeatedly interpreted in a wrong way. It is clear that what Mr Howard YOUNG has mentioned about the transport functional constituency matches with the Government's understanding. In fact, I have said before that the whole amendment does not include the transport functional constituency. The Government has stipulated that the firms must state its business scope, and this is legally binding. The transport companies do not do so for the sake of election, and there was not such a case then. Would the companies know five or 10 years before that I will propose this amendment today and say that they do not belong to the transport functional constituency although they are well aware that they do? Representations of false statements are punishable by law. Therefore, I repeat that my amendment does not include the transport functional constituency at all.

Mrs Miriam LAU said that there is no reason why some exporters have the right to vote, while the others do not, and we should treat them equally and not selectively. Thank you, Mrs LAU. She has rightly pointed out the purpose of my amendment. At present, the Government grants the right to vote to some exporters which have certificates of origin (CO) while other manufacturers or exporters which do not have CO are not given the right. Therefore, I have proposed that these companies should also be given the right to vote. It is very clear that I wish that the Government will treat them equally and not selectively.

Several Members from the Liberal Party and Mrs Sophie LEUNG have mentioned representativeness, that is, the sector should be representative. In their eyes, those exporters who export to large countries such as the United States, Japan and Western Europe are representative. If they export to small countries, they will not be considered as exporters. I am happy that the voting system in the United Nations is not worked out by the Liberal Party, or else, all small countries cannot vote and the United States will be the only country that can vote.

Moreover, what are large countries? What are big companies? Are companies which are not well-known not companies? Are people who are not well-known not people? I am not defending any individual. It has been mentioned that if it is passed that members of the Institution of Textile and Apparel can be electors, people like Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung will be included in the future. I think that provided that Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has a university degree, received professional training in textiles and clothing, passed the examination, and five years of experience in the field, why can he not join the Institution? Why can he not become a professional? Why are some workers not given a chance? Even Dr Charles YEUNG started as a worker. If the workers are fit for the profession, and they pursued further study, they should also be representatives. Why is it that only the rich, or the big companies can have the right to vote? Some Members even said that some associations prescribe very inexpensive membership fees. Then, I would like to ask: Is it the case that only the associations or companies which collect very expensive membership fees can have the right to vote?

The Government said this is the textiles sector. They said they are textiles firms, and so did the Government. Why are the textiles firms not regarded as members of the textiles sector in the textiles and garments functional constituency? I do not quite follow the logic.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to seek an elucidation.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, if you wish to seek an elucidation, you may do so after Miss CHOY's speech, unless she is willing to give way now.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY has just mentioned "the rich", but I have not heard any Member mention the word "the rich" throughout the whole debate in this Council. Can I ask Miss CHOY So-yuk which Member has said "the rich"?

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN has mentioned that the membership fees of the associations may be very cheap, if the entry fees are expensive, is it not the case that only the rich people or companies can join the associations? I want to ask which functional constituency has specified the amount of membership fees payable before its members are eligible to vote?

Regarding the size of business, some Members said that certain companies may make just two deals per year, while others may have a variety of businesses. I want to make two points here: Firstly, how can we determine that those companies with certificates of origin (CO) have many business deals? Some companies may have obtained the CO 10 years ago, but have now switched to running property business, they, however, still have the right to vote. Why are those companies which re-register every year as textiles firms regarded as doing mixed businesses and they cannot have the right to vote? Secondly, Dr Charles YEUNG has also mentioned that these companies should pay $2,000 each year. To Mr James TIEN, it is a small amount. However, business is after all business. Each company will make all kinds of calculations, such as how much deals can be made every year. Why do they not spend two days' time and pay $40 once and for all to obtain an import licence, instead of applying for such business registration? They have to spend two weeks to one months' time and pay $2,000, that is, 50 times of the fees to obtain the registration as textiles traders. Why do they have to do so? Do they know long time ago that I, CHOY So-yuk, will propose such an amendment today, and hurry to make registrations? Honourable Members should definitely know better.

The Government has just now mentioned the purpose of textiles traders registration. As far as I understand it, the Government is saying that the registration system is made not for election purposes, so these people should not have the right to vote. I wish to ask: Is the registration of CO made for election purposes? Then why should the companies obtain CO before they have the right to vote? Does it mean that they have a right to vote when they have CO, that is, they are all big companies which export to large countries and they pay expensive membership?

Mr Henry TANG has mentioned the Cotton Spinners Association. I wish to tell Members that its membership size is small, just 10 or 20 firms and it does not include most major textiles importers in Hong Kong. I still want to put forward the same question: Do the textiles importers need to join the association before they become members? If it is so, why are the companies which have CO entitled to vote without joining any association, while the other textiles importers are not entitled to the right at all if they have not joined any association? Why can the Government not treat them equally? Why does the Government allow some companies to have the right to vote while others do not? This is the precisely essence of the amendments I have proposed today.

I so submit. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by Miss CHOY So-yuk be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If there are no other queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr David CHU, Dr Raymond HO, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendments.

Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr Bruce LIU, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendments.

Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai and Mrs Peggy LAM abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 30 members in favour of the amendments, 22 against and three abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendments were carried.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to subclause (5) of clause 23, item 26 and item 26(1) in column 1 of schedule 1 and the addition of items 26(1A) and (2A) to schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

The amendments include technical amendments and to add members of the Textile Council of Hong Kong Limited entitled to vote at general meetings of the Council to the textiles and garments functional constituency. In addition, members of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Textiles Limited will be deleted from the electors list, while the Hong Kong General Chamber of Textiles Limited will be given the right to vote. We have already explained these amendments to the Bills Committee and I urge Members to support them.

Proposed amendments

Clause 23 (see Annex III)

Schedule 1 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to subclause (6) of clause 23, and items 28(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10) of schedule 1 and the addition of items 28(6A), (6B) and (6C) to schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

The amendments include technical amendments and to add the professional members of three information technology professional organizations to the information technology functional constituency, including the Hong Kong Association for Computer Education Limited, the Hong Kong Society of Medical Informatics Limited and the Hong Kong Telemedicine Association. We have already explained these amendments to the Bills Committee. I urge Members to support our proposals.

Proposed amendments

Clause 23 (see Annex III)

Schedule 1 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose LAU.

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the addition of item 28(1A) to schedule 1 of the Bill as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

This amendment seeks to include the Fellows, Members and Graduate Members of the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers entitled to vote at general meetings of the Division as electors of the Information Technology functional constituency, and to allow the information technology professionals of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers to choose to vote in a functional constituency which represents them. The Bills Committee supports this amendment.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in respect of the information technology constituency newly added in the first Legislative Council election, as I find that the Bill has not included in the said constituency the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, I think it is necessary to make an amendment. As a member of the Bills Committee, I have explained time and again at our meetings why the Bill should be amended. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers is the only body comprising professional engineers in Hong Kong under the Engineers Registation Ordinance, with the specific responsibility of accrediting the degree courses offered by the information technology faculties of various universities in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, in collaboration with the Vocational Training Council, also regulates and monitors the schemes for training the graduates of the information technology faculties. Most importantly, the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers is the only professional body organizing professional examinations for accrediting the qualifications of professional engineers in information technology, granting qualifications which are mutually recognized by equivalent foreign professional bodies, as well as keeping close academic exchanges and contacts with such foreign professional bodies.

I sincerely welcome the addition of nine new functional constituencies, including the information technology constituency, by the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government as this affirms the contribution already made and to be made by the information technology sector to our economic development. For the information technology constituency, an extensive list of electors is proposed by the SAR Government, and it includes individual members and professional bodies. These professional bodies include foreign professional bodies, some members of such bodies have attained internationally mutually recognized professional standards while some have not. While I find this acceptable, it seems to me that something important is missing in the list of more than 10 professional bodies, that is, it has not included the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers in the list of electors. Now that the Government can ascertain the professional qualifications of people in the information technology sector in accordance with the Engineers Registration Ordinance, it should recognize and give members from the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers the right to vote in the first Legislative Council election, lest there will be a fly in the ointment and it is not fair as far as this Bill is concerned.

Although members of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers can now register as electors for the engineering constituency, among these members, some may choose to be electors for the education constituency as they are university professors or lecturers or employees of the Vocational Training Council; while some engineers concurrently taking up legal studies may become electors for the legal constituency. Since every one can choose to vote in a functional constituency, there will not be any repetition. Theoretically, they are absolutely free to choose to vote in the engineering, education or legal constituency. In comparison, members from the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers actually possess professional qualifications in information technology and they are professionals working in the information technology industry. Therefore, the newly added information technology constituency should give them the right to vote in this constituency, and give them one more choice. In fact, they are the most qualified voters to elect the representatives of the information technology sector in the Legislative Council.

