Council went into Committee.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee.
CLERK(in Cantonese): New clause 36A Nomination list 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 36A as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Actually, it is almost pointless for me to move this motion because Honourable Members have already voted earlier that the Election Committee should not be constituted in this manner. As a result, this new clause has been rendered rather insignificant. That said, I would still like to point out that it is still possible for Members to reconsider it. Even though the previous motion has been negatived, the provisions on the nomination list of the Election Committee may still be practicable, because the Election Committee has already been constituted.
If Members feel that it is necessary to change the voting system for the election of the Election Committee to a block vote system, list system or the single transferable vote system recommended by Mr CHAN Choi-hi, it is still possible to do so under new clause 36A. Therefore, I hope that Members would carefully consider this point because new clause 23A only seeks to improve the legislation in general, whereas the legislation would be more comprehesnive if you support clause 36A. We can see that the previous amendment is on the constitution of the Election Committee, and the amendments to follow are on the nomination system and voting system. We shall now debate the nomination system and then move on to the amendment on the voting system.
The nomination system is, in fact, the most fundamental element in the legislation since the whole list system and the proportional representation system are on the ways of nomination, and this is what new clause 36A is about. New clause 36A states in simple terms that the nomination system for the geographical constituencies should be adopted in the election of the Election Committee. This is the simplest method. Though I tend to be in favour of the single transferable vote system, I must say that this old system may not be the best. Since we have already adopted the list system of proportional representation for the elections of the geographical constituencies, why do we not also adopt it for the Election Committee?
I hope Honourable Members, the Chairman in particular, could understand a very important point. It does not matter that you have not supported my previous amendment. Perhaps this is because there were some loopholes. I am now still arguing strongly for my case. I hope Members can understand the most important point underlying the debate right now. We cannot adopt the proportional representation system for functional constituencies because of their single-seat system. But, we have adopted the proportional representation for multi-seat geographical constituencies. That being the case, why do we not adopt proportional representation for the Election Committee, which also adopts a multi-seat system? Why is it that the system of proportional representation can be adopted in the election of the geographical constituencies and not the election of the Election Committee? Do we have any selfish motives? Why is that we would be doubted on our motives? Therefore, I hope you can understand that new clause 36A is the most fundamental element of this legislation. Without its nomination system which allows for the lists, we could not even do something about the voting system.
I, therefore, urge all Honourable Members of the Provisional Legislative Council to support my motion. If not, I think we are being virtually "self-contradictory". On the one hand, we support the system of proportional representation; on the other, we do not want to adopt this system for returning 10 seats to this Council, because we want to reserve these seats for our own allies. This is absolutely unreasonable.
Madam Chairman, I hope Members could appreciate why I have moved this motion. This is very important to the development of Hong Kong, and equally important to its credibility and public accountability. We cannot not have three different, and in this regard, three completely different voting systems within the same electoral system. Mr Michael SUN said "You definitely need different soya sauces and different salts to cook different dishes". This saying does not make any sense. If you believe in the system of proportional representation, then please support the system of proportional representation consistently. If not, stop saying things like that.
With these remarks, Madam Chairman, I urge Members to support my motion.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clause 36A 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?
(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to speak)
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 has given notice to move amendments to clause 50. Mr CHAN Choi-hi has given notice to move amendments to clause 50(1), the deletion of clause 50(2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and the addition of clause 50(1A). Mrs Elsie TU has given notice to move amendments to clause 50(2) and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has given notice to move amendments to clause 50(2).
I propose that the proposed amendments be debated together in a joint debate, as they are related.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments 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 clause 50 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Madam Chairman, I am very disappointed with the voting result just now. If Members do agree that the electoral system should be relaxed to bring it more in line with the system of proportional representation which they support, but, if they at the same time find it impossible to accept the amendment I moved just now, then this amendment will become largely meaningless. It is because my amendment to clause 50, which is on a system of voting and counting of votes for the Election Committee, is part and parcel of my preceding motions. Since all my preceding motions have been negatived, I should not have been asked to move this amendment any more. If I can still move this amendment under the Rules of Procedure, and if Madam Chairman still asks me to do so, then I shall act accordingly. But, I think this is pointless. Please vote against my amendment, because everything has become meaningless.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, if you want to withdraw this amendment, you are free to do so.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): I can withdraw the amendment. But, if you still ask me to move it, then I can do nothing but to act accordingly. But, moving this amendment has already become pointless. I only wish Members to consider whether the electoral system for the Election Committee should be based on proportional representation. If they feel that it should not, and if they instead think that the Election Committee should be dominated by certain groups of people, then just do it, and that is perfectly all right. I just want to ask Members such a simple question. The only point of my lengthy remarks just now was to ask Members this question. Whether or not Members agree with me is not important all. If they support me, they should have voted for my preceding motions but I failed to get any adequate support just now. Since Members have refused to support my preceding motions, I should not move this amendment now because it runs counter to Members' decision. It does not really matter whether I withdraw this amendment or not. If I am still allowed to move the amendment, then I shall move it. I hope Members would vote down my amendment, and I no longer care whether I am defeated or not. I so submit. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 50 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr CHAN Choi-hi to speak on Mr Andrew WONG's amendment as well as the respective proposed amendments by Mrs Elsie TU and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs. After Mr CHAN Choi-hi has spoken, I will call upon Mrs Elsie TU and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to speak on the amendments. However, no amendment may be moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mrs Elsie TU and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs at this stage. Mr CHAN Choi-hi.
MR CHAN CHOI-HI(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I can support Mrs Elsie TU's amendment both in principle and in spirit. As for Mr Andrew WONG, I very much respect him as a senior fellow student of mine. Though I am not sure whether what he has just said are his heart-felt feelings, I really appreciate his feelings.
My current proposal is on the systems of voting and counting of votes for the Election Committee. What Mr WONG has proposed is actually more comprehensive in scope. I have restricted my remarks to the confines of my proposal. I hope Members would support me when they vote on the proposals later on, but if I fail, I would support Mrs Elsie TU's proposed amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mrs Elsie TU.
MRS ELSIE TU:Madam Chairman, contrary to what Mr WONG just said, I did support his motion. He maybe did not hear my voice. I do believe in proportional representation as being the best way, though rather complicated.
As to Mr CHAN Choi-hi's single transferable vote, I was going to propose that myself, but having consulted other Members, I found I was not getting much support, so I went to my own amendment which I am going to tell you now, and this is my bottomline.
The Election Committee has the important task of selecting 10 candidates for the first Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. I would like to think that members of the Election Committee would select the best among the candidates and that the election will be carried out in a fair and honourable way, and not be dominated by party interests.
For the Election Committee, the Administration has chosen the "first past the post" system which is now recognized in many countries as an undemocratic system that can put minority governments into power, leaving the majority of the population unrepresented. No electoral system can claim to be totally fair, as Mr CHIM said this morning, or yesterday morning, but the system proposed for this particular constitution is, in my estimation, the least fair of all unfair systems.
At the 1998 elections next year, it is possible that all 10 seats could be dominated by any political party with the highest number of members on the Election Committee. In the case of a large party with many members on the Election Committee, it would be possible for their candidates to monopolize all 10 seats. Alternatively, a party with only a handful of members on the Election Committee may receive only a handful of votes, while an independent may be left with only his own vote.
If the previous two amendments fail, and Mr WONG's has already failed, if Mr CHAN Choi-hi's also fails, I suggest in my amendment that electors in this constituency, in order to validate their ballot papers, should cast all 10 votes in the 1998 election and at any by-election they should use their full entitlement according to the number of vacancies. Using that method, the potential number of votes would be 8 000 instead of only 800.
Originally I intended to, as I said, put forward the single transferable vote system. Some Members have expressed support for the present amendment, that is, that members should vote with all 10 votes: no more, no less. I hope Members will support it. I personally have nothing to gain from this amendment. My sole purpose is to find a fair system, as fair as possible, so that all 10 seats will be filled in a credible manner. However, in the long run, it is the responsibility of all of us to make this a fair election, and our responsibility to select the most capable candidates to serve the public. I seek Members' support. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I trust that Honourable Members can still recall that the single transferable vote system proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi was adopted in the 1995 Legislative Council Election. As the electorate in the Election Committee at that time was just as small as 283 people, we had to ensure that the voting system we adopted could prevent the election from being dominated by any one party. We, therefore, adopted the single transferable vote system. However, the electorate in the Election Committee for the 1998 Legislative Council election next year will be increased greatly to 800, and this alone will prevent the election from being dominated by any one party.
As for the mandatory block vote system proposed by Mrs Elsie TU, I fail to see how it will necessarily be able to prevent the election from being dominated. What is more, since some electors may not endorse the political platforms of all the candidates, it would be unfair to compel them to cast all 10 votes.
In view of the above reasons, we object to the amendments of the Honourable Members.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members may now debate the amendments moved by Mr Andrew WONG as well as the respective amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mrs Elsie TU and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
Does any Member wish to speak? Mr NG Leung-sing.
MR NG LEUNG-SING(in Cantonese): Good morning, Madam Chairman. Good morning, my Honourable colleagues. (Laughter)
Madam Chairman, the Election Committee we are now talking about is to be made up of 800 members, who are required to elect 10 representatives from qualified candidates to the first Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Coming from various trades and professions, these 800 members of the Election Committee will undoubtedly be widely representative and, the way in which each member of the Election Committee shall vote will definitely have a significant bearing on how best the Committee can give full expression to its representativeness. Therefore, we should support Mrs Elsie TU's opinion that the voting system must be debated and examined very carefully.
To put it simply, if each member of the Election Committee casts only one vote, the total number of votes shall be 800, but, if each member is free to cast any number of votes between one to 10, then the total number of votes shall range from 800 to 8 000. However, the total number of votes will not generally exceed 8 000 even if the latter method is adopted. If each member is required to cast all 10 votes, then there will be 8 000 votes. When we compare these three different methods, we can see that Members returned by the last method will be supported by the largest number of votes, and they may thus to a certain extent, better meet the expectation of the public that representation should be as wide as possible.
Furthermore, the public, I am sure, will have the confidence that the 800 Election Committee members elected from the four sectors will all be able to handle the task of casting all 10 votes. I am, therefore, of the opinion that when we consider the voting system of the Election Committee, we should aim at maximizing the number of votes to be cast by members of the Election Committee, so as to enhance the representativeness of those Legislative Members returned by the Election Committee. This is also in line with the underlying principle and spirit of the Basic Law, which provides that the political system of Hong Kong should follow a path of gradual democratization after 1997. For the reasons stated just now, I support Mrs Elsie TU's amendment on the voting system of the Election Committee.
Madam Chairman, I so submit.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, with the exception of a system under which all Members of the Legislative Council are returned by direct elections, all other forms of election, including functional constituency elections and Election Committee elections, do in fact suffer a certain degree of unfairness. I shall first attempt to describe these elements of unfairness, before indicating how we shall vote in respect of the two Honourable Members' amendments.
The reason why I say that there are elements of unfairness is that the electoral system under which the Legislative Council is to be returned by three different types of elections will actually enable some voters to have two and a half votes. Why have I not said "three votes"? Because the vote to select the Election Committee should be considered as half a vote only. Voters of functional constituencies will each have as many as two and a half votes because while they can elect 800 members for the Election Committee, they can at the same time, vote within their own functional constituencies and geographical constituencies. Although electors of functional constituencies are not directly involved in returning 10 Members to the Legislative Council, they are involved in selecting representatives from their own sectors, who will in turn elect 10 Members to the Legislative Council. From this, we can see that these 800 members carry a very substantial weight in relation to the 10 Legislative Council Members returned by the Election Committee. This analysis shows that those people who can select the 800 Election Committee members for the purpose of further electing 10 Legislative Council Members are, in fact, a favoured and privileged group under such a electoral system, and I consider this unfair.
Though these elements of unfairness are unavoidable due to the need for us to comply with the Basic Law, we should still seek to minimize or refrain from enlarging the extent of unfairness; or, we should even try to make the arrangements fairer. This is precisely the reason why I will support the amendments moved by the two Honourable Members; the voting systems proposed in these amendments for the Election Committee are much fairer than the one proposed by the Administration. This is because the Administration allows a member of the Election Committee to cast any number of votes between one and 10. In other words, if the membership of the Election Committee is substantially concentrated on a political party or a clique, or if one political party joins hands with another, or if one clique joins forces with another clique, monopolization of all 10 seats, or winning with a small number of votes, may easily result.
Since Mr NG Leung-sing is from the banking sector, I trust that he must be better at mathematics and his computations would be more accurate than mine. Therefore, I accept his computations. If there are 800 voters and each voter has to cast 10 votes, there would be 8 000 votes, and it would be very difficult to monopolize all 10 seats. In contrast, if each member just cast one or two votes for the candidates he supports, the total number of votes thus cast ...... Uh! I am not good at mathematics ...... may only be 100 to 200 votes, and it would be much easier to monopolize all 10 seats. From this perspective, that is, from the perspective that monopolization will become less likely as the total number of votes increases, I would say that we should support Mrs Elsie TU's amendment on requiring a member to cast all his 10 votes.
Another issue is the single transferable vote system. I view that such a system can ensure that even if a member casts all 10 votes in favour of a certain clique, this particular clique may not necessarily win or monopolize all the 10 seats. Compared with the Administration's proposal, the single transferable vote system would be more effective in preventing monopolization.
On the whole, I feel that all the problems have arisen mainly because the Election Committee is in itself an unfair institution. But, if it is to be implemented regardless of its unfairness, then we should adopt a fairer voting system which will avoid monopolization and which will better represent all its 800 members. The Hong Kong Association For Democracy and People's Livelihood is in support of the proposed amendments by Mrs Elsie TU and Mr CHAN Choi-hi. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Eric LI.
MR ERIC LI(in Cantonese): I would like to state my support for the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and Mrs Elsie TU. Members have repeatedly expressed concern over political party domination. But, I believe that their concern may not necessarily be based on any prejudice against political parties, for political parties are also working for the people of Hong Kong. I think we should take a broader view. Why are we worried about domination by one or two political parties? This is because the whole political system of Hong Kong has been set up with the aim of accommodating a divergence of political views, so that different opinions from different sectors can be voiced to represent the varied interests of the entire community. I believe that both the Preparatory Committee and the Basic Law do attach great importance to this objective as far as the electoral arrangements for the first Legislative Council Election are concerned. If the Administration really considers the preservation of a pluralistic political system the most important goal, it should do all it can to prevent domination by any groups.
I agree with Mr Michael SUEN, Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, that it is more difficult for domination of votes to occur when there are 800 members on the Election Committee. But, if the Administration really does not wish to see any form of domination, it must take steps to ensure that this will never occur. In a way, I find the amendment of Mr CHAN Choi-hi capable of providing the assurance required. So, I will first support Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment. But if it is negatived, then, as some of my colleagues have just said, I would think that we should still make it more difficult for domination to occur. To achieve this purpose, having 8 000 votes is better than having 800 votes because with the former, it will become more difficult for domination to occur. According to Mr Michael SUEN, it is unfair to ask members of the Election Committee to cast all their 10 votes because some of them may not endorse the political platform of some individual candidates. I cannot buy his viewpoint. Why? Because members of the Election Committee should be elected with the full awareness that they must fulfil the responsibility of electing Legislative Council Members. What is more, these members have actually asked to be elected to fulfil this responsibility. So, what is most important is the voting system, and such a system must be made known to all at the earliest opportunity. Once people are aware of what the voting system requires, it will be up to them to choose whether to register as electors. If they still choose to do so, they should bear in mind that they have the obligation to elect 10 candidates. This is particularly simple to some members of political parties, because to them, no political platform is better than their own. So, it will be relatively easy for them to make a selection. In fact, it would not be that difficult to vote for 10 or eight candidates. Moreover, increasing the difficulty involved is better than doing nothing at all. In view of these reasons, I shall also support Mrs Elsie TU's amendment. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to seek an elucidation on a point of order. In terms of voting procedures, which of the amendments, Mr CHAN Choi-hi's or Mrs Elsie TU's, will be first put to the vote? I raise this question because after listening to the remarks of Honourable Members, I have the impression that they seem to prefer 8 000 votes to 800 votes. If this is the case, and if Members are really in support of 8 000 votes, then we should vote against the amendment of Mr CHAN Choi-hi. Or, shall we vote on the amendment on 8 000 votes again after the amendment on 800 votes has been put to the vote?