Moreover, some people may be worried that after the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers have been included in the information technology constituency, its members may have overlapped those from other societies or divisions in the future. I find this worry unnecessary. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers is divided into 16 academic divisions and three groups, including building and construction industry, industry and information technology. The Information Technology Division is one of the four divisions under the third group, information technology. I proposed in the amendment that the Fellows, Members and Graduate Members of the Institution who are entitled to vote merely refer to the three types of members, including the senior members, members and junior members possessing academic and professional qualifications. Therefore, the question of overlapping does not exist at all.

The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers has a history of 50 years and it is now celebrating the 50th Anniversary of its establishment. The Institution has long been dedicated towards training professionals among whom the professional engineers from the Information Technology Division have made obvious contribution to the industrial and commercial sectors and information technology sector in Hong Kong, and its importance to our economic development is beyond doubt. Therefore, I think that the newly added information technology constituency should include members from the Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers as electors so that they can freely choose to vote in the new information technology constituency and select ideal representatives of the information technology constituency in the Legislative Council.

Madam Chairman, I so submit and urge Honourable colleagues to support the amendment I originally proposed, on which a consensus was reached in the Bills Committee and is officially submitted to this Council by the Bills Committee now.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY So-yuk.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I support Dr Honourable Raymond HO's amendment. In addition to the reasons he has just given, I would like to express my views.

The societies in the information technology sector qualified as voters are all allowed to take part on the basis of the professional standards of foreign counterparts. Only members from the Information Technology Division of the Institution of Engineers are accepted as members on the basis of their local professional standards. I would still like to raise the same question: Why can we not give them the same treatment? Why can members of a society based on local professional standards but internationally recognized who are accepted as members of the information technology sector not quantity as electors while the members or even associate members of foreign societies are?

Would Members please ponder how we can deal with the matter fairly, impartially and openly? This case is slightly different from that of the social welfare sector mentioned earlier the day. People from other socieities, trades and professional fields also agree that those people from this sector should be included as electors in the information technology constituency. There are no arguments among the professional sectors in this regard. Please support this amendment moved by Dr Raymond HO.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Prof NG Ching-fai.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I speak in support of Dr Raymond HO. His amendment is very simple and very clear and the people he proposed are fully qualified.

Moreover, I would like to point out that Dr HO's amendment is extremely selfless. If Dr HO takes part in the election, he will get votes from a small electorate. Therefore, from whatever perspective, this amendment merits our support.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose LAU, do you wish to reply?

(Mr Ambrose LAU indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Ambrose LAU be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose LAU.

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the addition of items 17(4) and (5) to schedule 1, the amendment to section 1(5) in part 1 of schedule 2, the addition of item 1A to table 5, the amendment to subsections (1) and (10) under section 8 in part 3 of schedule 2 and the addition of subsections (3A), (3B), (8A) and (8C) to section 8 of part 3 of schedule 2 as set out in the papers circularized to Members.

The Bills Committee supports the inclusion of members of the Hong Kong Hotels Association and the Federation of Hong Kong Hotel Owners as electors in the tourism functional constituency. They are members of the hotel subsector under the Election Commission. The proposed amendment will not cause material changes to the electorate base of the tourism functional constituency because all hotels in Hong Kong are presently eligible to be electors in the tourism functional constituency in their capacity as members of the Hong Kong Tourist Association from the tourism sector. The proposed amendment also includes various consequential amendments to make the electorates of the relevant subsectors under the Election Commision consistent with the electorate of the tourism functional constituency.

With these remarks, I urge Honourable Members to support the amendments.

Proposed amendments

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

Schedule 2 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Howard YOUNG.

MR HOWARD YOUNG: Madam Chairman, it has been clearly accepted and recognized that, since the Tourism Functional Constituency was first established in 1991, there are three clear sectors within the industry. One is travel agents. One is airlines, and a third is hotels.

According to the election laws, as they stood previously, there were three different organizations the members of which were allowed to vote in this functional constituency. One was members of the Travel Industry Council, which in effect is all licensed travel agents in Hong Kong. The second was members of the Board of Airline Representatives, which is the one and only organization including all airlines having business in Hong Kong. And the third was "travel industry members of the Hong Kong Tourist Association".

In the past, many people have asked "where are the hotels?". The hotels contribute towards tourism because they, in fact, earned in excess of 30% of all tourist expenditure in Hong Kong. Well, the answer was that all hotels happened to be members of the Hong Kong Tourist Association, but they were never recognized in their own right.

Even more confusion was caused when, in 1995, the new functional constituencies included a so-called Hotel and Catering Functional Constituency, which even the Federation of Hotel Owners and the Hong Kong Hotels Association had great difficulty in recognizing and swallowing because this was according to the previous 1995 laws which were passed in 1994.

Now, this time round, the hotel industry has been given due recognition. They have been formally recognized as a sub-sector in the Election Committee. This recognition is in the form of listing out the two associations, namely, the Hong Kong Hotels Association and Federation of Hong Kong Hotel Owners. They are the only associations in Hong Kong that truly represent hotels and they have been given formal recognition in that particular part of this law. So, this exercise is merely trying to be consistent in the same way that, for instance, Higher Education is a sub-sector and yet they are included in the exact wording in the Education Functional Constituency. So, this exercise formally recognizes the hotel industry in the names of the only two associations that represent this sector as voters in their own right in the Tourism Functional Constituency.

Of course, Madam Chairman, I would like to mention here that ever since 1991, the hotel industry has always tried to become an independent functional constituency on their own and they has not been successful. Although I myself am from the tourism industry, the hotel industry is the only part with which I have no direct connection. I do have a professional connection with the airline industry and I am also a director of a travel agency, but despite this, I have full sympathy for them and I think it is a pity that they were unable to, like today, like Higher Education, like the catering industry, like Chinese medicine and like others, achieve their prime objective of becoming a functional constituency in their own right. But I believe by recognizing them formally in Tourism at least does go some way in recognizing the great contribution this sector has made to our economy.

This amendment, luckily, is not needed to be put forward by myself because it is non-controversial and has the support of the Bills Committee and therefore, of course, has my full support.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose LAU, do you wish to reply?

(Mr Ambrose LAU indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by Mr Ambrose LAU be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move to amend item 6 in schedule 1 and item 17(3) in part 3 of schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

These are technical amendments. At the same time, there are four organizations in the transport functional constituency which belong to the employee trade union registered under the Trade Unions Ordinance. They indicated that they hope that they can continue to vote in the labour functional constituency. Therefore, we propose an amendment to delete them from the list of electors of the transport functional constituency.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to reply?

(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to reply)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to item 24(8)(e) and the addition of item 24(8) in part 3 of schedule 1 and the deletion of item 27(50) in part 3 of schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Madam Chairman, my speech will cover the next amendment, but as the two amendments are directly related, I will not speak on the next amendment later.

Among the 60 seats of the first Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), 30 are designated for functional constituencies. One of the aims of assigning seats for functional constituencies is to include the representatives of the various economic, social, professional or other sectors in the Hong Kong community in the legislature, so as to allow the Legislative Council to collect the views of all strata and give play to its power from a wider perspective. Whether a functional constituency can reflect the views and interests of that particular sector is to a very large extent directly related to the delineation of its electorate. I have proposed this amendment mainly because I think that the Government has made a wrong arrangement to place the two bodies in the retail sector, contrary to the wishes of the bodies themselves.

Among the nine newly added functional constituencies of the first Legislative Council, the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency is a newly added functional constituency of a rather complex composition. It covers four different areas, therefore, the electorate delineation of this functional constituency is more complicated than that of other functional constituencies. It is perfectly normal for the representatives of the sector to have different views on the form of election, but I must stress the point that the electorate delineation should match the actual situation within the sector and each voter should have close relations with it. An equally important point is that when we delineate the electorate, we must respect the wishes of the electors themselves to arrive at a reasonable arrangement.

On basis of the reason that the electorate delineation must reflect the actual situation of the sector, I have proposed this amendment, upon the strong request of the Hong Kong Theatres Association and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association, to include the members of these two bodies in the voter register for the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency.

Recently, I read some newspapers articles accusing some Provisional Legislative Council Members of pursuing their selfish private interests in proposing various kinds of amendments to the Legislative Council Bill. Unfortunately, my amendment has been listed as one of these amendments for selfish private interests. I do not wish to respond to these comments here but I only feel that, as a Member familiar with the operation of the industry, I am obliged to respond to the voices and views expressed by those in the sector and propose amendments to a legislative exercise perceived to have erred.

The Hong Kong Theatres Association and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association are closely related to the film and performing arts industry and they have common and closely linked interests and prospects. They should be eligible to be electors in the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency. In fact, to include the Hong Kong Theatres Association and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association in the elector list for the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency is the strong wish of these two bodies and even the entire performing arts sector.