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): According to the procedures, the amendment of Mr CHAN Choi-hi will be put to the vote first, to be followed by Mrs Elsie TU's amendment.
MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): That means if we wish to support Mrs Elsie TU's amendment, we have to vote against Mr CHAN Choi-hi's amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Yes, if the amendment proposed by Mrs Elsie TU is your only choice. Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) does have some reservations about Mrs Elsie TU's amendment on requiring a member of the Election Committee to cast all 10 votes. The reason for our reservations is that, during the voting process of the Election Committee, when a member casts a vote for a candidate whom he thinks merits his support, he is in fact making a real choice which carries direct weight in the outcome of the election. That is why we should not equate the value of these 10 votes with the value of votes under the single transferable vote system, for under the latter system, each vote a voter casts will only constitute an element in the mathematical formula for the computation of the election outcome. This means that under this system of voting, even if a voter is required to cast all 10 votes, the nineth and the tenth votes will not matter that much. In contrast, in the full block vote system, the tenth vote a voter casts will still be a direct choice made by him to select an ideal candidate. So, if a voter has only eight or nine ideal candidates in mind, and if he has already cast a vote for each of them, it will neither be fair nor desirable to force him to vote for one or two more candidates. All in all, we must trust all members of the Election Committee will make the best of their effort to fufil their pledge of electing the persons whom they regard to be most capable. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a member of the Election Committee should not be forced or required by law to cast all 10 votes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW(in Cantonese): Madam President, when I was listening to Mr IP Kwok-him's remarks, I could not quite follow his logic. Well, this is not the first time that I fail to follow the logic of the arguments presented by the DAB tonight. Mr IP said that members of the Election Committee should be allowed to cast their votes freely, without being subject to any restrictions on the number of votes they are required to cast. But I feel that Mr IP Kwok-him may have missed a point here. Members of the Election Committee are actually representatives of different subsectors elected to vote on behalf of their respective subsectors. They should represent their respective subsectors and be obliged to return 10 Members from the Election Committee. Strategic voting should not be allowed, but this would most certainly occur if these representatives are not required by law to cast all 10 votes. I believe that no one would want to see this happen in the Election Committee. It will be most undesirable if these representatives of different subsectors cannot fully fulfill their obligations. We therefore support Mrs Elsie TU's amendment and hope that Members will do likewise.
As regards the proposed amendment by Mr CHAN Choi-hi, I would say that it is a good proposal, but it is too complicated and would take a very long time just to count the number of votes. I do not know exactly how long it will take. But the block vote system is definitely simpler and more straightforward in comparison. Moreover, both voting systems will not lead to any monopolization of votes or any strategic voting which may adversely affect the results of the election. Therefore, we shall vote against Mr CHAN Choi-hi's proposed amendment and vote for Mrs Elsie TU's amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Secretary for Constitutional Affairs?
(The Secretary for Constitutional affairs indicated that he did not wish to reply)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, do you intend to reply?
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the question is very simple. It only concerns what methods the Election Committee should adopt to elect Members to the Legislative Council. I think that since everyone believes that the proportional representation system is the right approach, then the proportional representation system should be adopted. I do not mind what methods are to be taken: whether it is the single transferable vote system, or the list system adopted for the geographical constituencies, I do not care. I propose using the list system for the benefit of consistency so that we will not do things in the manner described by Mr SUEN: prescribing different medicine for different illnesses. God! We are not talking about any illnesses. We are discussing an electoral system which requires consistency. Therefore, I am baffled. I really wonder what we are actually debating. I am really puzzled.
It has been argued that with the increase in Election Committee membership from three hundred people to eight hundred people, manipulation or domination of votes can in fact be prevented. Any system can be manipulated, and any system can be monopolized! It only depends on how the system is monitored. My research area is electoral systems and hence I can tell Members that a fair system must be set up. If one considers a certain approach to be fair, even the fairest, then one has to carry it out consistently. Unfortunately, there will be three kinds of seats on the Legislative Council. But the proportional representation system can be applied uniformly to all three kinds of seats to make things better. Some say that the ideal way is to return all the seats by the single-seat single-vote system. And now everyone understands that the single-seat single-vote system will be adopted in functional constituency elections and they are also direct elections. But these elections are unfair in themselves. All through the years, I have always felt that this kind of debate is very weird and I find that the weirdest thing is what has been said before me. Some say that functional constituency elections are unfair because they are not direct elections. Actually, they are direct elections, but the single-seat single-vote system carries no meaning because these elections are neither universal nor equal. Therefore, do not say that my remarks are academic. They are not academic.
What are we pursuing? It is a universal and equal election. Before this end is met, it is all right to have some adjustments, but the adjustments should be as close to our goal as possible. I now accept that some of the seats can be returned by geographical direct elections which are universal and equal, and I also accept that some of the seats can be returned by functional constituency elections. These elections are designated for those who can be qualified to become members of functional constituencies but, I still hope that the principle of universality can be applied. I also accept that some of the seats can be returned by the Election Committee. It is all right to use all these three methods. But, can we adopt the block vote system? Everyone likes the proportional representation system. People are all different in character. So, just let them choose whoever they like. And, equal distribution will be perfectly all right. Why do we still want to introduce the block vote system? I do not understand. I do not believe that anyone can be convinced. Perhaps, only this Council can be convinced by the argument that the block vote system is a fair game. I hope that the Government will think about it. Perhaps government officials are having bad headaches too because the Executive Council may have already decided and finalized everything. The Members of the Executive Council who are on this Council have also disappeared from this Chamber now. You are all stupid. Who are you trying to fool?
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, please withdraw your last remark for it is unparliamentary.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Can "stupid" be used? I would like the Chairman to rule.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please consider withdrawing that remark and use other terms to put your point.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Would the Chairman please rule whether "stupid" can be used? If it cannot be used, then I will not use it.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, did you include the Members of the Executive Council when you made that remark earlier?
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I was addressing the Members of the Executive Council who are also Members of the Provisional Legislative Council and I make it clear that they are included.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): You say you included them. They are all this Council's ......
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): I only said "stupid".
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Those Members are also Members of the Provisional Legislative Council and Members of this Council should deserre a certain degree of respect from their colleagues. Therefore, I very much hope that you would withdrew the term as requested by me.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): I would not mind even if you call me "stupid".
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): That is not the point. The issue is not whether you do mind or not. Rather, it is ......
MR ANDREW WONG: I beg your pardon. I am sorry. I have to disagree. I would not withdraw it. (in Cantonese) I do not think the term "stupid" is unparliamentary.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting to give Mr Andrew WONG some time to think about it. The meeting will resume in five minutes.
1.05 am
Meeting suspended.
1.26 am
Council then resumed.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, you wanted me to rule and so I was forced to make a ruling. I have wanted you to withdraw the term that you used because it is offensive to Members of the Provisional Legislative Council. In accordance with Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure, it is out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Council. I hope that you would observe the order and be willing to withdraw that remark.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, although I do not consider the term "stupid" offensive, I accept your ruling and withdraw my remark.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam, do you wish to speak?
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(in Cantonese): Let us get down to business again. The remarks made by Members of the DAB just now have been regarded, dismissed, as being illogical. That others do not understand our logic is not our fault. Actually, our attitude is very clear, that is, we do not think that failure to cast all 10 votes will necessarily give rise to monopolization of votes. In contrast, the single transferable vote system is a better method.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Before I put Mr Andrew WONG's amendment to the vote, let me point out that if Mr Andrew WONG's amendment is agreed, that will by implication mean that the respective amendments proposed by Mr CHAN, Mrs Elsie TU and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs are not approved, and hence they will not be called upon to move their amendments. If Mr Andrew WONG's amendment is negatived, I will call upon Mr CHAN to move his amendment. If Mr CHAN's amendment is agreed, then Mrs Elsie TU and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs will not need to move their amendments. If Mr CHAN's amendment is negatived, I will call upon Mrs Elsie TU to move her amendment; so on and so forth.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to clause 50 moved by Mr Andrew WONG be approved.
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): As the amendment moved by Mr Andrew WONG has been negatived, I now call upon Mr CHAN to move his amendment.
MR CHAN CHOI-HI(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subclause (1), the deletion of subclauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) and the addition of subclause (1A) to clause 50 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 50 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment 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)
Mr CHAN Choi-hi claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Choi-hi has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is on the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi and if Members agree to it, it will mean that they agree to the single transferable vote system. Please proceed to vote now.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.
Mr Eric LI, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Peggy LAM, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendment.
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 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 MA Fung-kwok, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Kennedy WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, 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 LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 16 members in favour of the amendment and 34 against. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): As the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Choi-hi has been negatived, I now call upon Mrs Elsie TU to move her amendment.
MRS ELSIE TU:Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subclause (2) to clause 50 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 50 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mrs Elsie TU 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): As the amendment moved by Mrs Elsie TU has been agreed, it is not possible for the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to move his amendment to subclause (2) of clause 50, as it is inconsistent with the decision already taken. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subclauses (1), (3) and (4) of clause 50, as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 50 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Doe 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 50 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 37.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Both Mr Ronald ARCULLI and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs have separately given notice to propose amendments to subclause (1)(a) of clause 37.
I propose that the amendments proposed separately by Mr Ronald ARCULLI and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be debated together in a joint debate, as they are related.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee shall debate the amendments proposed separately by Mr Ronald ARCULLI and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs in a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr Ronald ARCULLI to move his amendment in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI:Madam Chairman, the amendment I have put forward is actually quite simple. Under the amendment proposed by the Administration, staff members of the Legislative Council, Provisional Legislative Council and indeed the Legislative Council Commission and the Provisional Legislative Council Commission cannot in fact take part in the legislative elections, but the staff members of the Provisional Urban Council or Provisional Regional Council, or indeed the Urban Council and the Regional Council, can do so.
So, I thought that it would be rather curious if a staff member of one of the two Municipal Councils were elected to sit here and then go back and be a staff member of either of the Municipal Councils. I really cannot understand why the Government is not supporting my amendment. Can you imagine, if part of the recent controversy we have had that the Director of Urban Services was elected a Member of this Council, the sort of chaos that it would create?
So, I hope Members will support my amendment because, apart from anything else, I think if we believe in a, sort of, level playing field and fair and open elections, that my amendment would help us achieve that objective.
Another reason, Madam Chairman, is that I do not really want to see us lose any staff from our Secretariat, particularly those who have political aspirations might decide to go and work for either of the Municipal Councils so that they can stand for election to this Council.
Thank you.
Proposed amendment
Clause 37 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I will call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to speak on the amendment moved by Mr Ronald ARCULLI as well as the amendment that he intends to move, but will not ask the Secretary to move his amendment unless Mr Ronald ARCULLI's amendment has been negatived. If Mr Ronald ARCULLI's amendment is agreed, that will be implication mean that the Secretary's amendment is not approved. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in order to ensure the credibility of the Legislative Council, we agree absolutely that strict regulations governing the eligibility of candidates should be set down. That is why we have stipulated in detail in the Bill the conditions under which a person is to be disqualified from being nominated as a candidate. For example, the Bill provides that a person is to by disqualified from being nominated as a candidate if his election as a Member will likely lead to conflicts of interests. We consider that the provisions of the Bill are already adequate for the purpose and there is actually no need to add any unnecessary restrictions, and we do not see any good reason for imposing any restrictions to disqualify the staff of the Provisional Urban Council or Provisional Regional Council from running in the elections of the Legislative Council.
A moment ago, Mr Ronald ARCULLI mentioned the possibility of the Director of Urban Services running in an election. Let me point out here that the Director is a civil servant, and as such, she is not eligible to become a candidate. The staff members I have been referring to, that is, the staff members who can run in Legislative Council elections, are the non-civil servant staff members of the two Provisional Municipal Councils. So, we may have differences in our interpretation of staff members. For the above grounds, we object to this amendment. But, in response to the views of the Bills Committee, I will move some technical amendments latter on, so as to make this clause clearer.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the DAB opposes the amendment of Mr Ronald ARCULLI, the most important reason being that under the existing civil service system, if a civil servant wants to plunge into politics, he must first resign from the Civil Service before he can run in any elections. That being the case, and since the staff of the Urban Council or the Regional Council are all civil servants, I do not see any need to draw up any specific provision to prevent them from running in Legislative Council elections. Since the existing civil service system is already subject to such a restriction, I think that the amendment proposed will only lead to new confusion. Therefore, we will not support this amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I heard the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs say earlier that we should not set down any unnecessary restrictions. I believe that the key question is whether or not the restriction concerned is indeed unnecessary. According to the Secretary, since the Director of Urban Services is a civil servant, there is in fact already a restriction. But, the point is, as the Secretary himself has also pointed out, there are other staff members of the Provisional Urban Council and the Provisional Regional Council who are not civil servants. In fact, as far as I understand it, the Provisional Urban Council and the Provisional Region Council do recruit some of their staff members directly on their own, and those employees thus recruited do not belong to the Civil Service. If Members consider that the staff members of the two Municipal Councils should be permitted to run in Legislative Council elections, then they must ask the Secretary to clarify which category of staff members should be allowed, because if I remember it correctly, the staff members of the Secretariats are recruited directly by the two Councils. In other words, if these staff members are subject to no restriction, they will be eligible to be elected as Members of this Council. For the sake of consistency, if the staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat are not eligible to run in Legislative Council elections, then should those of the Provisional Urban Council and Provisional Regional Council also come under the same statutory restriction? Therefore, this statutory restriction is indeed necessary.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, do you wish to speak?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, let me briefly compare these staff members with their counterparts in the secretariats of other organizations such as the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce. Since there are no laws which prohibit the latter from running in Legislative Council elections, why should the staff of the Provisional Urban Council Secretariat be subject to any special restriction? Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI, do you wish to reply?
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam Chairman, that was a very typical civil servant answer, if I may say so, because the Secretary has not actually explained why in the old law there was this prohibition, or maybe he has forgotten. Perhaps he will care to explain why under the old law, staff members of those two Municipal Councils were prohibited, only two years ago, from taking part in Legislative Council elections?
Has the change of sovereignty resulted in such a huge change in government policy that we are now comparing staff members of the secretariat of the two Municipal Councils with a commercial association or a club?
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan.
MR MOK YING-FAN(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I just want to provide some information. As far as I know, since I joined the Urban Council in 1989, there has only been on brief period, lasting for two years, in which the Secretary General of the Urban Council Secretariat was hired on contract terms. This period lasted for two years only because the Secretary General accepted re-employment for two more years after his retirement. After this period, all Secretary Generals or staff of the Secretariat are civil servants. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I just want to provide some information.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr MOK Ying-fan, would you clarify whether you are now talking about just one single person?
MR MOK YING-FAN(in Cantonese): No, the whole Secretariat.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): All are non-civil servants?
MR MOK YING-FAN(in Cantonese): All are civil servants.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): All are civil servants except the Secretary General?
MR MOK YING-FAN(in Cantonese): In the two years between 1989 and 1991, there was a Secretary General named SPENCER, and he was hired for two years on contract terms. But, since 1991, as far as I know, the staff of the whole Secretariat are civil servants.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW(in Cantonese): Madam President, I believe that when we study a piece of legislation and consider whether a certain rule should be made, we should not make our decision on the basis of whether or not the scenario to be dealt with by the rule is actually already in existence. The purpose of enacting legislation is to set down the law required, and in our case now. We are supposed to set down a law on whether or not non-civil servant staff members of the two Municipal Councils should have the right to run in Legislative Council elections. In other words, whether or not there are currently any non-civil servant staff members in these secretariats is not a matter of any significance at all, because circumstances do change all the time; at this moment, there may not be any; next month, there may be some; but, the month after next, the situation may change again. Therefore, our most important concern should be the principle underlying this piece of legislation, and this involves the question of whether or not we should allow non-civil servant staff members of these secretariats to run in Legislative Council elections. In addition, I have to ask, why should there be one regulation for the Legislative Council Secretariat, but a different one for the Urban Council Secretariat? Or, the Government should perhaps tell us why this prohibition was found in the old law, but not to be found in the new law. Why has the Government become so funny in its policy-making? I think that the most important concern for Members should be this: Should the staff members of the secretariats of the three-tier Councils, or the employees recruited directly by them on their own, be allowed to run in Legislative Council elections? And, may I ask again, is the analogy to the Chinese General Chamber of Commerce at all appropriate?