I can still recall that five years ago in 1992, the performing arts sector began to lobby the then Hong Kong British Government for a seat for the performing arts functional constituency. At that time, the Hong Kong Theatres Association and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association, together with 12 major bodies in the performing arts sector, jointly formed a body named "Preparatory Team Fighting for a Seat for the Performing Arts and Entertainment Sector Functional Constituency". Thus as far back as five years ago, the Hong Kong Theatres Association and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association had already confirmed that they were members of the performing arts sector while the performing arts sector also recognized the two bodies as important components of the sector. Nobody has ever considered separating them and nobody could have imagined that today, five years later, when the performing arts sector gets one fourth of a functional constituency seat, the Hong Kong Theatres Association and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association should be separated from the performing arts sector.

These two bodies and the performing arts sector basically have the same aims as far as fighting for their common interests and the actual operation and development of the sector is concerned. They hope that the Member who will represent this functional constituency in the future can better realize their problems, understand the difficulties they face and reflect their views.

Members of the Hong Kong Theatres Association are the various theatres in Hong Kong, mainly running the business of film showing. Therefore, how the film industry will develop and all the problems it face are actually the problems they face. The operation of theatres is regulated by the places of public entertainment section of the relevant ordinance on municipal services, and they have to meet the prescribed requirements before they are granted licences. Theatre operators are also the frontline enforcement agents of the classification system under the Film Censorship Ordinance for the protection of youths. Their daily work and business are also related to the work of the Broadcasting, Culture and Sport Bureau of the Government.

Moreover, many theatres in Hong Kong have also operated stage performance activities and they are also places of public entertainment with a very long history. Since the '30s, the traditional opera arts in Hong Kong such as Cantonese opera, Shanghai Shaoxing opera, Chaozhou opera as well as other traditional opera types have used theatres as their major performance venues. These many theatres have made it possible for these traditional operas to reach their audiences or the public direct.

We should not forget that, as far as I can recall, for more than 25 years over the last 30, the activities celebrating the annual National Day of the People's Republic of China were held in these theatres and those activities involved theatrical performances, cultural and artistic activities.

If we say that theatre operators belong to the retail sector, then should the City Hall, the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts, Hong Kong Art Centre, various town halls and civic centres, Hong Kong Stadium and Hong Kong Coliseum which also provide the public with cultural entertainment be defined as retail sector undertakings?

An annual great event for the performance arts sector in Hong Kong is the presentation of the gold statue movie awards which are the most authoritative and important awards. As a board member of the Hong Kong Movie Gold Statue Award Association Limited, the Hong Kong Theatres Association is one of the organizing bodies of the presentation of the gold statue movie awards.

According to the Government's Legislative Council Bill, the Hong Kong Theatres Association itself is eligible to be registered on the elector list of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency. But why are the members of the Hong Kong Theatres Association included in the elector list for the wholesale and retail sector functional constituency? This arrangement gives people a feeling that "the brain is separated from the body".

In fact, in a letter addressed to the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat, the Hong Kong Theatres Association clearly stated that the Association was assigned in 1995 to the public, social and individual services constituency among the nine newly added functional constituencies in the absence of a more suitable constituency then, therefore, the Association could only silently accept this arrangement. However, now that there is a functional constituency to which the film business belongs, those in the business are still excluded. I wonder if Members have tried to share the feelings of these theatre operators.

In addition, the Hong Kong Video Industry Association was established at the end of 1987 with a history of ten years so far. Its business is closely related to the film and entertainment sectors. At present, the Hong Kong Video Industry Association has 33 active members, among which more than half are those in the video industry engaged in publication and production. Their businesses account for more than 90% of the publication business of the local video industry.

Besides engaging in the publication work of the video industry, the Video Industry Association also actively takes part in film and television production. Of the 46 Hong Kong-produced films shown in Hong Kong in the first seven months of the year, eight, that is, 20% of the total Hong Kong-produced films have been produced by investment of the members of the Video Industry Association.

I believe many Honourable colleagues or friends have taken part in "karaoke" parties and they may be ardent "karaoke" lovers. Introduced into Hong Kong since 1986, "karaoke" has developed for 10 years, and is now one of the most popular entertainment types in the community. However, I wonder if Members know that when there was no "karaoke" in Hong Kong 10 years ago, this new mode of entertainment was precisely introduced to Hong Kong by some very active members of the Video Industry Association.

Some well-known brands, such as Fitto, Ocean Shores and Star then created, produced, shot and sold 100% "karaoke" video discs, and took up 100% of the market then. This phenomenon persisted for several years and they opened up the entire "karaoke" market. The production of Chinese "karaoke" songs even gradually radiated all over China, and even to all Chinese communities in the world. Before we knew it, they had made contribution to the entertainment and cultural sector, increased the output of cultural products in Hong Kong, enhanced our international influence and generated economic benefits.

I would like to point out here that members of the Hong Kong Video Industry Association are not mainly engaged in the retail business. They are actually engaged in the production of various kinds of films, television and entertainment programmes, and in providing our public with various kinds of performing arts and entertainment services. Therefore, members of the Association are absolutely eligible as electors in the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency.

Under the pretext that these two are retail industry bodies, the Government has always refused the registration by these two bodies as performing arts bodies. However, the Government has at the same time taken the initiative to include members of a body named "Educational Readers Retail Industry Association" in the publication sector of the same constituency as electors for the constituency. Judging from the name "Educational Readers Retail Industry Association" of the body and its nature, this body is absolutely a retail body. In regard to these conspicuous double standards, I wonder what justifications the Government can advance and how it is going to face the public.

In mentioning the name of this body here, I do not intend to challenge the Government's decision but it is only because many representatives of the constituency and I support the principle of "one person, one vote" in the course of fighting for a performing arts constituency seat. The premise for supporting this principle is that we hope to further enhance our influence and participation, therefore, we accept this arrangement.

Some people are wary that the inclusion of members of the Hong Kong Theatres Association and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association as electors in the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency may have an impact on the electorate composition of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency. I would like to state here that the relevant amendment will not affect the electorate proportion of this constituency. At present, the Hong Kong Theatres Association has 91 members while the Hong Kong Video Industry Association has 33 members. According to the information from the Constitutional Affairs Bureau, the Government estimates that the sports sector will have more than 1 100 electors, the performing arts sector will have more than 470 electors, the cultural sector will have 670 electors while the publication sector will have 620 electors. If my amendment is approved, the sports sector voters will still account for 37% of the total electorate, the performing arts sector less than 20%, the cultural sector 23% while the publication sector 21%.

Honourable colleagues, I believe we all hope that the first Legislative Council election of the SAR will be fair. Fairness can be reflected in many aspects while electorate delineation is one of the important indices. The performing arts sector and I believe that if the members of the two bodies can be included in the elector list of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency, it can better reflect the actual situation within the constituency and it will have very positive effects on an election that emphasizes fairness, impartiality, openness and balanced participation. Therefore, I hope that Members can support the inclusion of the two bodies in this constituency.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr IP Kwok-him.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in any election, the most important thing is to achieve fairness and to balance the interests of various sides. The amendment proposed by the Honourable MA Fung-kwok seeks to equally divide the number of members among the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsectors. The Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) supports it.

The sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsectors are very special, integrating people from four different professions, each having distinctive features. People from the four sub-subsectors are different. To avoid an imbalance among the subsectors in electing their representatives, it is necessary to ensure that the number of members are equally divided among the four subsectors.

As to Mr MA's amendment to include the Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association Limited in the sports, performing arts, culture and publication constituency, the DAB will only support the inclusion of the Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited. The DAB thinks that it will be more acceptable for the Hong Kong Video Industry Association Limited to remain in the wholesale and retail constituency.

I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Timothy FOK.

MR TIMOTHY FOK (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Legislative Council Bill was drafted by the Government in accordance with the Basic Law and the Preparatory Committee's decision, and has gone through a series of public consultations. At this stage, there are really insufficient grounds for us to propose supplementary amendments to the content of the Bill. Moreover, the Bill is extremely complicated, with different parts linking up with one another. As the result of a chain reaction, individual amendments will ultimately lead to fundamental changes to other or all parts of the Bill. Therefore, they cannot be treated lightly.

Today, more than 10 Members have proposed amendments to the Bill covering many areas. I would like to talk about the amendments relating to the sports sector.

With regard to the Honourable MA Fung-kwok's amendment to expand the scope of electors of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency to include the Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association Limited, I think it is not a question about the number of organizations added, but the principle of the whole election. We must consider whether the relevant changes are appropriate, whether they are made to increase the representativeness of the constituency or merely for the sake of making additions and changes. In fact, judging from the nature of their business, theatres and video shops only provide supporting services to production and one can hardly see how they are directly related to the performing arts industry. If they can be considered related, in my opinion, sports goods manufacturers and retail shops should also be included in the sports sector, while newsstands and magazine publishers would naturally be eligible to join the culture and publication sector.

To divide the number of members of the Election Committee equally among the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsectors without taking into account the electorate size of each sub-sector can hardly reflect the representativeness of the sub-sectors.

For the above reasons, I oppose Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment seeks to move the Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited and the Hong Kong Video Industry Association Limited from the elector list of the wholesale and retail constituency to the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency. At first, I heard Mr MA Fung-kwok say that the Hong Kong Record Merchants Association might also be moved (the Record Merchants Association has more than 300 electors), but this was not done. As far as I know, the record merchants have chosen to remain in the wholesale and retail constituency. Although I do not represent that constituency now, I hope this might be seen as a kind of affirmation of some of the work I did in the past, since I have represented them before.

The Liberal Party and I have analyzed these amendments in detail. Of course, we respect the fact that some people have made a choice between the wholesale and retail constituency and the culture and performing arts constituency. But how was this choice made? We have no idea. However, we know very well that for those who have a stake in the election in this constituency, this choice could make a difference. Although it might not make such a big difference ─ since we have already analyzed the number of votes they would get and we found that they could only get a hundred votes or so, which is neither a lot nor very little ─ it could still make a difference.

We will not object to these people moving to another constituency. Since they have chosen not to remain in the original constituency but to leave instead, we will not object to it. However, if their move to another constituency might influence the election results of a certain sector, then we want no part of it. Therefore, we in the Liberal Party will abstain from voting on this amendment.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, do you wish to reply?

(Mr MA Fung-kwok indicated that he did not wish to reply)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr MA Fung-kwok be approved. I would like to explain that the question put is about moving the Hong Kong Theatres Association Limited from the elector list of the wholesale and retail constituency to the elector list of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication constituency.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, please move your second amendment.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the addition of item 24 (8)(g) to part 3 of schedule 1 and the deletion of item 27(51) from part 3 of schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

I have already covered this amendment in my previous speech.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr MA Fung-kwok be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

Mr MA Fung-kwok claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, if the question on Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment as put is passed, its major effect will be that the Hong Kong Video Industry Association Limited will be moved from the elector list of the wholesale and retail constituency to that of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication constituency.

Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.

Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendment.

Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.

Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Dr Raymond HO, Mr Eric LI, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mr Howard YOUNG abstained.

The CHAIRMAN announced that there were 10 Members in favour of the amendment, 27 against and eight abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to items 24(1), (2), (3), (6), (7) and (8) and items 27(41), (43), (60) and (67) in part 3 of schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to items 8 and 11 in part 3 of schedule 1 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 1 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 23 and Schedule 1 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 26, 30 and 32.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendments

Clause 26 (See Annex III)

Clause 30 (See Annex III)

Clause 32 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 26, 30 and 32 as amended.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese) : Clause 29.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG has given notice to propose amendments to subclauses 1(a), (b) and (c) of clause 29 and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has also given notice to propose amendments to subclauses 1(a) and (c) of clause 29.

I propose that the amendments proposed by Mr Andrew WONG and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be debated together in a joint debate.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments proposed separately by Mr Andrew WONG and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr Andrew WONG to move his amendment. Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (1)(a), (b) and (c) of clause 29 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

The amendment to subclauses (1)(a), (b) and (c) of clause 29 are basically made to provide that mental patients as well as prisoners and escaped convicts sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term exceeding three months and who have not served their sentence in full are disqualified from voting in Hong Kong. To put it simply, the amendment proposes to expand the scope of the provision for the disqualification of voters. I consider this the right thing to do. Basically, every Hong Kong citizen has a right to vote, unless he suffers from mental disorder or is an escaped convict on a heavy sentence, in which case he should be deprived of his right to vote. As for other people, even prisoners serving their sentences should be allowed to vote at polling stations set up in the prisons, since I consider that everyone should enjoy the right to vote. As the number of prisoners is not that large and they will not have a great influence on the election, and since the right to vote is a basic human right, I have proposed this amendment to give them the right to vote. I proposed this amendment once in 1995 but I did not receive the support of the majority of Members of the Legislative Council. We are now in a new era and I hope that everyone can be generous and refrain from thinking that only those who know how to laugh should have a right to vote. (Laughter) Some people are suffering. They might be willing to turn over a new leaf. Therefore, they should be given a chance to fulfil their civic responsibility and make their choice.

With these remarks, I beg to move.

Proposed amendment

Clause 29 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I will call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to speak on Mr Andrew WONG's amendment as well as his own amendment, but will not ask the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to move his amendment unless Mr Andrew WONG's amendment has been negatived. If Mr Andrew WONG's amendment is agreed, that will by implication mean that the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' amendment is not approved. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Mr Andrew WONG's amendment will fundamentally change the provisions long applied to the participation and eligibility of voters. These changes have not been subject to full discussion in the community and in meetings of the Legislative Council. We do not think that the amendment is accepted by the majority of people. Therefore, it is not the right time to make Mr WONG's amendment to the Bill. We object to this amendment.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members may now debate the amendment moved by Mr Andrew WONG as well as the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' proposed amendment.

Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since I am the mover of the amendment, I would like to make a reply.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, just now no Member has spoken. I believe you wish to add some more points. You are fully entitled to do so. Please speak.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the debate has started. I think I should have a chance to reply to the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' speech.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Fine.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Clause 29 is basically copied from the provision of an ordinance under the former Government, only slightly tightened up. According to the ordinance under the former Government, a voter who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three months and who is at large will be disqualified as a voter. The present Bill provides that irrespective of the term of imprisonment, a convict at large will be disqualified as a voter. Such tightening up might perhaps simplify the enforcement and the two amendments do not differ much in their implication but there is great difference in terms of their notions. For voters, it is absolutely right that those who have committed more serious crimes and are at large should be deprived of their right to vote. This is one point.

According to the legislation already repealed, persons who have committed offences and at large whether in Hong Kong or any other place should be stripped of their right to vote. However, for example, someone who is a drinker like me might find some ingredients to make beer in Saudi Arabia since there is no liquor for sale. I might thus be sentenced to flogging and subsequently to seven days' imprisonment. Somehow, I might manage to escape from Saudi Arabia and back to Hong Kong, however, I would be disqualified from voting as a result. I do not understand why we have to deal with this in such vigilant manner. Therefore I have proposed this amendment, deleting "in Hong Kong or any other place" and substituting "in Hong Kong", while retaining the previous wording of "sentenced to death or imprisonment for a term exceeding three months". Those who are sentenced to death but at large may have of course committed a felony. Thus I hope that the Government will state more clearly what it is proposing. Of course, the Government will say that its proposal has already been explained during the Second Reading debate. But I think there are many details, especially the details of the Committee stage amendments, which have not been stated. The Government merely says that it is against all amendments.

I have talked about the background. Whether the amendment will be passed will depend on whether the Chairman and Members think that the qualification criteria for voters should be relaxed. If Members think that they should be more stringent, they can oppose my amendment. But if they think that it does not matter even it is relaxed a little bit since our principle should be to make as many people as possible eligible to vote, I urge them to support my amendment. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to subclause (1)(a), (b) and (c) to clause 29 moved by Mr Andrew WONG be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The question now put is on Mr Andrew WONG's amendment. Will Members please proceed to vote.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): The question put to the vote is about the disqualification of voters and not about electors.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The amendment seeks to amend the provision on the term of imprisonment in relation to disqualification from being registered as voters and other related provisions.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.

Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 14 Members in favour of the amendment and 37 against. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): As the amendment to subclauses (1)(a), (b) and (c) of clause 29 proposed by Mr Andrew WONG has been negatived, I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to move his amendment to the clause.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (1)(a) and (c) of clause 29 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. Subclause (1)(a) is a technical amendment. The amendment to subclause (1)(c) seeks to state that only those persons who have committed offences stipulated in Part II of the Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices Ordinance will be disqualified, but not the technical offences.

Proposed amendment

Clause 29 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 29 moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclause (1)(e) of clause 29 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 29 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to reply?

(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to reply)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clause 29 as amended.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clause 33.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese):Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subclause (1) of clause 33 and the addition of subclause (2) to clause 33 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 33 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese) : Clause 33 as amended.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any proposed new clause shall be considered after the clauses of a bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended in order that the new clause 35A I proposed may be considered ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): As only the President may give consent for a motion to be moved, without notice, to suspend the Rules of Procedure, your request cannot be dealt with in Committee. I therefore order that Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, you have my consent.

MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider my proposed new clause 35A ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider Mr Bruce LIU's proposed new clause 35A ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

Council went into Committee.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee.

CLERK(in Cantonese): New clause 35A Allocation of relevant nationality quota

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clause 35A as set out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.

Madam Chairman, I have proposed this new clause in order to deal with Article 67 of the Basic Law about allowing persons not of Chinese nationality to be elected Members of the Legislative Council. I would like to add three points for Members' reference.

First, basically, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL) does not agree to this provision in the Basic Law, since we feel that all Members of the Legislative Council should be persons of Chinese nationality who are permanent residents of Hong Kong. However, since the Basic Law has made this provision, we can only propose a reasonable arrangement under these circumstances.