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, you do not wish to reply, do you?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): I wish to. (Laughter) I have to explain something first. What we are considering today is the Legislative Council Bill, and what we are discussing are the electoral arrangements for the Legislative Council. I believe that Members will still remember our last disucssion on this issue. It was pointed out that, in the past, the electoral arrangements for different representative Councils were dealt with and specified under several different ordinances. The point which Members put forward just now involves the proposal to draw up a single bill to cover all the elections to the three-tier Councils, a single bill under which the staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat are to be prohibited from running in Legislative Council elections and the staff of the two Municipal Councils are to be similarly barred from partaking in the elections to their respective Councils. Therefore, we should not mix up these three types of elections. What we are discussing here are Legislative Council elections. Naturally and logically, the staff of the Legislative Council should not run in any elections to the Legislative Council. But, we think that the application of such a prohibition should not be extended to the two provisional regional bodies.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI, do you wish to reply?
MR RONALD ARCULLI:Madam Chairman, I beg to disagree with the interpretation that the Secretary has put forward. The law is very clear. All of them are involved in the same section, and even if it refers to "three tier elections", I did not realize, actually, that a district board had permanent staff, but maybe I am wrong.
I think as far as the Municipal Councils and the Legislative Council are concerned, if they cannot partake in the election of either council, that is understandable, and that is fair and that is equal. But I cannot remember the law being, as interpreted by the Secretary, namely, that only Legislative Council staff cannot take part in Legislative Council elections or indeed municipal council staff take part in the election of those councils. But they could cross over, so to speak, and partake in the election of the other council. If that is so, then I really find it even more strange because logic dictates that if that was the law then the law was wrong.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, at first, I wanted to respond to the point raised by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, but what the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI has just said already covers all the points I have in mind. I think that the Secretary's point is wrong. (in English) It must be wrong.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to subclause (1)(a) of clause 37 moved by Mr Ronald ARCULLI be approved.
Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
Mr Ronald ARCULLI and Mrs Selina CHOW rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Committee shall 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 to subclause (1)(a) of clause 37 moved by Mr Ronald ARCULLI be approved. Will Members please proceed to vote?
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.
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 Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr LAU Wong-fat and Mrs Miriam LAU voted for the amendment.
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, 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, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, 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, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.
Mr Kennedy WONG abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 19 Members in favour of the amendment, 34 against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): As the amendment to subclause (1)(a) to clause 37 proposed by Mr Ronald ARCULLI has been negatived, I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to move his amendment to subclause (1)(a) of clause 37. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclause (1)(a) of clause 37 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 37 (see Annex III)
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): Still on clause 37, Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (1)(b), (c) and (e)(i) of clause 37 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Basically, I think that the restriction on the eligibility of candidates should be relaxed. In respect of fugitives, restriction should be confined to the fugitives of Hong Kong and the imprisonment term causing disqualification should be amended to apply to prison terms exceeding three months only. Voters may find the restriction too harsh if this amendment is not added because without this amendment persons convicted of relatively minor offences will still be barred from candidature. As for the period from the date of conviction during which a person is to be disqualified, the previous law specified 10 years, and now the Government proposes to reduce the period to five years. But, I consider four years to be adequate for the purpose. In regard to those criminal offences which may make the convicted liable to loss of eligibility, I propose that the prison term causing loss of eligibility should be three years instead of three months because only people having committed more serious offences should suffer the loss of eligibility in the future.
I know that the amendment is very complicated. But, I can explain to Members that the basic direction of the amendment is towards more liberalization and more latitude. If even Hong Kong cannot allow more latitude, what other places can do so? Members can notice that the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government has already allowed more latitude than the former government. But to me, this is not good enough. I put forward this suggestion in 1995, but it did not receive the support of the Members of the former legislature. I may not receive the support of Members this time either, but I still think that I have the responsibility to bring this up again.
If, once again, I fail to win Members' support for this amendment which aims to allow more latitude, I hope that Members will think about this: if a person commits a certain criminal offence relating to corruption or corrupt practices at an election, then for how many years should he be deprived of his eligibility? Ten years, 20 years, 30 years, or, rather, five years, four years or three years? I call on Members to try to consider this issue with leniency. Of course, if Members favour harsh laws, I have nothing more to say. Nevertheless, I will adopt a lenient attitude and so I hope that Members will also think about it from this angle. In fact, leniency may not necessarily lead to deterioration; on the contrary, leniency may bring forward a better situation.
I hope that Members will support my amendment to clause 37(1)(a) and if it is not carried, I may not move the remaining amendments. The amendments that I put forward for Members' consideration are in the form of a package. However, although it is in the form of a package, owing to procedural considerations, I can only put forward some opinions about clause 37 now. I hope that Members will support my advocation of latitude.
If everyone thinks that it is inappropriate to relax the law, this will show that the SAR Government is very wary about the whole situation of Hong Kong, and thus thinks that the laws should be tightened. But I think that the SAR Government should be more lenient than the former government. If Members still do not agree with me, there is nothing I can do. I still hope that Members will be lenient and view the whole thing with latitude.
With these remarks, I beg to move. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 37 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Members wish to speak?
(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): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Andrew WONG be approved.
Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Member responded)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I think that "noes" have it. The "noes" have it.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, as your amendment to clause 37 has been negatived, your proposed amendments to schedule 4 are not allowed.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (1)(b), (1)(e) and (1)(g) of clause 37 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 37 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Members 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 that "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Both Mr Andrew WONG and the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs have separately given notices to propose amendments to subclause (1)(i) of clause 37.
I propose that the amendments proposed separately 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 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Rules of Procedure. Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I cannot see much sense in this amendment. That said, I would rather like to hear what the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs is going to say. What actually are the differences? I fail to understand why the Government has been so insistent on the original provisions of its bill. I am faced with a mountain. It is hard for me to hold on. I want a bit more latitude, but the Government says that because a rule has already been laid down in the original provision of the Bill, no further latitude can be allowed. But the point is that the Government has been dwelling on such a trivial matter for such a long time without perhaps realizing what it is all about. I want to ask the Secretary to clarify what on earth we are debating now. And, what have I forwarded? Maybe he does not know. Well, I do not know either. (Laughter) Members all do not know? Perhaps the Chairman does not know either. All we know is just a figure. That is all. This is real and this is the fact. No real discussion ......
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Do you not know what your amendment is all about?
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): I do.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Then, do not say that no one in this Chamber knows. At least you know. (Laughter)
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, there is such a possibility. It is possible that you do not know, and neither do I, nor does anyone else. (Laughter) I am moving an amendment to subclause (1)(i) of clause 37 as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The point contained in this amendment is plain and readily comprehensible to Members. So, either they support it or they do not (Laughter). The reason is that the amendment preceding this one has already been negatived. I want to ask the Government to clarify what is actually going on, that is, what indeed they are talking about. (Laughter)
Proposed amendment
Clause 37 (see Annes III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I will call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to speak on the amendment moved by Mr Andrew WONG as well as his own proposed amendment, but will not ask the Secretary to move his amendment unless Mr Andrew WONG's amendment has been negatived. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, actually I had no intention to speak. This amendment is about the disqualification of a person from being nominated as a candidate on account of bankruptcy. We have already expounded our arguments in the Bills Committee and our proposal has also been stated clearly in the Bill. Hence I have nothing to add.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, in regard to all the amendments moved by Mr Andrew WONG, we, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, will give our support. In rising to speak now, I would like to make a special appeal to Members that they should support this amendment.
Disqualification from voting in an election is to some extent, a deprivation of political rights. Similary, disqualification from being nominated as a candidates is also a deprivation of the political right to run in elections. Should a bankrupt person be disqualified from being elected? What is the political rationale behind such a disqualification? My understanding is that bankruptcy is usually caused by financial factors. I do not know whether there are any other factors which may also cause bankruptcy. Will the Government, therefore, tell us whether bankruptcy is in fact also caused by other criminal or political factors which may in turn necessitate the deprivation of the political right to run in elections? I consider this disqualification a rather serious punishment. Actually, being declared bankrupt is already a punishment, but the amendment proposed by the Government will impose yet another penalty, a political penalty, on bankrupt persons.
Bankruptcy is not a crime. Here, I call on Members to think carefully whether we should deprive bankrupt persons of their political rights. I hope that Members would have a think about it.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, earlier I was joking when I said that I did not know what I was talking about. Actually, the point is very simple. It is all about bankruptcy. We are talking about the issue of candidature rather than the issue of electors which I failed to get Members' support earlier. Concerning voters, the Administration is now proposing a restriction which is harsher than that applied by the former government; even hasher still on candidates. If a person is bankrupt but is "discharged bankrupt", then even though he has not repaid his debts in full, we might as well let him go because legally he is no longer a debtor! Of course, it would be best if one can repay all one's debts, for if a person has not repaid all his debts, and if this is discovered, voters would not vote for him anyway.
I do not understand why the Administration has to be so edgy. Our former system was already far too stringent. Now, some rules are relaxed, but some others are tightened. For instance, the restriction on escaped convicts is tightened; and, in the past, if one was convicted of and imprisoned for a certain crime, he had to wait 10 years before he could regain his eligibility to candidature; the restriction is now relaxed, to five years. Is this adjustment a reflection of genuine latitude? I very much doubt it. I notice that the SAR Government is not handling things with latitude. I think that the healthiest approach for the Government to is look at Hong Kong with latitude; treat its people with latitude; and look at the next 10, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years with latitude because we have confidence in Hong Kong. I really cannot see why the Government has to be so edgy.
I hope Members would understand that I had once proposed the same amendments as early as 1995. Members of the legislature of the former government did not support them. But if Members of the present legislature still refuse to support them, they should not be excused. Is it really true that the incumbent Members are even more conservative than those in the former legislature? I do not think so. We should be more open, and we should allow more latitude. The amendments which I have moved today are all the same as those I moved in 1994 and 1995. They did not get any support then and if they still fail to get Members' support now, I will certainly wonder why I should still serve as a Member. Perhaps, I should not be a Legislative Council Member. It would be better for me to be a teacher.
I am just grumbling, and I know that many newspapers are criticizing me for doing so. But, my grumble is not without any causes, because I am not playing with politics, and I just wish to tell everyone my heartfelt feelings. Incidentally, the authorities do not seem to be so bad after all, because having grumbled so much, I can still survive here. My only wish is to inspire Members' thoughts. I hope that Honourable colleagues would support this amendment. Although my previous amendment was not carried, I still hope that this one can be passed. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to subclause (1)(i) of clause 37 moved by Mr Andrew WONG be approved.
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): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, you may move your amendment to subclause (1)(i) of clause 37.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): I move that subclause (1)(i) of clause 37 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 37 (see Annex III)
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 37 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 39, 40, 41, 42, 52, 57 and 58.
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 39 (see Annex III)
Clause 40 (see Annex III)
Clause 41 (see Annex III)
Clause 42 (see Annex III)
Clause 52 (see Annex III)
Clause 57 (see Annex III)
Clause 58 (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 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 39, 40, 41, 42, 52, 57 and 58 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 46 and 51.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the amendment to subclause (4) of clause 46 and the addition of subclause (1A) to clause 51 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Madam Chairman, this amendment principally seeks to provide that a voter should be allowed to vote once at an election. I think that for any government, the conduct of elections is a very solemn and serious piece of work because elections are meant to select the leaders or members of the parliamentary assemblies of a country or place. Under the fundamental principle on election laid down by the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO) or the international covenants on human rights, all elections should aim ultimately at universality, equality and openess. The Basic Law, in particular, provides that the ultimate aim is for Hong Kong to elect all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in direct elections. But, in the present transitional period, we still have to return the Legislative Council by three different types of elections, which are direct geographical constituency elections, functional constituency elections and Election Committee elections. I will attempt to explain the meaning of universality, equality and openness here.
First of all, "by universal", it is meant that every eligible voter shall have the right to vote for his own representative to speak and make legislative decisions on behalf of him in a parliamentary assemby (in this case I will focus on the Legislative Council).
By "open", it is meant that in the process of the whole election, all people are allowed to see the operation of the entire system, and thus no one can commit any "irregularities" which may tarnish the credibility of the election.
"Equal" has two levels of meaning. The first level is equality in the number of votes which each voter can cast. That is to say that everyone should have the same number of votes, be it one, two or three. The other level concerns the equal "weight" of each vote, that is the vote that I cast shoud weigh the same as that cast by anyone else. We have studied a human rights case heard by a Canadian court in the 1940s. The judge stated in his judgement that it was very difficult to achieve an equal weight for all votes because it would be difficult to delineate constituencies with exactly equal electorate sizes. He said that even if we planned to set up all constituencies with an equal electorate size of 300 000 electors each, we would find it impossible to do so in the course of actual delineation. As a result, he said, one constituency might have 300 000 electors in the end, but other might have just 250 000 or as many as 400 000. He therefore pointed out that the weight of an elector's vote in such a case might be one 300 000th, or one 250 000th, or one 400 000th, depending on the electorate size of the constituency to which the elector belonged. The judge's conclusion was that equality in weight was difficult to achieve, and we could just do as much as we could under the constraints imposed by objective circumstances. However, for equality in the number of votes which each elector could cast, the judge said that there must not be any compromise. In other words, strict equality in this respect must be observed.
In the present context of Hong Kong, if we are to assess the three types of elections on the basis of universality, equality and openness we will see that direct geographical constituency elections can basically satisfy these three principles. But, functional constituency elections are obviously inadequate, first in terms of universality, and second in terms equality; with respect to openness, I find functional constituency elections acceptable. Election Committee elections are not universal either. In respect of equality, I must say that the 800 functional constituency representatives on the Election Committee actually have two and a half votes because voters in geographical constituencies, except those 8 000 people who also belong to functional constituencies, all have one vote each only.
Given this situation, it is very obvious that in respect of equality in the number of votes which each voter can cast, if we look at the three types of elections separately, that is, if we treat each of them independently, we will see that only direct geographical constituency elections can meet the requirement of equality. But then, if we look at all these three types of elections as an integrated package to return the 60-Member Legislative Council, it will be difficult for us to assess whether there is equality.
In fact, before this meeting, I discussed this amendment with the Honourable Andrew WONG, who is sitting next to me, and who happens to be my former teacher. He does not support the amendment. In particular, his concern is that if my proposal is implemented, that is, if after a voter has chosen to cast his vote in any one of the three types of elections, he would automatically be disqualified from voting at the remaining two types of elections, thus denying the direct geographical elections of universality. This is probably a major emphasis of the BORO.
Actually, Members should realize that my amendment aims to shift their attention from this emphasis to another emphasis. Is it more important to have universality for the elections which can return just 20 seats or one third of the seats on the Legislative Council? Or, is it more important for us to ensure more equality by making sure that each and every voter can cast the same number of votes in the elections returning all 60 Members to the Legislative Council? Actually, by moving this amendment, I hope that Members would compare these two choices and decide which one is more important. Taking the 60 seats as a whole, as long as not all the seats are returned by universal suffrage, it is very hard to satisfy the principles of universality, equality and openness mentioned above. That being the case, I would prefer an electoral system which the general public, or at least I myself, find more appropriate. In other words, whether a voter chooses to vote at functional constituency elections, Election Committee elections or constituency geographical elections, each and every voter should be allowed to vote once only in the same election to choose one representative to speak, discusses legislative issues and vote for him in future Legislative Coucnil meetings.
Last year, a citizen sued our Government for implementing the functional constituency elections which he claimed were in breach of the BORO. The judgement of the court was that functional constituency elections was indeed in contravention with the principles of universality and equality. But, because these elections are provided for in the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions, and since the constitution should override the laws of Hong Kong, the court ruled that the plaintiff should lose his case.
The judgment of the court is actually very enlightening in that it declared functional constituency elections to be in breach of the principles of universality and equality. But, let us take a look at the whole Legislative Council Election again, that is, the electoral law that we are discussing today. The Election includes not only direct geographical constituency elections; rather, it is composed of three types of elections which together make up the whole package of elections to return the first Legislative Council. From this angle, we can see that if someone voluntarily gives up his right to vote in the geographical constituencies and chooses to vote in the functional constituencies instead, his behavour, in terms of implication, will just be the same as the behaviour of those eligible voters who did not turn up for voting in the past (remembering that the turn-out rate was about 40% in the last election, which means that about 60% of the eligible voter did not turn up for voting. But, in the past, we did not say that our direct geographical constituency elections were not universal because some voters did not turn up for voting). In other words, if a voter now chooses to vote in the functional constituencies with an electorate of 180 000 voters, should we then say that their decision is a factor which deprives direct geographical constituency elections of their universality? If we do so, why did we not criticize our past elections for being not universal when 60% electors did not turn up to vote?