Second, Article 67 of the Basic Law states that permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries may also be elected Members of the Legislative Council of the SAR, their number being limited to 12. The legislative intent then was not to impose restrictions on how the Members are to be returned. This means that they could be returned by functional constituencies, direct elections or the Election Committee and there are no restrictions. Therefore, the ideal way is to make arrangements that can apply to all three election methods, in order to make it possible for persons not of Chinese nationality to be elected. Of course, if the methods are proposed by Members, they may easily suffer from inherent defects, since there are not so many experts among Members as there are in the Government. Nevertheless, I would still like to try my best.

The proposal I put forward is called the "6:5:1" proposal and the relevant details have been circularized to Members. Perhaps I should say something about it briefly. With regard to functional constituencies, I have specified six functional constituencies as opposed to 12 by the Government. I have discussed this with many Members and we think that among the 12 functional constituencies specified by the Government, six of them will have many electors who are not of Chinese nationality. Therefore, I have chosen six. If Members have different opinions, they can propose six others.

With regard to direct elections, since the single-seat single-vote system has been abolished, I can only make a proposal based on the proportional representation system under the Bill. The method is very simple, that is, assigning a quota of one to each geographical constituency. Since the list system of proportional representation is adopted, at the time of registration, one nominee not of Chinese nationality at most is permitted on a list. When the votes are counted at the election, such lists will be ranked according to the number of votes obtained. The list with the largest number of votes will be given the quota. If the list which has obtained the largest number of votes does not contain any canadidate not of Chinese nationality, the list which has obtained the next largest number of votes will be given the quota. If this quota has been taken up by the list with the largest number of votes, other candidates not of Chinese nationality shall be deemed as defeated. The seat will then be taken up by the second candidates on the same list. I consider this method to be in keeping with the principle of fairness.

Lastly, I propose to give a quota to the Election Committee so that the candidate who has obtained the largest number of votes should be elected. Just now Mr Ronald ARCULLI pointed out in his speech during the Second Reading debate that this method may not work. I think the candidates should judge their own chances of winning at the time of running for election. If they judge that they do not have the best chance of winning, they have to give way to the candidate who has obtained the largest number of votes. This is what fairness in an election is about. No one knows the result beforehand.

The proposal that I put forward may suffer from inherent defects. However, I feel that it conforms to the legislative intent of the Basic Law, and it is not specially tailored for anyone or the HKADPL, since the HKADPL will only nominate members of Chinese nationality as candidates. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clause 35A be read the Second time.

Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Ronald ARCULLI.

MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. During the Second Reading debate, I have already said that the proposals made by Mr Bruce LIU, Mr CHAN Choi-hi or Dr LEONG Che-hung are feasible to a certain extent. However, what we have to consider today is not just how we can give people a chance, but how we can work out an electoral system. What Mr Bruce LIU said was right. Candidates should know whether they are of foreign nationality or have the right of abode in foreign countries before they run for election. But I find it extremely "weird". If 10 candidates have obtained the largest number of votes in the Election Committee election, and the first one is to be returned, while the second to the tenth are not to be returned, although they have obtained the largest number of votes, how can one explain that? It can be explained according to the relevant provisions and law. But elections do not operate that way. It would only be feasible under a single-seat system. I do not like Dr LEONG Che-hung's proposal of "drawing lots". Election is a serious matter. Do we have to "draw lots" every time?

Madam Chairman, I do not mean to attack Mr Bruce LIU. I understand that he has figured out a method. I just want to explain why I think we should not support Mr LIU, it is because I find his proposal rather strange. With regard to functional constituencies, I think we tend to accept candidates of foreign nationality or having the right of abode in foreign countries. On the whole, we should not support Mr Bruce LIU's amendment. Although his proposal is feasible on the surface, it might lead to results which we can hardly explain.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Mr Bruce LIU has expressed the views of the HKADPL. I agree that persons of foreign nationality or having the right of abode in foreign countries should not be allowed to participate in the election of the legislature. At the time of the drafting of the Basic Law, the HKADPL actively lobbied and tried to convince the Chinese Government not to accept this proposal. However, the facts tell us that we have failed. Since it has already become part of the constitution, we have to look at it from a constitutional point of view. What Mr Bruce LIU said was quite right. According to law, persons with the right of abode in foreign countries are eligible to be elected. If we stipulate that they can only participate in a certain kind of election, it would be tantamount to narrowing down the Basic Law. If we can think of some ways that are in keeping with Article 67 of the Basic Law without narrowing down the Basic Law, it would be most appropriate and desirable. As to whether the election results look good, that is a matter of personal impression. The most important thing is to achieve the ends required by the constitution. In my opinion, the legislation that the Government has drawn up does not comply with Article 67 in the most satisfactory way.

To conclude, I would like to make two points. First, the spirit of legislation is above all to make the law reflect the constitution. All other considerations are secondary. Second, I hope to put it on record that the HKADPL wishes that one day it will see the Legislative Council composed entirely of persons of Chinese nationality. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.

MR TSANG YOK-SING(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, it is indeed very difficult to implement the provisions of Article 67 of the Basic Law. Actually, we only have two choices but each of them has its shortcomings. If we stipulate that persons of foreign nationality or having the right of abode in foreign countries can only have 12 seats, there would bound to be criticisms such as those levelled by Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Bruce LIU, saying that we are adding conditions to Article 67 of the Basic Law. However, if no restrictions are imposed, we would face another problem, that persons of foreign nationality or having the right of abode in foreign countries might participate in any election. If the number of such persons who get elected exceeds the limit stipulated by the Basic Law, how could some of these people be "screened out"? Thus we are facing a dilemma. Whether we impose restrictions or not, there is a problem.

The proposal put forward by Mr Bruce LIU seems to have combined the shortcomings of both choices. Mr LIU proposes that of the 30 seats for functional constituencies, only six can be allocated to those of foreign nationality or having the right of abode in foreign countries. Why must there be such a restriction? This is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. Besides, it cannot preclude the situation where persons of foreign nationality might have to be "screened out" if they get elected. This is the most unreasonable part, because whether a person of foreign nationality gets elected does not depend on how much voters support him, but whether there are other candidates of foreign nationality. In other words, the election results of other people have a bearing on him. Just now Mr Ronald ARCULLI said that a candidate might rank second or third among 10 candidates, but because a person of foreign nationality has taken up a seat, he has to make way. This is the unreasonable part. Though I appreciate the fact that Mr Bruce LIU has tried every means to solve this problem, his proposal does not seem feasible. Instead, it has combined the shortcomings of the two methods. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mrs Elsie TU.

MRS ELSIE TU: Madam Chairman, when the issue of allowing foreign nationals to sit on the Legislative Council was first mooted in the Basic Law Consultative Committee over 10 years ago, I opposed it but had no support.

No country, as far as I know, allows foreign nationals to sit on the legislature unless they have been naturalized. I think I am correct when I say that under the colonial rule here the Hong Kong Government did not appoint foreign nationals to the Legislative Council until only a few years before the signing of the Joint Declaration. I suspect there was some ulterior motive there.

I believe that many of my colleagues on the Council agree that the Basic Law has been more than generous in allowing up to 20% of the seats to be occupied by foreign nationals. I hope this anomaly will be rectified in future. Moreover, the Basic Law does not insist that there must be 12 seats. A zero number would also be allowed.

I have not moved a motion to that effect because I think some Hong Kong people, both Chinese and foreign, need to adjust to the present situation. As a foreign person myself of foreign nationality, I shall abstain on any motion or amendment that deals with this particular issue as an indication of my opposition to persons of foreign nationality becoming Legislative Council Members under Chinese sovereignty.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Hong Kong is an international city where many people not of Chinese nationality have all along made great contribution to our society. Article 67 of the Basic Law stipulates that permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries should not take up 12 out of the total seats of the Legislative Council. The provision was made on the basis of the special circumstances in Hong Kong.

We believe that the 12 functional constituencies as specified in the Bill allow there to be more expatriates. We think that Mr Bruce LIU's proposal may generate negative results because according to Mr LIU's proposal, if the number of non-Chinese candidates exceeds the limit, they have to face a process of elimination. It is unfair for candidates who have been eliminated because they have made efforts and received support from the electors, but they cannot get any seat in the end. Therefore, we object to this amendment.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, please reply.

MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would just like to add one more point. Just now Mr Ronald ARCULLI said that it is weired that there is a process of elimination in the Election Committee ". However, there is a similar arrangement in the Preparatory Committee's proposal. If Mr ARCULLI says my proposal is "weird", so is the Preparatory Committee's proposal. This is a rather harsh criticism. The greatest problem that we face is not the screening process. Rather, it is how we should explain to the public why persons of foreign nationality are allowed to become Members of the Legislative Council. We have to come up with a proposal that conforms to the spirit of legislation. While there might be imperfections in the process, at least we have tried our best. This is what I would like to add. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I claim a division.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That new clause 35A moved by Mr Bruce LIU be read the Second time. Will Members please proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.

Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the motion.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr Mrs TSO WONG Man-yin, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the motion.

Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU and Mr CHAN Choi-hi abstained.

THE CHAIRMANannounced that there were five Members in favour of the motion, 40 against and three abstaining. She therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, as new clause 35A has been negatived, you may not move your amendments to subclauses (1)(e) and (2)(f) of clause 35, the deletion of subclause (3) from clause 35, the addition of subclauses (3)(ba) and (6A) to clause 36 and the amendments to subclauses (5) and (13) of clause 47 as they are inconsistent with the decision already made.

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 35, 36, 47, 48, 49 and 50.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi has given notice to move amendments to subclauses (1)(e) and (2)(f) of clause 35, the deletion of subclause (3) from clause 35, the addition of subclauses (12A) and (12B) to clause 47, the amendment to subclause (7) of clause 48, the amendment to subclause (7) of clause 49, the addition of subclauses (A) and (B) to clause 49 and the addition of subclauses (1B) and (1C) to clause 50 and Dr LEONG Che-hung has given notice to move the amendment to subclauses (2)(f) and (3) of clause 35. Prof NG Ching-fai has given notice to move amendment to subclauses (2)(f) and (3) of clause 35 but he has just given notice to withdraw these amendments.

I propose that the amendments proposed separately by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Dr LEONG Che-hung be debated together in a joint debate since they are related.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments proposed separately by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Dr LEONG Che-hung in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr CHAN Choi-hi to move his amendments. Mr CHAN.

MR CHAN CHOI-HI(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to subclauses (1)(e) and (2)(f) of clause 35, the deletion of subclause (3) from clause 35, the addition of subclauses (12A) and (12B) to clause 47, the amendment to subclause (7) of clause 48, the amendment to subclause (7) of clause 49, the addition of subclauses (A) and (B) to clause 49 and the addition of subclauses (1B) and (1C) to clause 50 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Madam Chairman, I have to make known my stance here. Many years ago, we already felt that there should not be any foreign nationals sitting on the legislature. I very much agree to what Mrs Elsie TU said earlier. I must emphasize that other countries also do not allow foreign nationals in their parbliamentary assembly.

The amendments I propose today can be considered as a solution when no solutions can be found. I do not understand why Mr Michael SUEN, the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, repeatedly said that it is fair to put 12 foreign nationals in the functional constituencies. While he has stressed time and again that the election must be fair and acceptable, I find that somehow illogical. I have proposed the amendments in the hope of achieving fairness in allocation. The method for allocating the 12 foreign nationals is also explained in Article 8 of the paper adopted at the Nineth Plenary Meeting of the Preparatory Commitee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) on 23 May 1997. My amendments are based on this principle and the wordings are also similar. If we shut some people out, we will be contravening the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO). I do not dismiss the possibility that some foreign nationals who wish to participate in direct elections might initiate a law suit. I think we should consult the BORO to see if we have contravened it. I hope Mr Michael SUEN will clarify this point later. The precise proportion has been set out in detail in the amendments who I do not want to repeat them here. With regard to Dr LEONG Che-hung's proposal, since I am an atheist who do not believe in God, I do not want to draw lots. I think my method is better than his. I hope that Members will support me and look at the details carefully.

Proposed amendments

Clause 35 (see Annex III)

Clause 47 (see Annex III)

Clause 48 (see Annex III)

Clause 49 (see Annex III)

Clause 50 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now call upon Dr LEONG Che-hung to speak on Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendments as well as the amendment he intends to propose, but not to move his amendment at this stage. Dr LEONG Che-hung.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Like many Honourable colleagues, I also have two principles with regard to election. First, similar to Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Bruce LIU and Mrs Elsie TU, I have considerable reservations about allowing persons of foreign nationality or having the right of abode in foreign countries to sit on the parliamentary assembly of either a country or a region. Second, I feel that any electoral law or electoral rules must not only be seen to be fair, but also be actually fair. But since the Basic Law allows us to have 12 seats (that is, 20% of the seats) taken up by foreign nationals, we have no alternative but to accept the reality. Our problem now is how to elect those 12 persons.

The Government has repeatedly stated that there are technical difficulties if we elect them in geographical direct elections or in the Election Committee election. Just now the views of Mr Ronald ARCULLI and Mr TSANG Yok-sing are quite convincing. They think that there would be problems if they are elected in geographical direct elections or in the Election Committee election. Therefore, we can only work on the functional constituencies. Which functional constituencies should we choose? The Government says, "let me choose and tell you which functional constituencies they are". Of course it would give us reasons. The Government's reason is that the 12 functional constituencies might comparatively speaking include more electors of foreign nationality or having the right of abode in foreign countries. However, the Government has as yet failed to come up with substantial arguments or convincing and scientific arguments. Is it really true that the 12 functional constituencies it has chosen include more foreign nationals? Let us not forget that the so-called professionals in many constituencies might not choose to vote in their own constituency, but in another constituency instead. In other words, does the Government really have a reason or is it merely doing so for the sake of administrative convenience? I really doubt it. Therefore, the Government's proposal for it to choose the 12 functional constituencies is absolutely unfair and some are more equal than the others. What are we supposed to do then? I certainly cannot support the Government's proposal. The proposals put forward by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mr Bruce LIU are in fact quite similar. The methods of allocation they suggested are acceptable in principle. However, both methods have the same disadvantage, that is, the functional constituencies are still officially picked. Although it is pointed out that it should not be up to the Government, but the Provisional Legislative Council to make a choice, this is actually another way of official picking which I cannot accept.

I think the best way is to introduce an alternative method, such as "drawing lots", which is fairer. Some people might ask if "drawing lots" would give people a "frivolous" impression. However, as a way of striking a balance between being "frivolous" and "fair", I find my amendment might be the least harmful. That is to say, it is the "lesser of two evils". I will support any fair method which is not "frivolous". However, no Member has yet come up with a proposal which is fair but not "frivolous". Thus I hope that Honourable colleagues can support my proposal.

Mr Ronald ARCULLI has said many times just now that the proposals put forward by Mr Bruce LIU and Mr CHAN Choi-hi would have technical difficulties and are therefore unacceptable. However, he did not say that my proposal is not acceptable. He merely thought that it is somewhat problematic. Since he did not object to the proposal, does it mean that he agrees to it? As the saying goes, "silence means consent". I hope that he and Honourable colleagues of the Liberal Party can support me.

Earlier the day Mr CHIM Pui-chung said that I had urged Members in a selfless manner during the Second Reading debate not to have their personal interest at heart. However, he also said that I had consulted my previous constituency on the question by way of "one-man one-vote". Does it mean that I was doing something for my previous constituency? It is wrong to think this way. I merely consulted them on the issue in relation to the Bill before us and some Honourable colleagues' amendments. I did not ask whether they hope that the medical functional constituency would be specially picked. I know that the Hong Kong Medical Association did write to the Bills Committee expressing the hope that the medical functional constituency be included among the 12 chosen functional constituencies. This does not mean that I agree to this. I have never said that the medical functional constituency should be included in these 12 constituencies, and I have never said that one of the 12 functional constituencies already picked should be kicked out to make way for the medical functional constituency. I did say said that I hope these 12 functional constituencies can be chosen according to a fair principle and fulfil their roles as picked or chosen functional constituencies.

Madam Chairman, as far as our work in this Legislative Council is concerned, we have to take an important first step for fairness. Hong Kong people will certainly appreciate this. Finally, Madam Chairman, during the Second Reading debate, I criticized the Secretary, Mr Michael SUEN, for employing "secret weapons". However, I owe him a piece of praise as well. In the former Legislative Council, whenever the Government knew it was going to lose, it would withdraw a bill. Yet the Secretary has said that he would not withdraw the Bill this time.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members may now debate the amendments moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi as well as the amendment to be proposed by Dr LEONG Che-hung. Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Ronald ARCULLI.

MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr CHAN Choi-hi thinks that his amendment deserves support for its similarity to the Preparatory Committee's decision. However, I would like to ask one question: If there are seven candidates from different functional constituencies who are foreign nationals and they are all elected uncontested, do they have to draw lots too? If the turn-out rate is 100%, the seven candidates should all be returned. I do not know how this problem should be resolved.

Dr LEONG Che-hung has suggested drawing lots. When the Provisional Legislative Council was first established, we drew lots and counted the number of strokes of names to make the seating arrangements for Members. I wonder why Dr LEONG does not propose counting the number of strokes of the names of candidates in the functional constituency elections. In my opinion, the fairest and most democratic way is to let this Council put this to the vote and choose the top 12 that get the largest number of votes. This is better than "drawing lots". Therefore, I do not support Dr LEONG Che-hung.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, before I speak, I would like to ask one question. Just now the Clerk read out clauses 35, 36, 47, 48, 49 and 50. May I speak on clauses 36 and 47? Madam Chairman, before you called upon Mr CHAN Choi-hi to move his amendments, the Clerk did read out five clauses.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Yes, you may.

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. Madam Chairman, I will focus on proportional representation in geographical constituencies under clauses 36 and 47.