On basis this perspective, I have moved the amendment today in the hope that Members would think about how best to design a fairer electoral system under which all people, having satisfied some basic requirements, can enjoy equality, or as much equality as possible, in terms of the number of votes they can cast and in terms of the weight of their votes. This is the main purpose of my amendment today.
I would like to raise one more point here. In this Legislative Council Election, what will be the difference between the greatest number of votes per person and the smallest number of votes per person? First, if a person meets the requirements of an ordinary voter, he has one vote in the geographical constituencies; if the person is also a member of the 180 000-strong functional constituencies, he can also cast one vote in the functional constituencies, which means he will have two votes; if the person happens to be a member of the functional constituencies and is also a member of the functional constituencies on the six lists, then he can elect one of the 800 representatives to the Election Committee. I count this vote of electing 800 representatives to the Election Committee as half or one quarter of a vote. Thus about 180 000 people can cast more than one vote. The number of votes these people can cast is therefore between 120% and 150% of the number of votes which can be cast by those who can vote only in direct geographical constituency elections.
Another problem that may arise in functional constituency elections is connnected with corporate votes. We have always been opposed to the idea of corporate votes. Two types organizations will adopt coporate votes. One type is societies in general, and in this case, it is possible that the executive committee of a society may select a representative to vote, or that the executive committee may simply decide the voting preference of the society. I think that corporate votes will become an even greater problem in the case of commercial firms. When a corporation registers as a voter in a functional constituency, the corporation will choose a representative to vote according to the corporation's wishes. In many cases, it is the controlling shareholder holding over 51% of the corporation's shares who decides where the vote should go. If I am very rich, so rich that I am one of the top ten tycoons in the world (there are three or four such persons in Hong Kong), and I am controlling 51% of the shares of over 50 corporations, then I can give 50 orders on how to vote in one functional constituency or several functional constituencies. In 1991, we, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood, conducted a study and found that a shareholder of a big company owned over 51% of the shares of 23 companies. He is definitely controlling more than 23 companies by now, six years down the road. This is precisely where unfairness will emerge.
I reiterate that in moving this amendment which provides that one person may only cast one vote, I hope that the principles of universality, equality and openness prescribed in the BORO can be realized, and in particular, I hope that the value of equality can be enhanced and strengthened, so that this Election will come closer to the goal of one person being able to choose one representative. Of course, ultimately, the only way to conform with the Basic Law as well as the BORO is to have all 60 seats returned by direct elections.
I hope that the Government will, having discussed this electoral law and after the first Legislative Council Election is over, review our electoral law as soon as possible and study how to make it conform with the Basic Law and the BORO. I hope that this Council will have a longer discussion before the second Legislative Council Election and will propose to amend the Basic Law after consulting the general public so that all 60 seats of the second Legislative Council will be returned by direct elections.
Madam Chairman, in moving this amendment, I wish to emphasize that every voter should be equal in the process of this election.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. P ALIGN="JUSTIFY">Proposed amendments
Clause 46 (see Annex III)
Clause 51 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mrs Elsie TU.
MRS ELSIE TU: Madam Chairman, I rise to agree with Mr FUNG's amendment. I tried to put this amendment before the Legislative Council in 1994, but I was defeated, mainly by the Democratic Party, though Mr FUNG and quite a lot of others supported me.
I give you an example. In 1985, I had three votes: one in the Urban Council; one in the Education Section; and one in geographical constituency. I thought that was wrong. In 1995, I had two votes: one in Education Section and one in geographical area.
I disagree with people having two votes while others have one. In 1995, 70% of the voters had two votes and 30% had only one vote, which means 30% of the people are equal to half a person, not a real, whole person.
And therefore I agree with Mr FUNG's motion that it should be one person, one vote and therefore I support his amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Dr Raymond HO
DR RAYMOND HO(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I mentioned earlier that I thought it was undesirable for the Basic Law to allow 20% of the Members of the Legislative Council to be persons having the right of abode in foreign countries. Now, I want to point out that I think it is equally undesirable for the Basic Law to allow 10 out of 60 members of the Legislative Council to be returned through the Election Committee. We supported the idea of a so-called "grand electoral college" in the course of drafting the Basic Law because we were aware that under the past appointment system, many elites and prominent members of society who did not wish to, did not like or were not accustomed to run in elections could be given an alternative way to serve in the legislature. So, we came up with the idea of a "grand electoral college" electoral system, whereby 10 Members of the Legislative Council shall be returned through the Election Committee.
However, I think this electoral system did not work very well for the Provisional Legislative Council election last year. Our proposal on a 800 strong "grand electoral college" was eventually accepted, though the first Election Committee had only got 400 members. From the experience of the past election, we could see that the electoral system of returning Members through an Election Committee of 400 members had turned out to be a far cry from the former appointment system or the idea of providing those elites who do not wish to run for elections an opportunity to serve in the Legislative Council.
In view of the present circumstances, it appears necessary to have the current electoral system amended as soon as possible. I am now no longer in favour of the current electoral system of returning Members to the Legislative Council through three different types or elections, and I find the Election Committee system particularly undesirable. As regards the question on which of the three existing types of elections is the most desirable, I have pointed out on many public occasions that the electoral system which will be most acceptable to the public should be one under which everyone will be equal and have just one vote. So, if a voter chooses to vote in geographical constituencies elections, then he must not be allowed to vote in functional constituency elections; or if the voter chooses to vote in functional constituencies election, likewise he must not be allowed to vote in geographical constituencies elections. I have also pointed out that the electoral system of one vote per person would be fairer than the existing system. I am, therefore, also in support of the amendment moved by Mr Frederick FUNG that each voter shall be entitled to vote only once, no matter whom he seeks to elect.
Furthermore, I am also not in favour of corporate votes. The reason is that with the exception of a few associations or traditional associations, the directorships in the associations change once a year or two by way of general elections. Since all important issues of an association are generally decided by the executive committee, the executive committee members will have to make the important decision on how to vote if associations are adopted as voting units. But, this will be undesirable if senior members of the association are not given a chance to participate in the decision making just because they have stepped down from key posts or have left the executive committee. For the reasons given above, I hope Members will support Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my Honourable colleagues do not seem to have paid any serious attention to my amendment and the legal viewpoints which I put forward earlier. But let me remind them that if they consider Mr Frederick FUNG's current amendment carefully, they will realize that after the election next year, there will not be any voters left in Hong Kong for the second Legislative Council election. Why do I say so? This is because clause 51(1A) provides that a person registered as a voter shall be disqualified from voting in an election if the person has voted more than once in an election. This clause does not specify that a person shall be disqualified only if he has voted more than once in the same election. Therefore, if a voter votes once in the 1998 election and again in the 2000 election, then he will have actually voted more than once in an election. That is why I say that there will not be any voters left in Hong Kong. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have already had a discussion with Mr Frederick FUNG. Although he has very good intentions, just like in Mrs Elsie TU who also has very good intentions, I think that a big legal problem may arise if all our elections have to be universal, equal and direct. The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance does not require that there must be direct elections, and indirect elections are also allowed, though they must at least be universal and equal. There is no way, moreover, that a functional constituency election can be universal and equal.
I may have touched on a very difficult academic issue. But I have to say clearly what will happen if a person is really allowed to vote once at election only. The Legislative Council Election as currently proposed is to consist of three types of elections. So, if Mr FUNG's amendment is carried, after a person has registered as a voter for functional constituency elections, he will be disqualified from voting at geographical constituency elections. This is, in a way, forcing him to make a choice. Geographical constituency elections have always been both universal and equal because geographical constituencies of more or less the same sizes are delineated according to demographic distribution, and direct elections are held in them. But if we accept the flawed one-person one-vote concept, forcing each elector to vote once only, we will be forcing the elector to make a choice. When one chooses to register as a voter for the functional constituencies, he will be disqualified from voting at geographical constituency elections. Consequently, even geographical constituency elections may also become neither universal nor equal as a result.
I once asked the Government for legal advice at a meeting of a Bills Committee. At the debate on 19 June 1996, the Attorney General gave us a piece of legal advice which I have sent to Mr Frederick FUNG for reference, and I suppose he has already received it. It is clearly written inter alia that such an arrangement would possibly be challenged in court, though the then Attorney General would of course refrain from saying that it is incorrect. Therefore, I think that both the one-person one-vote system as put forward by Mr Frederick FUNG and the one proposed by Mrs Elsie TU are founded on unsound arguments. In the present transitional period, we must have some, though not all, seats that can fully meet the principle of universality and equality. We admit that the functional constituency seats should only be a transitional arrangement and many Members have made this very clear in their remarks. Under these circumstances, the proposal for such a one-person one-vote system is totally inappropriate and is also in breach of the requirements of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The requirements of the Ordinance are just the same as those contained in Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Of course, we do not have to stick to Article 25 of the Covenant because we have already made a reservation. However, even if only some seats can be returned in the way that meet the requirements, it is better than not having any at all. Therefore, I do not think that Mr Frederick FUNG's amendments should be supported. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, please speak.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, just as Mr Andrew WONG pointed out, when the former Legislative Council examined the electoral bill in 1994, the Attorney General had already pointed out that this proposal might breach the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance because it would indirectly deprive some voters of their right to vote in the direct elections of geographical constituencies.
For this reason, we object to this amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, do you wish to reply?
MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, it is so late now but several Members have still spoken on my amendment. So, whether they agree with me or not, I have to thank them.
First of all, I want to reply to Mr Ronald ARCULLI's query. Members must not be misled by him. He is not in this Chamber right now. Perhaps, it is getting too late now, and he has therefore failed to read carefully how I have worded my amendment. Will Members please look at clause 51(1A), which reads: "A person registered as an elector is disqualified from voting at an election if the person has voted more than once at an election". This differs in meaning from Mr Ronald ARCULLI's claim that a person will have trouble voting again in 2000 if he has voted in 1998. Under clause 51(1A), a person is disqualified from voting only if he votes more than once at one single election. This certainly does not mean that if one has voted at an election, he is to be disqualified from voting at subsequent elections. Rather, disqualification will arise only if a person has voted more than once at one single election. So, it should not be argued that one cannot vote in 2000 after he has voted in 1998. Hence, I think that Mr Ronald ARCULLI is actually trying to hide the truth. He is a lawyer, and so, I consider his action inexcusable.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI, do you wish to seek an elucidation from Mr Frederick?
MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I would like to ask Mr Frederick FUNG to clarify whether Hong Kong is practising bilingual legislation. If both languages are used, who is supposed to decide which version is authentic? If he cares to do so, I would ask him to read both the English and Chinese versions.
MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): I have read the Chinese version only. For the English version ...... I think that the Chinese version should prevail because I wrote it myself, and then asked someone to translate it into English for me. So there may be inaccuracy in the translated version. Would Mr Ronald ARCULLI please also read the Chinese version?
As there may have been some misunderstanding, I will not blame him. I hope that I can allay Mr Ronald ARCULLI's worries and that he would support my amendments.
Regarding the point on elections on an equal and universal basis brought up by Mr Andrew WONG, I have already said that under the present electoral system, it is impossible for us to achieve both of these two objectives in the Legislative Council Election. For example, in order to be fair, it is most desirable that everyone is given one bowl of rice. But, the present situation is that the majority of the people can have only one third of a bowl of rice, while a minority of 180 000 people can have two and a half bowls. Yet, some people still insist that the majority of 6.3 million people should continue to eat one third of a bowl of rice each for the sake of making the election genuinely universal. But what is the actual purpose of such insistence? It is to ensure or make it possible that some can continue to eat two and a half bowls of rice. Looking at this insistence from another angle, we will see that when some people are allowed to eat two and half bowls of rice, six million other people, who have only one third of a bowl to eat, are in fact deprived of their rights.
Therefore, I think that the existing electoral system is in breach of the Bill of Rights no matter how we look at it. The reason is that for as long as there are three types of elections returning Members to the Legislative Council, we cannot possibly comply with the Bill of Rights, whether or not we retain the current practice of allowing one person to vote once or twice, or whether or not we adopt my proposal of allowing one elector to vote once at an election only. This point has in fact been stated in a court judgement in 1996 to which I referred earlier. That being the case, I have to ask: universality and equality, which one is more important? The Government considers universality important, but I insist that equality is important, and it may be even more important than universality. That is why I have proposed this amendment.
Even if this amendment is passed today, I will not worry that it will be challenged by the court. When functional constituency elections were challenged by someone in 1996 on the ground that they were in breach of the Bill of Rights, the judge ruled that since such elections were prescribed in the Letters Patent and the Royal Instructions, and since these constitutional documents should be superior to the laws of Hong Kong, the appellant should lose his case. In other words, since the Basic Law provides for three types of elections, then even if a judicial challenge is instigated on account of universality in future, and if the same logic applies, the court will have a precedent to follow. It may probably rule that the Basic Law is the constitution of Hong Kong; hence, it is superior to the laws of Hong Kong and cannot be challenged.
With these remarks, I would like to call on everyone to support my amendment, which stipulates that one person shall vote only once at an election.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by Mr Frederick FUNG be approved.
Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
Mr Frederick FUNG rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The Committee shall now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That the amendments moved by Mr Frederick FUNG, which propose one person should vote only once at an election. Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.
Dr Raymond HO, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendments.
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, 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, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Andrew WONG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YEUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, 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 amendments.
Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr CHAN Choi-hi abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were six Members in favour of the amendments, 40 against and two abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendments were negatived.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (1), (4) and (5) of clause 46 and subclauses (1) and (3) of clause 51 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Most of these amendments are technical in nature but the amendments to clause 51 reflect the regulation which I referred to earlier on: to be eligible to vote at Legislative Council elections, a member of the Election Committee must be a registered voter for a geographical constituency.
Proposed amendments
Clause 46 (see Annex III)
Clause 57 (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 Andrew WONG, as the amendment to clause 29 that you moved earlier has been negatived, and your amendment to clause 51 is related to it, do you wish to withdraw this amendment?
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I just want to say that I cannot move the amendment now because my proposed amendment to clause 29 has been negatived, and the relevant provision contained in clause 51 is the same as that contained in clause 29 only that they appear in different places. Therefore, even if you permit, I will not move the amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclause (5) of clause 51 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 51 (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 46 and 51 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 24.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that subclauses (2) and (6) of clause 24 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 24 (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 24 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 59.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Both the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs and Mr Bruce LIU have separately given notices to propose amendments to subclause (3) of 59.
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): The Committee will now proceed to 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 that subclause (3) of clause 59 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The original intent of this relevant clause of the Legislative Council Bill is to specify that the grounds for lodging an election petition should cover matters relating to nomination proceedings and the decisions of the Returning Officer or any Assistant Returning Officer, but not the registration of electors prior to nomination proceedings.The aim of this amendment is to give this intent more clarity.
The amendment of Mr Bruce LIU will produce effects which are exactly opposite to the Government's policy intent. Therefore we object to Mr LIU's amendment.
Clause 32 of the Bill has already provided for an appeal mechanism for the registration of voters so as to ensure the definitive authority of the final register. Hence, we should not mix up this mechanism and the lodging of election petitions.
The Government now proposes that under clause 59, there shall be a valid ground for lodging an election petition if a corrupt or illegal practice was engaged in by or in respect of someone at or in connection with an election; or corrupt or illegal practices were generally prevalent at or in connection with an election. This arrangement has been proven effective and viable by the experience of past elections, and it is also acceptable to the public. Therefore, we consider the Government's proposal reasonable.
Proposed amendment
Clause 59 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I will call upon Mr Bruce LIU to speak on the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs as well as his own amendment, but will not ask Mr LIU to move his amendment unless the amendment of the Secretary for Constitutional Affair has been negatived.
MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my amendment seeks to include the registration of electors in the definition of elections as set out in clause 59(3) of the Legislative Council Bill. In other words, in this section, as far as the election petition is concerned, "election" includes the registration of electors, nomination proceedings and all other steps taken to enable the election to be held.
If my amendment is passed, when an aggrieved party questions the validity of an election by means of election petitions, he has to base on the grounds of material irregularity occurred in relation to the election. The Government has just said that election petitions should not cover matters relating to the registration of electors, but I disagree. I think that three questions have to be dealt with.
First, when does an election actually start? The amended version of the Government now is that at the very most, it should start from the nomination process, and come to an end when the Returning Officer comes up with a decision. So, nomination should be the earliest possible stage which an election petition can cover. Formally speaking, we can of course state clearly that an election will start from nomination, but how about the real situation? Does an election start from nomination? Some disagree, saying that the first Legislative Council election has already started today or even before that.
Let us take a look at the real world. For example, when should a candidate be considered to have started to incur election expenses? As we understand it, not the time when one registers as a candidate and starts printing publicity materials. Rather, we have good reasons to believe that all publicity expenses incurred before candidature registration for the purpose of electioneering should be counted as election expenditure. If the total expenditure exceeds a certain limit, even if the candidate is returned, he shall be disqualified because he has breached the regulation against corrupt practices at an election. The timeframe for investigation into irregularities at an election does not use candidature registration as the starting point
The second question. Some people argue that if the registration of voters is also included in the definition of "election" for the purpose of lodging election petitions, many unnecessary litigation would arise because whenever there are any problems in the registration of voters, great confusion would be created. I feel that we should not worry about this. Anyone wishing to lodge an election petition has to go through certain technical procedures before he can do so. Particularly, under clause 59, no one can lightly lodge any election petitions in relation to the registration of voters; as it is provided, in clause 59(1)(a)(iv), that an election petition may only be lodged on grounds of material irregularity occurred in relation to the registration of electors. To meet this criterion, it requires more than an ordinary problem in the registration of electors; rather, some material irregularity occurred in relation to the election. In addition, one has to pay for his own expenses to lodge an election petition and hence no one would lightly lodge an election petition.
The third question. The Government has just said that any complaints about the registration of electors can be lodged by means of the appeal mechanism set out in clause 32. Nevertheless, an elector would normally lodge a complaint when he himself is disqualified from being registered as an elector. Few would lodge complaints in relation to the irregularities occurred in the registration of electors of the whole election, or especially in relation to the result of a particular election or irregularities occurred in the registration of electors and election results. Therefore, the appeal mechanism set out in clause 32 has little to do with the election petition.
Therefore, if we are to make our elections fairer, the Government should add one more mechanism to allow those who meet the requirements of clause 60 to lodge election petitions in case of material irregularities in relation to the registration of electors. Only then would it become a perfect mechanism for lodging complaints.
Madam Chairman, I so submit.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members may now debate the amendment moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs as well as the proposed amendment by Mr Bruce LIU. 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): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Honourable Bruce LIU has brought up quite a significant point to which the Government should respond.
The main problem is that if problems connected with constituencies arise in the process of elector registration, election petitions, as specified in this Bill, cannot possibly deal with them. For this reason, I raised a point at a meeting of the Bills Committee that the existing provision of "material irregularity occurred in relation to the election" may not be adequate, because "election" has been so defined to exclude elector registration. Hence, if problems arise in the course of elector registration, what should be done?
This is why I think that Mr Bruce LIU's amendment is really well-intentioned. I think that the Government has not paid any due attention to the views of the Bills Committee, because instead of making any corrections, it has clung to its own position as the only correct answer. I hope that the Government should at least have the decency of responding to Mr LIU's amendment. I did not intent to speak at first, but the lack of any response from the Government has prompted me to speak because I find it wrong of it not to respond. I hope that the Government will respond to the amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I do not think that there is any need for me to give a reply because we do not see any problems with this particular area. All the possibilities of litigation, to the best of our knowledge and understanding, are already covered in clauses 32 and 59. Nevertheless, Mr Andrew WONG and Mr Bruce LIU are worried that some very serious problems may arise as regards the registration of electors. But I do not know what serious problems they have in mind. Perhaps they can explain what these problems are. As far as we understand it, the present Bill has already covered all the problems concerning these two aspects, and we can offer sufficient justification.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment to subclause (3) of clause 59 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 rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is: That the amendment to subclause (3) of clause 59 moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs in relation to the definition of election including the nomination proceedings and the decisions of the Returning Officer or any Assistant Returning Officers.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, 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, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, 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, Mr Howard YEUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, 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 Andrew WONG, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 38 Members in favour of the amendment and seven against. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, as the amendment to subclause (3) of clause 59 proposed by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has been agreed, you may not move your amendment to the same subclause as it is inconsistent with the decision already taken.
CLERK(in Cantonese): Clause 59 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 62, 67, 70, 73, 80 and 81.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): I move that the clauses specified be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendments
Clause 62 (see Annex III)
Clause 67 (see Annex III)
Clause 70 (see Annex III)
Clause 73 (see Annex III)
Clause 80 (refer Annex III)
Clause 81 (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 62, 67, 70, 73, 80 and 81 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): Council will now deal with the unfinished business of schedule 2. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): I move that item 16 of table 1 of part 1 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (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): Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that table 2 and table 3 of part 1 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
The main purpose of the amendment is to move the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector from the third sector to the professional sector. According to the decision of the Preparatory Committee, the third sector of the Election Committee should consist of people from the social services, labour and religious fields. The Secretary has once said in the Bills Committee that sports, performing arts, culture and publication are all of the nature of social services and therefore should fall inside the Third Sector. But, the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) considers that most of the people in these fields have to undergo special training, and some in the sports field must even have professional qualifications. Therefore, we think that it is more appropriate to put them in the professional sector. Some individuals in these fields may of course oppose the DAB's amendment and we totally sympathize with their sentiments because the number of Election Committee members allocated to this subsector should be 40, but once they are re-classified under the professional sector, it may only have 18 representatives. But, the DAB has decided to put forward this amendment because are want to focus on the nature of this subsector to see whether it should belong to the professional sector or social service sector. We do not focus so much on the number of Election Committee members. Therefore, even though the amendment may reduce the number of this subsector's Election Committee members, we consider that it can properly recognize the professional status of sports, performing arts, culture and publication. So I hope that Honourable colleagues will support my amendment.
In addition, because my amendment suggests putting the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector under the second sector, the number of the Election Committee members representing the other subsectors in this Sector will also have to be reduced from 20 to 18 or 19.
Moreover, Madam Chairman, I have to amend table 3 too because after the subsector of sports, performing arts, culture and publication of the third sector has been re-classified under the professional sector, the 40 seats that they originally occupy will be left vacant and I suggest turning them over to the labour sector. The main reason for the DAB to move this amendment is that the labour sector have three seats in the functional constituencies; if the principle of allocating members to the industrial, commercial and financial subsectors in the first sector of the Election Committee is to be applied, that is, if, the functional constituencies of Commercial (first) and Commercial (second), as well as Industrial (first) and Industrial (second) are to be copied, then the labour subsector in the Third Sector should also be represented as three functional constituencies. However, as we do not wish to alter the representativeness of the other subsectors in the third sector, including the agriculture and fisheries, social welfare and religious subsectors, we only propose to turn over the seats vacated by the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector to the labour sector. I hope that my colleagues will support my amendment on increasing the number of the labour sector's representatives on the Election Committee, so that the distribution of Election Committee members will conform with the original idea.
Madam Chairman, I so submit.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Timothy FOK.
MR TIMOTHY FOK(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, Mr CHAN Kam-lam has proposed to move the sports, performing arts, culture and publications subsector from the third sector to the second sector. The people of the sports field have complained that they have not been told the reason so far. In addition, they also view that the proposed transfer will drastically reduce the number of seats allocated to the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector, thus further affecting the representiveness of the four groups which make up this subsector. For these reasons, I cannot support this arrangement.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK(in Cantonese): The amendment moved by the DAB has led to strong reverberations in the sports, performing arts, culture and publication fields. Actually, it has long been the hope of these four fields that a separate subsector can be set up for each of them, hence separate seats. However, in view of the competing claims from many other bodies, and out of a respect for the relevant decision of the Preparatory Committee, they have very much reluctantly accepted the arrangement of grouping them in one subsector for the first Legislative Council election.
Actually, each of the four groups plays a different but very important role, and each of them serve the community in a different capacity. In order to fight for representation, these four fields have been arguing with the Government over various issues since as early as 1992. The Government has always considered that since these four fields are not professional in nature, they should not be regarded as such in the delineation of functional constituencies, and excused itself in excluding them from the professional sector. Of course, we agree that our work do serve the community. We originally wanted to fight for the Government's recognition of our professional status. But regrettably, the Government has not acceded to our demand. So, when the Government now proposes to put us in the Third Sector as one single subsector, we have to accept the proposal, though very much reluctantly. Recognizing that seats are scarce, we have finally decided to accept the limited number of seats allocated to us, though we would very much like to have more seats and thus more representatives to give full expression to our opinions.
Having made our position clear, let me now point out that we do appreciate the rationale behind the DAB's amendment, that is, that the labour sector should be given more seats. But we have to understand that the arrangement proposed in the amendment is not the most desirable way to achieve the DAB's intented purpose, for we in these four fields are also faced with the same problem of not having sufficient seats. So, it will be very unfair if we seek to increase the number of seats for the labour sector at the expense of another sector which also plays an important role in the community. Since the sports, performing arts, culture and publication fields have very strong objections, there is no way that I can support this amendment.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN.
MR JAMES TIEN(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, two Members have just expressed their views on the allocation of seats for the subsector of culture and sports. Mrs CHAN Kam-lam has advanced the view that too few seats are allocated to the labour sector, and so, the number of seats for the labour sector should be increased from 40 to 80. For the 800-member Election Committee, 40 or 80 seats does not seem to occupy a very large proportion. But Mr CHAN Kam-lam should not forget that Members siding with the labour camp altogether will make up a fairly large proportion in the first Legislative Council. The DAB often supports the labour sector in voting. And I believe many members of the Democratic Party will be returned to the Legislative Council in the 1998 Election and they often support the labour sector in voting also. And then, there is also the Frontier. With these three parties as well as Members from the labour sector, I think that labour interests will be adequately represented.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN:Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI:Madam Chairman, poor Mr CHAN Kam-lam would have us believe that he is actually doing Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publishing a favour by promoting them from Sector Three to Sector Two. I suppose if numerical count-down makes any difference next time, they might find themselves in Sector One.
But it is a little transparent as to what the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) is trying to do. By promoting the Sports sector up to the second sector it does a number of things. It reduces the representatives of the Professional sector by each category by one or two; and it increases the Labour content, as it were, by 40, that is doubling it.
We have not heard from him, other than the fact that he says that, "well, if we split Labour into Labour One, Labour Two, Labour Three, like the Commercial sector, then we should get more representatives." Why has not he done so? Because if my mathematics is right, by kicking Sports upstairs, splitting Labour into three, in the third Sector they would be able to get about 100 votes, 100 representatives.
The real reason, I believe, is that you cannot split Labour into three. Look at the Labour Functional Constituency definition. It simply says: "trade unions registered under the Trade Union Ordinance of which all the voting members are employees." How do you split something like this into three sectors? So, do not be misled by that.
If, in fact, they do not kick the Sports sector up and they retain the Sports sector within the third sector, then the second string to his bow would be still to take 20 votes away from the Sports sector and give it to the Labour sector. Again, this is a very arbitrary figure.
Other than the fourth sector, which has its division of representatives because of the Preparatory Committee decision that there should be ex officio members, namely National People's Congress members and Members of the Provisional Legislature, the remainder has had to be divided, as it were, over the other bodies mentioned in that sector. Other than that, the Government has been consistent in equal distribution.
We earlier heard Mr MA Fung-kwok wanting to divide the votes into four sub-sectors within the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publishing and there was objection to that and that was voted down. And indeed even at the Bills Committee when I asked that question, the response by the Administration is that the whole purpose of the Election Committee is to actually have representatives coming in from the particular functional group or constituency, including the ones who do not have their own seats.
So, we cannot and we should not arbitrarily take votes away from a given sector simply because we have the view that it is not enough. If I were to stand here and say that the Real Estate and Construction Sector contributes to 25% of the GDP in Hong Kong, and that in that particular sector we should have 25% of the vote, I am sure I would be thrown out of this Chamber, and quite rightly, quite rightly so. So, why are we doing this? Why are we being asked to support this?
I said earlier during the Second Reading debate that we should have fair and open elections. I believe this attempt is a blatant attempt to garner control of a large section of the Election Committee, and if that happened, it does not matter what voting system you have. What we have been debating, what we have been trying to avoid, what we have been persuading each other, would go by the board.
So, I hope, when Members consider this, that they will not support either the removal of the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publishing Sector from the third sector to the second, nor support taking away their 40 representatives and give it to the Labour sector. And if that failed, I would also ask Members to vote against the fall-back, if I could put it that way, of poor old Mr CHAN Kam-lam where he takes away 20 votes from the Sports sector.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.
MR HOWARD YOUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, last might, when we debated the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Kam-lam on behalf of the DAB, I already pointed out that this amendment had led to reverberations in the community because many people looked upon it as a blow to the field of social work. This is indeed very unfortunate, but since the amendment has already been passed, we have no alternative but to accept it. In recent days, public opinions have cast doubts on the amendments moved by some particular sectors or political parties, dismissing them as attempts at "vote rigging" or "gerrymandering". The earlier amendment which has been passed is at best barely justifiable from a technical point of view. But, I am afraid that if we also pass this amendment now under consideration, people would not criticize us for "secret gerry-mandering" only; they would certainly criticize us for "robbery under broad daylight" as well. I am really worried that people would criticize us in this way. As described by Mr Ronald ARCULLI just now, this amendment is an attempt to kick out one subsector, and snatch what it has. If the Provisional Legislative Council endorses such a blatant misdeed today, I am worried, really worried that many more bitter criticisms will be drawn against us.
The classification of sports and culture as professions as rationalized by Mr CHAN sounds like a very lofty goal. No doubt, we have many elite athletes in Hong Kong, such as those trained up by the Hong Kong Sports Institute. They may have to pass some examinations too, and they are certainly elites. However, we must remember that the sports field also includes many bodies which are made up of nearly amateur masses. As I understand it, a profession is so named because an intending practitioner is required to obtain the relevant qualification by examination beforehand. Let me take some of the professions grouped under the existing functional constituencies as examples. These professions include, accountancy, education and so on, which all require an intending practitioner to obtain the relevant qualification beforehand. But, for the sports field, I do not think that it has reached such a stage of rigid requirement. I know very well that we are discussing the professional sectors in the Election Committee. However, since we are after all still discussing professions, we should adhere to some uniform standards of definition.
But, will the labour field then suffer any unfair treatment? The answer to this question can be found in Mr James TIEN's comments on the 40 seats allocated to the labour sector. The figure pointed out by Mr Ronald ARCULLI is right. If we follow Mr CHAN's argument, and agree that the labour field should split into three subsectors, then the matter will be very simple: after removing sports, performing arts, culture and publication from the Third Sector, there will be six subsectors in this Sector, with the labour field occupying three or half, of them. This will mean that the labour field should have 100 seats. How come they have come up with the figure of 80? That is illogical. I think that no matter what the argument is, the direction of the amendment must be correct. Since even the packaging of this proposed amendment is so poor, we can expect to hear even more criticisms from the public. Hence, I object to this amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.
MR TSANG YOK-SING(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, throughout this debate which has lasted for so many hours, the only reason which many Members have used to oppose the amendments seems to be that the DAB is suspected of "gerrymandering" and "vote rigging". Some Members have also mentioned the "packaging" of our amendments. But, why have they referred to "packaging"? To me, justifications and reasons are already the best "packaging".
When the Bills Committee examined this Bill, it did discuss whether sports, culture, performing arts and publication should belong to the second sector of the Election Committee, (that is the Professional Sector), and whether it should belong to the third sector. According to the Basic Law, the third sector should consist of labour, social services and religion. When the government representative pointed out that since arts and culture also served the community, they should be regarded as social services and grouped under the third sector, the whole meeting burst into laughter. Where these fileds should be placed is in fact a very controversial issue. So, we should not argue that moving them from the third sector to the second sector is to kick them out or to "snatch their seats".