During the Second Reading debate, I have already outlined my views with regard to matters of principles. Now I would like to talk about my opinions in relation to the realistic technicalities.

First, in this geographical direct election, the Government has introduced proportional representation in the geographical constituencies to replace the single-seat single-vote system to return 20 members. The greatest difference brought about by this change is not in terms of the degree of democracy, but political consequences. Due to the following reasons, I consider it inappropriate to adopt proportional representation in the geographical constituencies now. First, proportional representation in the geographical constituencies will lead to a proliferation of political parties in the future legislature, the greatest disadvantage of which being making it more difficult to monitor the executive very strictly. I have to specifically point out that if the Chief Executive is elected by universal suffrage, the system of universal suffrage, itself would have monitoring effect on the Chief Executive. However, according to the Basic Law, the Chief Executive will still be elected by the 800-member Election Committee before 2007. If the legislature could have more members returned by universal suffrage, it could then become the most important gatekeeper for monitoring the executive and the Chief Eexecutive. I feel that proportional representation would undermine the legislature's monitoring function above the executive. It might even make it easier for the executive to exercise divide and rule, making it more difficult for the legislature to oblige the Government to accept more the views of a legislature comprising more democratically elected members. This is the first point.

Second, according to the present demarcation, there are five constituencies with three to five seats each. As a result of the demarcation, each geographical constituency is rather small, failing to bring into full play the effect of proportional representation. The ultimate aim of proportional representation in geographical constituencies is to give political parties, big or small, a chance to be heard in the legislature, as long as they have their own views and obtained a certain proportion of the votes. To achieve this goal, each constituency needs to have a comparatively large number of seats. The number of seats secured represents the percentage of votes obtained. If a constituency has only four seats, a list may need to secure 25% of the votes to assure that two seats are won. If the "largest remainder formula" is adopted, there might be a chance even if less than 25% of the votes are secured. But there should at least be 15% of the votes or more. I have made this estimation on basis of my experience. In other words, if a small political party fails to get 15% of the votes, it will not be able to compete with other political parties.

If we look at western countries or Taiwan, where proportional representation is adopted, there are a rather large number of seats in each constituency, certainly more than our four seats; may be 10 to 15. Only in this way can the Government's express goal be achieved, that is, even small political parties might have a chance to win.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, my instructions to you were somewho incorrect. The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs will later on move amendments to clauses 36 and 47, perhaps you can save your views until then. Now, you may speak on the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Dr LEONG Che-hung.

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Very well. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will talk about that later.

The Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (HKADPL) has considered the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi's amendment before and it was indeed one of the proposals that we had intended to make. Therefore, in theory, our views are similar. When Mr CHAN Choi-hi proposed his amendment, he might not have anticipated that the single-seat single-vote system would not be adopted. If this "4+6+2" proposal were applied to the single-seat single-vote system, there would be a better chance. But as the circumstances stand, especially when there are only four directly elected seats, it is difficult to deal issue with this percentage issue with proportional representation in geographical constituencies. For instance, with five districts each having four seats, one needs to obtain 25% of the votes for each seat. If two seats have the same percentage of votes, what should be done? Besides, the turn-out rate in each constituency might be different. Some constituencies might have 160 000 people voting while others might have 200 000 people voting. Are we calculating on the basis of percentage or the actual number of votes collected? These questions must be addressed.

Second, if there are only four seats and there are two foreign nationals on the list of a certain political party, one winning 25% and the other 20% of the votes, how do we deal with the number of votes they have obtained? If there are 160 000 votes as given in the example I just cited and a person has obtained 80 000 or 90 000 votes, how do we compare him with other parties? Mr CHAN will have to explain how this should be dealt with if he wants to convince people that the "4+6+2" proposal will work in proportional representation in geographical constituencies.

Actually, we have thought about this question. We knew that even if we proposed it, we would not be allowed to move it. Therefore we have made another proposal which both complies with the Basic Law and allows foreign nationals to stand for election in a certain constituency regardless of the election method adopted. I hope that Mr CHAN Choi-hi can comment on this dilemma later.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO.

DR RAYMOND HO(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

During the four years and eight months when the Basic Law was drafted, I had the honour of serving as a member of the Consultative Committee as a representative of the engineering sector. At that time, we discussed many questions relating to constitutional development. In 1986, I proposed a political package which was recorded in the minutes of the first meeting of the Drafting Committee. In my opinion, the Basic Law was a successful drafting exercise and the whole document was perfect except for one flaw, which is allowing persons with the right of abode in foreign countries to take up 20% of the seats of the Legislative Council. This was proposed unexpectedly at a very late stage. We were taken by surprise and found it difficult to handle. Actually, I supported the "4+6+2" proposal, that is, the one put forward by the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi. But at that time, proportional representation was not on the table.

I agree with Mr Frederick FUNG that it is difficult to implement the "4+6+2" proposal with proportional representation. Why should 12 functional constituencies have the privilege of electing candidates with the right of abode in foreign countries to be Members of the Legislative Council? I hope the National People's Congress will repeal this provision in the near future to simplify the situation.

In the absence of other alternatives, I will support Dr LEONG Che-hung's proposal. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

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

CHAIRMANin Cantonese): Yes, Mr Bruce LIU.

MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): My point of order is whether the "6+4+2" proposal is consistent with Rule 57(4)(a) of the Rules of Procedure. Mr CHAN Choi-hi claimed that his amendment was drafted on the basis of the Preparatory Committee's decision. The Preparatory Committee has only decided on two electoral methods: the proportional representation system and the multi-seat, single-vote system. It was also stated that if the multi-seat, single-vote system is adopted, legislation should separately be enacted. Clearly, that was written with the multi-seat, single-vote system and the "6+4+2" proposal in mind. According to the Rules of Procedure of this Council, an amendment must be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill and to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates, that is, it must not stray beyond the scope. Since the whole Bill has not mentioned the multi-seat, single-vote system, this means that the amendment is outside the scope of the Bill and this does not conform to the Rules of Procedure. Could the Chairman make a ruling? Since there are so many amendments, maybe you have missed it. Or does the Chairman think that it conforms to the Rules of Procedure?

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, thank you for raising this point. I will now suspend the meeting in order to consider this point raised by Mr Bruce LIU. The meeting will resume in about 15 minutes.

11.29 pm

Meeting suspended.

11.58 pm

Council then resumed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, a piece of good news first. Originally, two Members were going to propose two motion debates as the last item on today's Agenda. However, they have notified the Secretariat that they would not propose them. As to when they are going to propose them, it will be discussed in the House Committee.

About the point of order raised by Mr Bruce LIU, I have studied the Preparatory Committee's decision again. Mr Bruce LIU thinks that unless the multi-seat, single-vote system is adopted, the "4+6+2" proposal will not work. Therefore, he questions that I should not have allowed the amendment to be proposed for the Council's deliberation. Let me explain this. Rule 57(4)(a) of the Rules of Procedure states that an amendment must be relevant to the subject matter of the bill and to the subject matter of the clause to which it relates. In other words, it must be within the scope of the bill. In my ruling, I have already explained the scope of the Bill very clearly. Apart from being a provision of the Basic Law, it is also the Preparatory Committee's decision. In Article 8 of the Preparatory Committee's decision which deals with the allocation of the 20% quota, one of the options given is the "4+6+2" option. Furthermore, the relevant decision does not mention what method should be adopted for geographical direct elections if the "4+6+2" option is used.

Mr Bruce LIU thinks that if the "4+6+2" formula is used, it would only be feasible if the multi-seat, single-vote system is adopted in the geographical direct elections. However, the powers of the President are very clearly defined. I should not judge whether an amendment is feasible, reasonable or acceptable. This should be left to the wise decision of Members. If an amendment is difficult to implement or not feasible, I believe Members will not support it. Therefore, I rule that allowing Mr CHAN Choi-hi to move his amendment is entirely in keeping with the Rules of Procedure.

We will continue our debate. Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Dr LEONG Che-hung?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi, do you wish to reply?

MR CHAN CHOI-HI(in Cantonese): I am grateful to Mr Bruce LIU because he lets us have a small break. Mr LIU talked to me about this case several weeks before. I have specially extracted the decision of the Preparatory Committee and read over it repeatedly for more than 10 times and scrutinized every word in Article 8. I find that there should not be any problem with my amendment, and it has not gone against the spirit of the Preparatory Committee's decision. Mr LIU has questioned if it works, I am just trying to find a more reasonable method to solve the problem. Honourable Members may vote on my amendment later.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Before I call upon Members to vote on Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendments, I would like to point out that if Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendments are approved, it will by implication mean that Mr LEUNG's amendment is not approved. Therefore, I will call upon Dr LEONG Che-hung to move his amendment only after Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendments have been negatived.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I think the "noes" have it. The "noes" have it.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): As the amendments moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi have been negatived, I now call upon Dr LEONG Che-hung to move his amendment.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I move the amendment to subclauses (2)(f) and (3) of clause 35 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

I wish to emphasize again that I have proposed the amendments on the principle of fairness. Many Members have just made their comments in opposition because they think that my amendment is somewhat "frivolous". As we have no other choices, I hope that they will choose fairness in supporting my amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendment

Clause 35 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr LEONG Che-hung be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

Dr LEONG Che-hung claimed a division.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That the amendment moved by Dr LEONG Che-hung be approved.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Have all Members pressed their buttons? The result will now be displayed.