Under the Bill put forward by the Government, the principle of equal seat allocation is applied to the subsectors of all other sectors. Then, how many subsectors are there altogether in the third sector? According to the Basic Law, there should be three, namely, the labour, social services and religious subsectors. How come, then, the labour, social services and religious subsectors, which make up one of the three main sectors, only occupy one fifth rather than one third, of the seats of the whole Election Committee? Mr Ronald ARCULLI has said that the labour subsector cannot be divided because it is all composed of trade unions, and we just cannot forcibly break them up into three parts. Actually the figures are very simple. We see that for the functional constituencies, the commercial functional constituency is split into two and the industrial functional constituency is also split into two. So, the labour subsector can also be split into three. If we say that it is unfair to allocate more seats to the labour subsector because it is in the third sector, then first of all we have to ask whether it is unfair to categorize this sector in this way. It is not totally correct to say that since the labour subsector can be split into three, it should be put in the Third Sector and be counted as three subsectors, because the religious sector was not supposed to be a subsector in this sector in the first place. We all know that the so-called 17 plus 15 formula did not include the religious sector. That being the case, should we treat the religious subsector as just one other subsector, or should we regard it as one of the three parts of the third sector? Therefore, no matter how we do our calculations, there would not be a straight forward formula which can achieve even distribution.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment proposes the simplest way to deal with the problem. If the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector is moved to the second sector, then 40 seats will be left vacant. If these seats are given to the labour subsector, on the one hand, it is fairer to this sector which should have accounted for a heavier proportion; and, on the other hand, there is no need to introduce any changes to the religious subsector and the agriculture and fisheries subsector. Mr Howard YEUNG said that there have been heated discussions in the community, but let me point out that these discussions have been centered on the point that the commercial sector is given too much representation on the Election Committee. The fact is that no matter how many more seats are given to the labour field, it cannot possibly outnumber the industrial and commercial subsectors in the 800-strong Election Committee. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. When we examined this Bill at the Bills Committee, we pointed out firmly and clearly the reasons why we have proposed this amendment. Our position is based on one principle: the groupings of sectors and subsectors should precede the apportioning of seats. This is a principle to which, I believe, neither the Secretary nor my colleagues who have participated in the examination of this Bill would disagree. The only thing is that having accepted this very principle, the Government decided at the meeting to place the four groups including performing arts under the sector of social services. I can recall that the whole meeting burst into laughter and I remarked that we Members should also be grouped under the sector of social services too.
We do understand that our friends in the performing arts, publication, sports and culture subsector will have to make a choice between being grouped under the professional sector and having 40 seats on the Election Committee. Obviously, if they choose to be grouped under the professional sector, they will certainly have to make do with having fewer seats amidst the competing claims from other professional sectors. And, if they want more seats, they will have to admit that theirs are not professional occupations, and can just be regarded as social services.
Mr MA Fung-kwok has said that he understands very well the motive of the DAB. In fact, we are also well aware of the situation of the performing arts sector. If Members have not forgotten, they will recall what I said at a meeting of the Bills Committee. I said that as a matter of principle we should first determine the groupings of sectors and subsectors first, and then apportion the number of seats. But, for the convenience of calculation, the Government has placed four occupations groups in the third sector. Since there are comparatively more seats in the third sector, these 4 groups can of course receive a more generous allotment. At that particular Bills Committee meeting, I remarked that if our friends in the performing arts, sports, culture and publication subsector were content with being assigned to the third sector in order to get more seats I would have nothing to say ...... Well, since they have not insisted on that, we cannot insist on anything for them either.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN:Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI:Madam Chairman, I cannot remember that as a member of the Bills Committee I actually agreed to this proposal. I find a highly misleading comment coming from Mr CHENG Kai-nam. That is Number One. Number Two, if we decide ......
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam, are you seeking an elucidation?
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(in Cantonese): I have never said that Honourable colleagues in the Bills Committee had agreed to this amendment of ours. I just said at the meeting that it was our principle that groupings of sectors and subsectors should precede the allocation of seats. I remember that all people present at the meeting, including government representative, did not raise any objection to this principle.
MR RONALD ARCULLI:As usual, he reversed what he said, unless I am hearing things or my Cantonese is not as good as I think it is. When he was referring to there being no dissent...... I would not give way.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam, under the Rules of Procedure, if you are seeking elucidation, you must wait until the Member concerned has finished speaking unless he is willing to give way. But it would be different if you are raising a point of order.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(in Cantonese): It is a point of order.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Please speak.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(in Cantonese): Since all meetings are recorded in writing, he cannot arbitrarily say that I have altered the record.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): This is an elucidation rather than a point of order. If you want to elucidate, you should wait until Mr Ronald ARCULLI has finished speaking.
MR RONALD ARCULLI:When the Honourable Member was referring to there being no dissent, he was talking about DAB's present amendments. Subsequent to that, he mentioned that there was discussion on the proposal that the Government should have firstly sorted out where to put the different sectors, whether it is the first, second, third, the different groups, and then allocate numbers. Even if that were to be done, there is still no explanation as to why arbitrarily Labour should get seats double the other sectors' within the third sector. There is no proposal to put an amendment that the remaining four each have 50 representatives. And the only explanation that they can come up with, which they say is reason, is logic, is that Labour has three seats.
Well, do not use arguments like "we can split Labour into three sectors: Labour First, Labour Second, Labour Third." If you think you can, do it, justify it. The more I hear of the reasons, or so-called reasons advanced tonight, the more disappointed I am, and I think I reiterate what I say, if this amendment goes through the Liberal Party ─ it is not a threat, it is simply our position that we want fair and open elections ─ if this goes through we will vote against the Bill at Third Reading.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam, you can make you elucidation now.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(in Cantonese): Just now, Mr Ronald ARCULLI asked us to explain how the labour subsector can be subdivided into three groups. As far as I am aware, this should be the first time that the idea of subdividing the labour subsector has ever been mentioned unless it was raised during those Bills Committee meetings from which I was absent. Therefore, it is impossible for me to have mentioned this idea in my previous remarks.
As for the reasons why we consider that the labour sector should be allocated more seats, since Mr CHAN Kam-lam has already offered an explanation, I do not wish to repeat the points here.
As I had already made the clarification I wanted to make when the Chairman ruled that I was not supposed to speak, I will not repeat my point now either.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, I understand that some Members are still waiting to speak. It is 3.35 am in the morning now. Everyone is somewhat tired. It is therefore not at all surprising that some might have misunderstood other Members' points. Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW(in Cantonese): Having listened to the speeches of the Members belonging to the DAB, I am somewhat puzzled. That may be because their logic is different from mine. I dare not say that their logic is definitely wrong, but the more I listen to them, the more I am baffled.
The DAB says that culture, performing arts, sports and so on should belong to the second sector because the third sector is for social services and they do not come under the category of social services. However, the DAB has forgotten that they have actually expanded the scope of the social service sector to cover almost everything. Members may still recall what I have said. I said that the list of those organizations which submitted the joint petition included the Hong Kong Badminton Association, Hong Kong Football Association and all kinds of different sports associations. So, we can see that when the DAB wants to expand the social service sector, they would bring in sports associations. But, when they now want to include sports associations in the professional sector, they say that they do not belong to the social service sector. It seems that they think they can do whatever they like to suit their purpose.
Earlier I heard Mr TSANG Yok-sing say that we criticized the DAB for this and that; in other words, he was implying that we had "wrongly accused" the DAB. I think that on two matters, facts speak louder than words. First, the DAB is undemocratic. Earlier, the two Members who have considerable representativeness in culture, arts and sports, Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr Timothy FOK, have already made it clear to Members that the four fields all oppose to the present act of the DAB, and they do not think that they should belong to the professional sector. I believe that the general public would not consider them professionals either. Therefore, they should not put be in the second sector. The DAB has taken no heed of this view. It is undemocratic. Moreover, the DAB is the only political party in this Council which wants to increase the number of labour representatives on the Election Committee and in this respect, it is even more active than the Federation of Trade Unions. Remember, Honourable Members: the labour party in this Council is in fact the DAB!
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr TSANG Yok-sing.
MR TSANG YOK-SING(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as regards the list of organizations mentioned by the Member who has just spoken, we have already explained very clearly in the debate that we do not advocate the inclusion of all these organizations in the social welfare sector. Let me clarify that this list has not been compiled by the DAB. Let me also say that it is wrong for the Member who has just spoken to criticize the DAB for being even more active than the Federation of Trade Unions. We did hear Mr Timothy FOK and Mr MA Fung-kwok say that they do not want to be listed in the second sector, but I have definitely not heard Mr MA Fung-kwok say that the people in the performing arts field are not professionals. I think Mr MA Fung-kwok might as well clarify this point.
The rationale behind our argument throughout the whole debate is actually very straightforward. First, we think that it is more appropriate to put sports, culture, performing arts and publication in the Second Sector than to put it in the third sector of the Election Committee. Second, we should appropriately increase the number of labour representatives on the Election Committee. For the purpose of successfully achieving these two ends all at the same time, the Mr CHAN Kam-lam's proposed amendment, we believe, does represent a more satisfactory approach. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mrs Selina CHOW.
MRS SELINA CHOW(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, although the Honourable TSANG Yok-sing did not mention my name, he did refer twice to "the Member who has just spoken", and that was me. I hope that he would refrain from being too tactful. If he wants to refer to me, just do so directly.
I would like to clarify one point. He said just now that the organizations on the list all belong to the social service sector, and that nothing but community services is their only function. But, the point is that of all those organizations which are included in the joint petition list, with the exception of sports societies, many are indeed social and recreational clubs. I just want to point out that the DAB can sometimes be very lose with definitions, but at other times, it can be very strict, depending on how it wants to suit the so-called logic and reasoning of its arguments.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-Kwok.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman, let me make a very simple clarification. Those engaged in the performing arts field who have been fighting for the setting up of their own functional constituency have always regarded themselves as professionals. We, in particular those working in the film-making industry, have always considered ourselves to be highly professional, and so have those in the culture field. The question remains that we interpret professions differently from the Government, and the standards which we apply to define professions are thus different from those used by the Government in setting up and delineating functional constituencies. But this is simply a difference in interpretation, and certainly does not mean that we are not professionals.
The performing arts field is proud that people in the field have been able to serve the community through their work and efforts, and we do really think that no matter which sector we are in, the social service sector or the professional sector, our contribution will remain essentially the same. The current question is that the third sector is divided into four subsectors. Based on the computation formulae applied to professions and other sectors, there should be 80 seats for us because each constituency is entitled to 80 seats. But owing to the shortage of seats, the Government has allocated only 40 seats to this particular subsector of ours which comprises four occupation groups. Out of our recognition of this objective constraint, we are willing to make do with the reality.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(in Cantonese): I would like to give a very brief reply only. I do not want to quibble over the details of the problem any more. For the list of subsectors, we voiced our opinions at the first meeting of the Bills Committee already. We have never considered the idea of grouping performing arts under the social service sector. This was proposed by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, Mr Michael SUEN, at a meeting of the Bills Committee, and his proposal was met with roars of laughter from Honourable colleagues who were present at that time. I think we do not have to quarrel about this again.
When the Bill was first publicized, we did not hear any strong and immediate reactions from our friends in the performing arts field. When the Bill was examined at the first meeting of the Bills Committee, we simply had the gut feeling that this particular subsector should be placed under the second sector, not the third sector. Of course, we knew that once this subsector was grouped under the second sector, the number of seats allocated to each of its subsectors would inevitably become smaller. Since those persons engaged in performing arts are comparatively less well-organized, it is only natural that they wanted more time for analysis and discussions after learning of our proposal. In the end, they decided not to accept our proposal. I think that the essence of democracy is that we should be willing to accept the fact that others may not take our suggestions. We do not want to put labels on others, and we have not said what should follow what opinions. We have simply made our recommendations according to our principles. Members are free to make their own choices, and we are willing to accept the results. As I have just said, the performing arts field are actually faced with a choice between more seats and self-recognition as professionals. In the end, they choose to have more seats. On this, I have no comment.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him.
MR IP KWOK-HIM(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman. We do not want to rule out the efforts and contribution made by the performing arts and culture fields in the work of serving our society. But we are also aware of the professionalism of these fields. That is why the DAB wants to consider the idea of removing the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector from the third sector and group it under the second sector of professionals. Of course, we are aware that there will be seats to be filled once this subsector is transferred from the third sector to the second. That is precisely why we have prepared this amendment. The Liberal Party is against the proposal of allocating the seats to the labour sector. I can appreciate their standpoint.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I am aware that some other Members also wish to speak. I will give you chances to speak, but please be brief. Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam Chairman.
So far, our colleagues from the DAB have not explained why they will propose to take away 20 votes from the 40 votes assigned to the sports sector if the amendment under consideration is not carried. As far as I can remember, there seems to be another amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): That amendment no longer exists and this is the only amendment.
MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): But, why did they have such an idea in the first place? Although the said amendment no longer exists, why did they have such an idea? Why is that they have not proposed to allocate the seats to all the sectors? (Laughter).
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr NGAI Shiu-kit.
MR NGAI SHIU-KIT(in Cantonese): Normally, debates would make the truth more apparent. But, in our case now, debates have made the truth more obscure, for we are no longer conducting any rational discussions on the issue in question. Instead, we have simply been arguing for the sake of argument, exchanging challenges and defences. Everyone begins by saying, "I will be brief" or "let me make a short response". But, in the end, such a short response runs on for 15 minutes.
It is already 4 am in the morning. I am not saying that I am getting impatient. I just feel that it is not worthwhile. I am personally against all the amendments to be moved by Mr CHAN Kam-lam. Therefore, I think that we should simply join hands to vote against his amendments. What is the point of further arguing against his amendments? Since we have all put our case clearly, there is no need for us to have any further arguments. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHENG Kai-nam.
MR CHENG KAI-NAM(In Cantonese): I totally agree with Mr NGAI Shiu-kit that we should not argue any further. We had better let Members cast their votes now.
CHAIRMAN(In Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(In Cantonese): Madam Chairman, the Administration is against Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment to the second and third sectors of the Election Committee. Mr CHAN Kam-lam proposes to transfer the 40-seat sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector from the third sector to the second, and to allocate the seats vacated to the labour subsector. We are against this amendment because the second sector of the Election Committee is a professional sector and should only comprise professionals. Under the existing definition of the professional sector, this sector should be made up of professionals with well-established and recognized qualifications (including statutory qualifications). It is obvious that the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector cannot meet these requirements, and therefore, cannot be grouped under the professional sector. However, the amendment by Mr CHAN Kam-lam in essence admits that this subsector can meet these requirements. This is against the principle which is generally used to define the professional sector and is not in accordance with the principles adopted in delineating the electorate of the sports, performing arts, culture and publishing subsector. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this subsector should remain in the third sector as proposed by the Bill. For the above reasons, the Administration opposes the amendment by Mr CHAN Kam-lam and would like to call upon Members to vote against this proposal.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
MR CHAN KAM -LAM(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, as I pointed out during the Second Reading, the electoral arrangements for the Election Committee and the functional constituencies are plagued with problems. For the allocation of seats, the Administration has adopted a relatively simple method of equal allocation. This approach is in itself erroneous because it does not take account of the representativeness of each functional constituency in society, nor does it take account of the original proportion of representation in the functional constituencies. The problem now under discussion is very much the result of such fallacies.
Quite a lot of Members, when they look at the amendments moved by their colleagues, like to use terms such "gerrymandering" and "vote rigging " to obscure the facts or the problem of fairness. These types of verbal attacks and comments are very unfair.
Members of the industrial and commercial sectors, for example, are very nervous about any increase, however slight, in the number of seats for the labor sector. We do not intend to bring in excessive representation for the labour sector in this Council; our only hope is to achieve a more reasonable and even distribution of representation. As we all notice, there are already 200 seats for indsutries and commerce in the first sector. That being case, even if the number of seats for the labour sector is increased to 80 as I have proposed, there is still a great difference between these two sectors in terms of seat allocation.
Mrs Selina CHOW has repeatedly referred to a joint peition, as if the list of organizations submitting this petition is the list of organizations which the DAB would like to include in the social welfare subsector. Her repreated references to such a list are altogether misleading. As I pointed out during the Second Reading debate, the organizations included in such a list, or such a joint peition list, may not necessarily be eligible to become electors. I hope Members will not mix things up again when they are discussing these issues, lest they may stray farther and farther away from the core issue.
Madam President, it is most regrettable that the Administration has not taken the suggestions of Members into consideration, thus forcing me to move this amendment. Although both Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr Timothy FOK are opposed to this amendment, I still respect their opinions and hope that they will arrive at their own voting decisions later on.
Thank you.
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): The Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment. Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will be now displayed.
Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, 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 MA Fung-kwok, Mrs TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr Bruce LEE, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr LO Suk-ching, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.
Mr YUEN Mo abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 11 Members in favour of the amendment, 36 against and one abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr Bruce LIU and Mr Andrew WONG have separately given notices to move amendments to table 4.
I propose to hold a joint debate on all the amendments moved by the Members.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The Committee will now hold a joint debate. I will first call upon Mr CHAN Kam-lam to move his amendment. Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that table 4 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.
This amendment seeks to combine the two District Boards subsectors under item 5 and 6 of table 4. So far, no distinction has been made between New Territories district boards and urban district boards in respect of the services provided by the 18 District Boards to the public of Hong Kong. We therefore feel that it is not necessary to divide the District Boards into two subsectors in table 4 for the Election Committee. I hope that Members would support this amendment.
Thank you.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Bruce LIU to speak on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment and his own amendment. After Mr Bruce LIU has spoken, I will call upon Mr Andrew WONG to speak on the amendments. However, no amendment by either Mr Bruce LIU or Mr Andrew WONG is to be moved at this stage. Mr Bruce LIU.
MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam President, District Boards (DBs) constitute an integral part in the district administration of Hong Kong. Under the Bill submitted by the Administration, DBs are allocated a total of 42 seats: 21 seats for urban DBs and 21 seats for New Territories DBs. My amendment seeks to allocate these 42 seats among all the 18 DBs on the basis of their membership sizes; DBs with more than 30 members are to be allocated three seats each, while those with fewer than 30 members are to be allocated two seats each.
My proposed allocation arrangement is based on two considerations. First, this arrangement can ensure that each district board is able to select its representatives on its own, with the effect that the 42 district board representatives on the Election Committee can truly and evenly represent all the 18 DBs. Furthermore, unlike the arrangement under which a centralized election is conducted among members of all the 18 DBs, my proposed arrangement can ensure that no one single district board can get an unproportionally large share, or even a majority, while others fail to have any representatives at all. My proposed arrangement involves some human control, and can thus make sure that each district board will be able to have its representatives.
Second, we have to consider whether my proposed arrangement will degenerate into a mechanical and mere "slicing of the cake", thus fostering the undesirable trend of "regionalism" among the DBs. My view is that since the existing 18 DBs are demarcated by districts, there should not be any possibility of "regionalism". In fact, before 1 July 1997, the members of a district board were allowed to elect from among themselves a representative to sit on the Urban Council or the Regional Urban Council, and this was really a way of returning members to the two Municipal Councils by indirect elections. Although the electoral system for the Election Committee now under discussion is somewhat different, it still carries an element of indirect election. The previous arrangement of the Administration was to allow each district board to have one indirectly elected seat. I believe that no one will say that this has anything to do with "regionalism" because the Administration was simply trying to ensure equal representation among all DBs by allowing them to indirectly elect nine Urban Council Members of the urban area.
I am just offering a choice for the consideration of Members. As to whether it is more favourable to allocate the seats equally or to conduct a centralized election, I am of the opinion that my proposed arrangement is more favourable. I hope that Members will support my motion.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my original purpose in proposing this amendment is to reform the functional constituency elections, and through this reform, I hope to bar Members of the two Municipal Councils from having their own constituencies, thus preventing them from constituting a part of the Election Committee. But this amendment can also stand alone as a separate proposal in its own right. Let me explain why. The subsector mentioned under item 5 of the fourth sector in table 4 is specified as the "Provisional District Boards for the Districts in the Urban Council Area". But, this is not a very good specification, because we should instead refer to all regional organizations and district organizations in general. This means to say that when we refer to the Urban Council Area, there is no reason to exclude the Urban Council itself, which is also a regional organization. That is why I propose to change it to read "District Organizations for Districts in the Urban Council Area" because this will include not just the DBs, but also the Urban Council itself. The same principle should apply to the New Territories, where the Regional Council or the Provisional Regional Council should also be regarded as a regional organization in the Regional Council Area. I have left the number of seats allocated to these two subsectors intact because it is only reasonable to do so. Besides, the Basic Law also states that district organizations should refer to both the Urban Council and DBs. So, it will be very unreasonable if we deprive the Urban Council of its right to vote. This is the reason why I have made this proposal. Members can support it if they like. But, I will not insist if they do not because I have already explained that this amendment will make sense only in the case when my proposal on reforming the functional constituencies is passed; otherwise, it will only lead to the situation under which neither of the two Municipal Councils can elect any Legislative Members. When this happens, it will be wrong and misleading to refer to the two Municipal Councils as functional constituencies. Let me reiterate that I will not hold on to this proposal. If Members like, they can support it; otherwise, they do not have to do so.
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?
(The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he did not wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, do you wish to reply?
(Mr CHAN Kam-lam indicated that he did not wish to reply)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Before I put Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment to Committee for a vote, I would remind Members once again that if Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment is agreed, that will by implication mean that the amendments proposed by the other two Members are not approved. If Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment is negatived, I will call upon Mr Bruce LIU to move his amendment. If Mr Bruce LIU's amendment is passed, that will by implication mean that Mr WONG's amendment is not approved.
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): The 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 Mr CHAN Kam-lam be approved. 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 CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted for the amendment.
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Eric LI, 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, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr Bruce LIU, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Dr TANG Siu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr LO Suk-ching, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the amendment.
Mr YUEN Mo, Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr KAN Fook-yee abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 10 Members in favour of the amendment, 34 against and three abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, as your amendment to table 4 has been negatived, you may not move amendments to section 1(6) and (7), the addition of section 1(8A) to part 1 of schedule 2 and amendments to section 8(4) and (9) of part 3 of schedule 2, as it is inconsistent with the decision already taken.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU.
MR BRUCE LIU(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that table 4 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU be approved.
Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Those against please say "no".
(Members responded)
Mr Bruce LIU rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is on the amendment moved by Mr Bruce LIU. Please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The result will now be displayed.
Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO Suk-ching and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted for the amendment.
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG LEUNG-sing, Mr Eric LI, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Elsie TU, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, 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, Mr Andrew 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 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 Henry TANG, Mr YUEN Mo and Mr CHAN Choi-hi abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were eight members in favour of the amendment, 36 against and three abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Bruce LIU, as your amendment has been negatived, you may not move the related amendments. Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that table 4 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The main purpose of this amendment is to add the two Municipal Councils to item 5 and item 6 so as to achieve better logic.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment 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): I think the "noes" have it.
Mr Andrew WONG rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The Committee will now proceed to a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, the question now put is on the amendment of Mr Andrew WONG. Will Members please proceed to vote?
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The result will now be displayed.
Dr Raymond HO, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, 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 Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Dr TSO WONG Man-yin, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, 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 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.
Mr NG Leung-sing, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Henry TANG and Mr YUEN Mo abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 11 Members in favour of the amendment, 32 against and four abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, you may move amendments to section 1(6) and (7) and the addition of section 1(8A) to part 1 of schedule 2.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that section 1(6) and (7) be amended and new section 1(8A) be added to part 1 of schedule 2 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (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): The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that sections 2(2), 3(7), 5 and 6 in part 2 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
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): The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that section 5(b), (c) and (e) in part 2 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
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 Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I do not quite understand those arrangements.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, clause 37 has been negatived.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Clause 29 has been negatived. Has clause 37 also been negatived?
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Yes.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Then, I cannot move the amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I will leave the decision to you. If you wish to withdraw the amendment, you are free to do so.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I do not agree with you. I think the Committee has already made a decision. Of course, you may say that the case now is different, because schedule 2 is not about the general eligibility requirements of electors. Even if the Chairman rules that I may still move the amendment, I still do not intend to do so.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I rule that you may move the amendment, but it is fine if you do not wish to do so.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Yes, I do not wish to move the amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that section 14(c) in part 3 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, you should move amendments to section 5(b),(c) and (e) in part 2 of schedule 2.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I have already moved those amendments.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, I would like to adjourn the Council for two minutes to discuss a point of order.
4.22 am
Meeting suspended.
4.44 am
Council then resumed.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, thank you for your indulgence. Now we shall return to page 93 of the script. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new section 1(7A) and 1(7B) be added to part 1 of schedule 2, and that section 4(2) in part 2 of schedule 2, and section 13(2) in part 3 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
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 section 14(c) in part 3 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, we shall now deal with section 14(c) in part 3 of schedule 2. You have given notice to move amendment to this section. As a matter of procedure, I should call upon to move the amendment, but as your amendment to clause 37(1) has already been negatived, you may as well want to withdraw your amendment. Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): I have just indicated that I am not going to move this amendment.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): You were talking about another amendment, not this one.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): I am not going to move any amendments which are related to clause 37 because the Committee has already made a decision. If I move any further amendments and Members do pass them somehow accidentally, then it would cause unnecessary troubles.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): That means you will withdraw all amendments related to clause 37(1).
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
THE SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 14(c) in part 3 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (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 item 16 of table 1, sections 7, 8(4), 8(9), 8(13), 9(2), 9(4), 9(5), 9(6), 15(1), 16, 18(1), 18(2), 18(4), 20(2), 20(3), 22(1), 22(2), 22(3), 24, 26, 29(1), 30(2), 30(3), the addition of section 30(4), the amendment to section 32(4) in part 3 of schedule 2 and the amendment to sections 1(2), 1(3) and 1(4) and the addition of section 1(3A) of schedule 3 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
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 say "no"?
(No Member responded)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I think the "ayes" have it. The "ayes" have it.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to move his amendment to section 14 in part 3 of schedule 2.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that section 14(e) in part 3 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (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 to section 14(e) in part 3 of schedule 2 moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs be approved.
Will those in favour 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, you have given notice to amend section 23(1)(b), (c) and (d) in part 3 of schedule 2, but as your amendment to clause 29(1) has already been negatived by the Committee, do you still wish to move the amendment?
MR ANDREW WONG( in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, my amendment to clauses 23(1) (b), (c) and (d) is entirely the same as my amendment to clause 29. Since the previous amendment has already been negatived, it will be pointless for me to move the amendment now in question. I hope the Chairman will rule that I should not move any more amendments which are related to disqualification of voters and candidates. As clauses 29 and 37 have already been negatived, it will be pointless to move these amendments. I do not want to cause any confusion.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, according to the procedures, I do not have the power to rule that you should not move these amendments. However, I understand that you think you should not move the amendments because for you, this has already become meaningless. I accept your decision and thank you for saving us some time. I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs to move his amendment.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that section 23(1) in part 3 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (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)
CHAIRMANm(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): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I move the amendment to section 1(7)(b) and the addition of section 1(10) in part 1 of schedule 2, and the amendment to section 7(1) and the addition of sections 7(2) and 8(1A) in part 3 of schedule 2 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Madam Chairman, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government has followed the arrangements of the functional constituencies in its planning for the election of the Election Committee. Four different occupational groups, namely, sports, performing arts, culture and publication are combined into one subsector and a total of 40 seats are allocated to this subsector. The Basic Law stipulates that 10 Legislative Council Members shall be returned by a Election Committee to be made up of 800 members selected from different sectors and professions. It is hoped that in this way the Election Committee can fully represent the views and wishes of all the people of Hong Kong. In order to reflect the spirit of equal participation, people from all sectors of society should have the opportunity to participate in the election of the Election Committee.
Every Hong Kong citizen will come into contact with the sports, performing arts, cultural and publication professions in their everyday lives. These four fields have all played a different but important role in society. In fact, many of the distinguished and famous members of society are now engaged in different activities of these four fields. They are very well known, popular and highly respected, and have also made great contribution in building up Hong Kong and enriching the spiritual lives of the public.
As the election of the Election Committee should place great emphasis on wide participation and representativeness, the representatives of different sectors should have the opportunity to participate in the election, and provisions should be made in the electoral law for their participation. In the grouping of the various subsectors, there are cases where a subsector has to be made up of more than one occupational groups. But the situation is particularly complicated in respect of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector. In other subsectors facing a similar problem, the occupational groups involved are usually two in number, and they are closely related. Therefore, they can more or less understand each other and have some knowledge of all the occupational groups, and communication is therefore possible. That is why these representatives will generally be able to reflect the views of the whole subsector more easily. However, in comparison with other composite subsectors, the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector will face a greater problem of communication as far as the election of representatives is concerned. Actually, the decision on grouping sports, performing arts, culture and publication under one subsector was made only a few months ago.
Sports, performing arts, culture and publication are in fact four separate fields. There may be certain relations between these individual fields, but each field has its own characteristics and peculiar operation. Even for performing arts and culture, which are generally considered to be more related in nature, their basic principles and practical operations are still obviously very different. Performing arts is a strongly commercial industry, while the culture field emphasizes artistic creation and pursuit. Though both fields are concerned about the freedom of creation, freedom of expression and the respect for and protection of intellectual property, performing arts is more concerned about professional ecology, market competition, market disciplines as well as the opening up of overseas markets and so on. On the other hand, the culture field is more concerned about how to increase, use and allocate the resources of society. Other occupational groups in this subsector have even fewer characteristics in common.
As there are great discrepancies in the number of eligible voters in the fields of sports, performing arts, culture and publication (according to the Administration's estimate, the number of votes for the group with the greatest number of voters is 1 000, while the group with the smallest number of voters has only 400 votes. This means that the group with the greatest number of votes comprises 39% of the total number of votes while the group with the smallest number of votes got only 16%), partiality and imbalances will occur in the course of voting representatives. In the most extreme case, some of the occupational groups may even fail to elect their representatives. In order to ensure that these four occupational groups with equally important functions and roles can voice their opinions and adequately reflect the problems which they are facing, and in order to ensure their proper place in the Election Committee which places great emphasis on wide participation, I propose that the number of members for this subsector should be equally allocated among the four fields concerned. This arrangement will have a positive effect on enhancing the representativeness and legitimacy of the election of the Election Committee and the election of the first term of the Legislative Council. This proposed amendment is also in line with the method for the election of the first Legislative Council. It also reflects the principles of democracy, fairness, openness and balance. In view of the above reasons, I hope that Members will support my amendment. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Timothy FOK.
MR TIMOTHY FOK(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, applying the principle of equal allocation to the groups constituting the subsector of sports, performing arts, culture and publication regardless of the sizes of their respective electorate will, I am afraid, fail to effectively reflect the representativeness of each of these four groups. For this reason, I will vote against Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment, but will support the original provisions of the Bill put forward by the Administration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, when Bruce LIU of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood was discussing the method for allocating the seats of the Election Committee, he expressed the hope that such seats could be allocated equally among all district boards. The principle underlying the amendment now moved by Mr MA Fung-kwok is identical to that underlying our proposal on the allocation of Election Committee seats to district boards. Performing arts, sports, culture and publication are basically four completely different subsectors. Therefore even if they have to be combined into one subsector, they should be regarded as four different "households", and each of them should thus have an equal share. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.
MR HOWARD YOUNG(in Cantonese): The Liberal Party appreciates the rationale and intention behind the amendment moved by Mr MA Fung-kwok, and, in fact, we did also ask the Administration during the consultation period whether it would consider the possibility of further breaking down some of the subsectors. That said, we must still point out that although Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment is indeed justified and logical to a certain extent, his justification and logic can at best apply to one subsector only, and cannot apply to the rest of the subsectors covered in the Bill. The problem of allocation is in fact found in many other subsectors as well, such as the architectural, surveying and planning subsector, the real estate and construction subsector and the medical subsector of medical practitioners and dentists. Should we apply the principle of equal allocation, or the principle of proportional allocation, within each of these subsectors? I am afraid that it will not be possible for us to work out an answer in good time for the first Legislative Council, though we do not rule out the possibility that someone may come up with some better ideas in the future. We cannot support the amendment this time.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I wish to respond briefly to Mr Howard YOUNG's remarks. We are now talking about schedule 2, which is on the constitution of the Election Committee, not the elections of the functional constituencies. If the people of the sports, culture and performing arts fields agree to the principle of equal allocation, I think we should not stop them. If the principle of equal allocation is not applied, then it is inevitable that there will be more members for some groups and fewer for the others. If they find it acceptable to divide 40 seats among the four groups, with 10 members for each group, why should we stand in their way? I hope that Members will consider this point. Mr Howard YOUNG's opinion may be exaggerated. If he is talking about the election of the functional constituencies, then what he said may be more relevant, but we are now talking about the constitution of the Election Committee.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr Howard YOUNG.