Dr Raymond HO, Mrs Peggy LAM, Dr LEONG Che-hung and Mr LO Suk-ching voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Dr Raymond HO, Mr Edward HO, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Tang Siu-tong, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.

Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr Kennedy WONG abstained.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were four Members in favour of the amendment, 41 against and four abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese):Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (3) of clause 35 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 35 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (6),(8), (9) and (10) of clause 36 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendment

Clause 36 (see Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendments to subclauses (11) and (12) of clause 47, subclause (5) of clause 48, and subclauses (2) and (5) of clause 49 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.

Proposed amendments

Clause 47 (See Annex III)

Clause 48 (See Annex III)

Clause 49 (See Annex III)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 35, 48 and 49 as amended.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, upon Mr Frederick FUNG's request, I will handle clauses 35, 36, 47, 48 and 49 separately. Therefore, the question now put is: That clauses 35, 48 and 49 as amended stand part of the Bill.

Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 36 and 47 as amended.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.

MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I am not going to repeat what I have said, that is, the problem of supervision arising out of proportional representation in geographical constituencies when the Chief Executive is not returned by universal suffrage, and the effects on small parties when each geographical constituency has just three to five seats.

The third point that I am now going to raise is the present system, as opposed to the single-seat single-vote system, affects the big parties as well. The single-seat single-vote system originally allows the big parties to win more seats in a single-seat constituency scenario. But under the proportional representation system, they will win relatively less seats. There are worries that a single party will dominate under the single-seat single-vote system. We now have only 20 directly elected seats, even if a party can get all the 20 seats, it is only one third, a minority in the Council. Therefore, I think we do not need to be worried.

Fourthly, I have to talk about the effects of the proportional representation system on voters. Under the single-seat single-vote system, a voter can know clearly who are elected in his district. If a candidate loses, a voter knows that he has failed to get him elected. If a candidate wins, no matter whether an voter has cast a vote for him, the voters will clearly know that the winner will represent his district. In case something happens, the voter may easily monitor Members who represent his district. Similarly, Members may easily be accountable to the voters they represent. There is a direct relationship of accountability.

On the other hand, as the proportional representation system is election out of a list of names or political parties, the situation is much more difficult. A big party may win two seats while a small party may get just one. As a result, the three or four seats may be distributed among different political parties. For voters, if the constituency is big enough, such as the New Territories West from Kwai Chung to Yuen Long, they do not know if they should look to the political parties or Members. Similarly, Members may say that they do not belong to a certain district. It will have detrimental effects on the voters.

Under these circumstances, I think it is not the right time to adopt the proportional representation system. When is the right time for this system? I suggest that it will be the right moment when the Chief Executive is returned by universal suffrage, as the election system may exercise a monitoring or checking effect on the Chief Executive then. Besides, there can be different voices or political parties, large or small, in the Council to present different views to the Chief Executive for his reference. That will be the best moment for implementing the proportional representation system. As our Chief Executive is not returned by universal suffrage now, I do not think it is the right time to do so.

Another right moment will be when there are direct elections in geographical constituencies returning more than 30 seats. That is to say, when we adopt the Government's suggestion to divide Hong Kong into five constituencies, with six seats or five to seven seats each. When there are as many as six seats, the proportional representation system will easily generate its desired effects, that is, different political parties, large or small, can get six seats. They have a chance to be elected when there are over one million people. Therefore, I think that it is not suitable to adopt the proportional representation system before geographical direct elections can returned more than 30 seats, or the Chief Executive is returned by direct election.

I would like to emphasize again that when I say "not suitable", I am not referring to democratic factors, but political effects. As the HKADPL and I hold that it is not the right moment, therefore, we object to clauses 36 and 47.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to reply?

(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to reply).

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please read the amended clauses now.

CLERK(in Cantonese): Clauses 36 and 47 as amended.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Council shall proceed to a division as voices from both sides are similar. The division bell will ring for one minute.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, let me explain the question put. The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has amended clauses 36 and 47, but Mr Frederick FUNG has asked me to deal with the amended clauses 36 and 47 separately as he has said in his speech that the HKADPL will object, but he hopes that he has a chance to cast a vote against it. The question now put is on clauses 36 and 47 as amended. Council will now proceed to vote.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Have all Members cast their votes? The result will now be displayed.

Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald Arculli, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the motion.

Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the motion.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 43 Members in favour of the motion and four against. She therefore declared that the motion was carried.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The Committee will now handle the unfinished part of clause 50.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any proposed new clause shall be considered after the clauses of a bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure that Rule 58(5) be suspended in order that my proposed new clause 23A may be considered ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG's request must be dealt with in the Provisional Legislative Council. I now order that Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, I you have my consent. MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider my proposed new clause 23A ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider Mr Andrew WONG's proposed new clause 23A ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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

Council went into Committee.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee.

CLERK(in Cantonese): New clause 23A Eligibility for registering as members of the Election Committee

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the Second Reading of new clause 23A as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The clause is basically identical to the registration of voters for geographical constituencies in adding a clause to state that the Election Committee made up of the members selected from different sectors, the members nominated by the religious sector and the ex-officio members is eligible to vote.

Please excuse me, Mrs Selina CHOW, this must be done. If we do not make this amendment first, we cannot proceed to deal with the work that follows. Is it funny? (Laughter)

MRS SELINA CHOW(in Cantonese): I do not understand.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I originally intended to handle the whole issue together, but it cannot be done because things are all linked up, that is why it seems that the proposed amendment "does not make sense". It would be better for the amendment to be proposed together with other amendments, but as there is no way out now, I have to propose it individually. If Honourable Members do not support it, I will not propose my other amendments.

Madam Chairman, I wish to tell Mr NGAI Shiu-kit something and I know that he also wished to tell me something earlier. I do not want the meeting to drag on, but I only want to take this opportunity to say that I hope that the electoral system of the Election Committee will be changed into one that is the same as that of the geographical constituencies. We are now putting them together for discussion, just as we did when we debated over Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment, because technically speaking, this must be done. What I said is meaningless, and it has possibly strayed from the subject. Now that Honourable Members are laughing, I can do nothing but I just feel that it is meaningless. Frankly speaking, the motion simply suggests that the elections of the Election Committee and the geographical constituencies should adhere to the proportional representation system. If people are allocated certain seats when supported by a limited number of votes, it is the first step of election. It is so written in the script that clauses will be handled one by one, as restricted by the arrangement of the Rules of Procedure, so we have such a result. Therefore, I have to propose new clause 23A first and I hope that it can be added to the Bill. If it is not added, other issues cannot be dealt with, or they would have no meaning even if they get passed.

Madam Chairman, I believe that even if the amendment is not passed, I can still move other amendments, abeit ridiculous it may be. I hope that Honourable Members will understand this. If Members do not agree, please state now whether they like it or not, and to make comments now. I hope that Members will not regard my words as "nonsense". I wish to let Members know clearly that the Election Committee election should not follow a block vote system but it should follow the proportional representation system as adopted by the geographical constituencies. I have clearly stated during the Second Reading debate that I will propose an amendment. If my amendment fails, I urge Members to support Mr CHAN Choi-hi's single transferable vote system. If it also fails, I then urge Members to support Mrs Elsie TU's mandatory block vote system, instead of the Government's free block vote system in which either one or 10 votes will do.

I hope that Members will understand this and consider the amendment in a fair manner. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the new clause 23A be read the Second time.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated to speak)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese) : Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, according to the decision of the Preparatory Committee, Members of the Provisional Legislative Council and the Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress are ex-officio members of the Election Committee. Therefore, we do not think that they should first be registered as voters in geographical constituencies. However, I must point out that, like the other elections, if these ex-officio members wish to vote in the election of 10 Members to the Legislative Council, they must first register as voters in geographical constituencies. Therefore, we object to this motion.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please reply.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I am surprised particularly by one point. We must ...... Madam Chairman, I will stop here. I hope Honourable Members will support my motion.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(No Member responded)

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

(Members responded)

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I think the "noes" have it. The "noes" have it.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any proposed new clauses shall be considered after the clauses of a bill have been disposed of, may I seek your consent to move under Rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure that Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended in order my proposed new clause 36A may be considered ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): In order to handle Mr Andrew WONG's request, I now order that Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, you have my consent.

MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rule 58 (5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider my proposed new clause 36A ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Rule 58(5) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider Mr Andrew WONG's proposed new clause 36A ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.

PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please say "aye"?

(Members responded)

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

(No Member responded)

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