MR HOWARD YOUNG(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I know very well that we are discussing the constitution of the Election Committee. I have just given a few examples to illustrate my point. For example, the medical subsector is made up of medical practitioners and dentists and it will have 20 members on the Election Committee. So, if the principle of equal allocation is to be applied, there should be 10 members for each group in this subsector. In fact, the principle involved is always the same, because with the exception of the Urban Council and Regional Council, all other functional constituencies are represented as various subsectors on the Election Committee, and the same principle will thus apply. However, I feel that we should not apply the principle of equal allocation to just one subsector and ignore the rest, the reason being that other subsectors may make similar requests.
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 respond?
MR MA FUNG-KWOK(in Cantonese): Mr Timothy FOK has just said that it would be more appropriate to allocate seats to these four groups according to their respective electorate sizes, but I beg to differ, albeit only slightly.
In fact, the existing sizes of electorate are basically fixed on the basis of government proposals, but different sectors actually have different views on the method of allocation. However, I do not intend to dwell on this in detail because this will not help us make a decision.
I hope Members will support the amendment on allowing 10 representatives from each of the four subsectors to sit on the Election Committee because I think this is a more reasonable arrangement. Thank you.
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 rose to claim a division.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The question now put is on Mr MA Fung-kwok's amendment. Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed.
Mr NG Ching-fai, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Bruce LIU, Dr LAU Kong-wah, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr LAW Cheung-kwok and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the amendment.
Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Henry TANG, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr YUEN Mo, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee and Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.
Mr HO Chung-tai, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr HUI Yin-fat and Mr CHAN Choi-hi abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 25 Members in favour of the amendment, 15 against and five abstaining. She therefore declared that the amendment was carried.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, I am sorry that there needs be a delay again because we have to discuss a point of order. The meeting will be suspended for five minutes.
5.07 am
Meeting suspended.
5.12 am
Council then resumed.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that section 5(a) in part 2 of schedule 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 2 (see Annex III)
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Members, this is purely a technical amendment. 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): Schedules 2 and 3 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 3.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clause 3(1) and (2) be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 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 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 3 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 82.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 82 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.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, since the Rules of Procedure stipulate that any schedule shall be considered after all 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 my proposed new clause 9A can be considered ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): In order to deal with the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs' request, I order that Council shall now resume.
Council then resumed.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs, you have my consent.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that Rules 58(5) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure be suspended in order to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider schedule 4 ahead of the other clauses of the Bill.
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 in order to enable the Committee of the whole Council to consider schedule 4 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 "aye" have it.
Council went into Committee.
CLERK(in Cantonese): Schedule 4.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that item 1 of part 1 of schedule 4 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 4 (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 item 12 of part 2 of schedule 4 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 4 (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 new part 1A be added to part 1 of schedule 4 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 4 (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 amendment to section 1(5) and 1(6), the amendment to items 8, 9 and the addition of items 12A, 12B, 12C and 14 in part 2 and the addition of part 3 of schedule 4 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Schedule 4 (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): Schedule 4 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 83.
CHAIRMAN(in Cantonese): The Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move the addition of subclauses (1A) and (3) to clause 83 as set out in the paper circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 83 (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 83 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): Council will now resume.
Third Reading of Bill
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Third Reading of the Bill. Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam President, the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
has passed through Committee with amendments. I move the Third Reading of the Bill.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now purpose the question to you and that is: That the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
be read the Third time and do pass.
According to Rule 63 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Council shall proceed to a debate on the Third Reading of the Bill, but the debate shall be confined to the question. Mr Eric LI.
MR ERIC LI(in Cantonese): Madam President, let me just give a brief statement on my position.
With the exception of those clauses as amended by Mr CHAN Kam-lam, I do not have any objection to all the other clauses of the Bill, and I am prepared to accept them. My objection to Mr CHAN's amendment is not entirely related to a question of principle; I do not object to the amendment of Mr CHAN Kam-lam in principle. Generally, I will accept the result of voting even if I lose. However, this time I am very worried about what will happen after this "catch-all" or "neither-fish-nor-fowl" subsector has come into being, because even the Administration has admitted that at this stage, it cannot think of any good ways of re-delineation, eligibility vetting and voter registration. That being the case, the amendment passed is indeed very difficult to implement or even not feasible at all. Since I do not subscribe to its underlying principles, nor can I even imagine how it can be implemented, I, as a responsible legislator, do find it extremely difficult to vote in favour of it. That is why I have finally decided to vote against this question. I wish to put my reasons on record.
Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Ronald ARCULLI.
MR RONALD ARCULLI(in Cantonese): Changes to the social welfare functional constituency have been introduced to include voters who are not from the social welfare sector. The Liberal Party is extremely disappointed about such a situation because the Liberal Party feels that this is incorrect in principle. This is wrong.
Secondly, we feel that there may be difficulties in its implementation and a lot of disputes and problems may also arise.
For these reasons, the Liberal Party will abstain from voting.
Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FREDERICK FUNG(in Cantonese): Members from the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood originally wanted to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, mainly because of its impact on the definition of the social welfare sector. We view that social welfare is in itself a recognized profession, for which the ultimate goal should be "one-person, one-vote" for all registered social workers. This amendment, however, leads to development in the opposite direction, dealing a blow not only to "one-person, one-vote" but also, most importantly, to the professional status of the social workers. As far as I understand it, this is the greatest concern, greatest worry and greatest dissatisfaction felt by the social workers. This is also the main reason which will lead us to vote against the Bill's Third Reading.
I would also like to clarify one more point. In the course of examining the various proposed amendments, we sometimes do have different views on a number of provisions, and sometimes we may even object to some provisions. But, very often we would still vote in favour of the question when it comes to the Third Reading. However, this time, we are not prepared to vote for the question, nor will we abstain from voting. We are going to vote against this because of this important reason.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr HUI Yin-fat.
MR HUI YIN-FAT(in Cantonese): The social welfare sector is very dissatisfied with this amendment, and we fail to see how the resultant problems can be resolved. Therefore, on behalf of the social welfare sector, I object to the Bill.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG.
MR ANDREW WONG(in Cantonese): All the related arguments show that functional constituency elections are indeed plagued with many problems. Of course, at this stage, I should not make any more comments and discuss this issue again. However, as regards the specific contents of the Bill, since Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment has been passed, I must say that I cannot accept such a Bill. What is more, since Miss CHOY So-yuk's amendment has also been passed, I find it even harder to accept the Bill.
I have already made it very clear that I do not support the existing method of constituting the functional sectors and subsectors. But, since this Council and the Preparatory Committee have decided to maintain the status quo and rule out a comprehensive reform, I would have to say that the Administration's scheme is already the best possible alternative under the circumstances. If alterations are made to this scheme, queries may well arise. I think that the more we discuss this issue, the more complicated it will become. Let us all stop arguing any further. Maybe, this will be better.
Under the circumstances, I do not wish to associate myself with this Bill. Therefore I cannot support the Third Reading of this Bill. At first, I said that I might even consider not to support the Second Reading of this Bill, but subsequently I did not raise any objections, nor did I claim a division. But for the Third Reading, I really feel that I cannot render my support. Therefore, I hope that the President will appreciate my standpoint. I also hope that Honourable colleagues can appreciate my standpoint as well.
PRESIDENTCantonese): Mr LEONG Che-hung.
MR LEONG CHE-HUNG(in Cantonese): Madam President, for the same reason, one which the Administration has explained to us clearly and one which I also share, that is, if changes are introduced to the social welfare functional constituency, there will be problems in implementation, I shall vote against the Bill.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM(in Cantonese): I am disappointed with some of my Honourable colleagues' stances on this issue. If Members wish to vote against the Third Reading of a Bill just because they are unhappy with one or two of the amendments proposed. If there are 10 amendments, and they cannot satisfy all Members, a Bill will eventually come to nothing at the end. In the past, we always criticized the Administration for withdrawing a Bill when Members voted in favour of or against some amendments against its will. Are not some Members behaving in a similar manner? Is this not a kind of bad-loser attitude?
I think that some Members are making a big fuss about the question of the social welfare constituency. But is this the focus of the Legislative Council Bill? I hope that in considering the issue, Members would not place their own interests above the whole Bill. In fact, the Administration has already informed us that time is running short and we shall not have time to submit a new Bill to this Council. It is also impossible to guarantee that each and every one of the provisions in the Bill can satisfy with everyone's requirement.
I hope that Members would reconsider the matter carefully. If this Bill is negatived at the Third Reading, I am not sure what the Administration will do. Of course, I hope that the Administration will not tell us later that it is going to withdraw this Bill because the amendment on the social welfare constituency is passed. I definitely do not want to see this happen.
What is more, during the Third Reading, Honourable colleagues should not repeat the Administration's reasons for objection and base their own objections on them. Since we have all heard about the Administration's reasons for objection in the course of scrutinizing the whole Bill, I think Members should not repeat them.
Thank you, Madam President.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG.
MRS SOPHIE LEUNG(in Cantonese): Madam President, I will accept the amendment relating to the textiles subsector today. This is because the amendment has passed through Second Reading, and I will respect Members' support for 30 seats. The only thing I want to reiterate is my hope that all those have cast their votes would try to get to know this subsector as much as possible; the Secretary for Trade and Industry is also obligated to offer an explanation because the addition is just a unilateral arrangement. As for the difficulties which may arise in the course of implementation, I maintain that the Administration should be responsible for working out the necessary solutions.
Besides, I share the opinions of some colleagues on the social welfare subsector. Since the difficulties are so immense, I shall also vote against the Bill.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional Affairs.
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS(in Cantonese): Madam President, thank you for allowing me to make a few remarks.
This Council has spent over 18 hours in this Chamber on debating each part of the Bill in detail. On the whole, Members' deliberation has been both careful and detailed. I would like to thank everyone for their co-operation and efforts in providing us with a legal base for the first Legislative Council Election to be held in May next year.
However, in relation to one of the functional constituencies, I have already stated clearly in the debate that if the Bill passes Third Reading, Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment will become a legal provision which restricts how we are going to define the electorate of the social welfare functional constituency. I have made it clear that this would cause the Administration a lot of difficulties. Right now, I am still not sure whether we will be able to come up with another plan to define the electorate in any clear manner. Members must understand that once a law has been laid down by the legislature, it will be impossible for the executive to tamper with it by way of executive measures.
Some Members have pointed out that this is the Administration's problem. If Members really adopt such an attitude and pass such a piece of legislation, I will have no alternative but to accept it. However, I cannot tell what will happen in the end. We have to consider this issue carefully back in the office. I can only say that we would try our best to work in accordance with the proposal. If we really cannot implement such a proposal in the future, the Administration would seriously consider the idea of consulting this Council at the earliest possible time so as to identify a solution to this problem.
I know that many Members of this Council have very strong views about this issue. I very much respect their opinions and in fact, I also share their views. However, I also respect the proceedings of the Council. All the problems have been raised and debated before this Council, and motions have been carried by voting. Therefore, if the Bill does pass the Third Reading later on, we still hope that a feasible plan could be worked out, even though the Administration do have reservations.
Thank you.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
be read the Third Time and do pass.
Will those in favour please say "aye"?
(Members responded)
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Those against please say "no"?
(Members responded)
Mr Frederick FUNG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.
PRESIDENT:Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): If there are no queries, the result will now be displayed
Mrs Sophie LEUNG indicated that she had pressed the wrong button.
MR ERIC LI(in Cantonese): Madam President, although the result has already been displayed, but since the President has not yet announced the result, could we take a verbal record or use another method for taking a record, and change the display indicator on the computer before announcing the result?
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Would everyone please hold on for a second and wait until the computer records are printed. Then Mrs Sophie LEUNG could tell us which way she has intended to vote and I shall amend the computer records accordingly.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Mrs Sophie LEUNG, would you please tell us what your vote is?
MRS SOPHIE LEUNG(in Cantonese): I abstain.
Mr WONG Siu-yee, Dr Raymond HO, Mr NG Ching-fai, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mrs Elsie TU, Mr Henry WU, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Charles YUEN, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mrs TSO WONG Man-yin, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TSANG Yok-sing, Mr CHENG Kai-nam, Dr Charles YEUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr KAN Fook-yee, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr LO Suk-ching, Mr TAM Tiu-chung and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted for the motion.
Mr Eric LI, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr HUI Yin-fat, Mr CHAN Choi-hi, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Bruce LIU and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok voted against the motion.
Mr James TIEN, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mrs Peggy LAM, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Howard YOUNG and Mrs Miriam LAU abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 29 Members in favour of the motion, nine against and 11 abstaining. She therefore declared that the motion was carried.
CLERK:LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL.
MOTIONS
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Motion made under the Births and Deaths (Registration) Ordinance. Secretary for Security.
BIRTHS AND DEATHS (REGISTRATION) ORDINANCE
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY:Madam President, I move the first motion which has been printed on the Agenda. This motion proposes increases in the fees specified in the Births and Deaths (Registration) Ordinance for the registration of births and deaths and related matters. Notices of this and the following motions were first submitted to this Council for moving at the sitting on 27 August 1997. I subsequently withdrew these notices to better synchronize the timing of the introduction of these motions with that for other related fees revision proposals, which have since been tabled before this Council in the form of subsidiary legislation on 10 September for negative procedures. Moving of the two motions has, therefore, been postponed to today.
A recent review of the fees and charges conducted by the Immigration Department indicates that there are four areas in the services delivered by the Department for which there is under-recovery of costs. These are: Registration of Persons Services where the average shortfall is about 6%; Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages, where the average shortfall is about 13%; Issue of Visas, where the average shortfall is about 14%; and Issue of Non-Passport Travel Documents, where the average shortfall is about 8%.
It is the Government's policy that fees and charges should, in general, be set at levels sufficient to recover the full cost of providing the services to which they relate. Over the past years, we have been seeking to recover the full cost of Immigration Department services by phases. Most of the fees covered in this exercise were last revised in July 1996. For the current revision exercise we propose to revise the fees by 7% to 17% to achieve full cost recovery. Details of all the fees increases have been tabled in this Council on 10 September 1997.
We had originally intended to go through the necessary legislative procedures to implement the latest fees revision in July 1997. Due to the heavy agenda of the Provisional Legislative Council during the period immediately following the transition, the fee revision exercise was slightly postponed. However, we do not propose to further defer this exercise because fees and charges are important sources of revenue, representing about 10% of General Revenue.
We have prepared our annual estimates assuming the additional revenue to be generated by the fees increases. It is thus essential to give effect to these increases in order to avoid shortfall. If the fee revisions for the Immigration Department are not implemented, the annual revenue foregone is estimated to be about $71.3 million. The revision next year could then entail an even larger percentage increase, which would make it less acceptable to the public.
The current and the subsequent motions are concerned with fees for the Registration of Births and Deaths. In order to soften the impact of fee increases, the last revision exercise sought to recover only 89% of the cost of these services. We propose to revise the fees this time by 15%. As the actual increases in dollar terms range from $10 to $90 only, the revision should have little impact on the general public. If approved, the new fees will be implemented on 31 October this year.
Thank you, Madam President.
The Secretary for Security moved the following motion:
"That with effect from 31 October 1997 the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance be amended ─
- in section 9 (2), by repealing "$120" and substituting "$140";
- in section 9 (3), by repealing "$590" and substituting "$680";
- in section 13 (2A), by repealing "$120" and substituting "$140";
- in section 13 (3), by repealing "$370" and substituting "$425";
- in section 22 (1), by repealing "$120" and "$590" and substituting "$140" and "$680" respectively;
- in section 22 (2), by repealing "$120" and "$240" and substituting "$140" and "$275" respectively;
- in section 23, by repealing "$60" and substituting "$70";
- in section 27 (1) (c), by repealing "$370" and substituting "$425"."
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Security to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Ordinance, as set out on the Agenda, be approved.
Council shall now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated to speak)
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.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Motion made under the Legitimacy Ordinance. Secretary for Security.
LEGITIMACY ORDINANCE
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Madam President, I move the second motion which has been printed on the Agenda. It seeks to increase the fees specified in the Schedule to the Legitimacy Ordinance. I have already explained the background to this motion in my speech moving the previous motion.
The Legitimacy Ordinance provides for the re-registration of the birth of legitimated persons. Fees collected relate to the re-registration of births and the issue of certified copies of entries of the birth of legitimated persons. The fees were last revised to recover only 89% of the cost in July 1996. It is now proposed to achieve full cost recovery by revising the fees from $295 to $340 for re-registration of births and from $120 to $140 for a certified copy of an entry of the birth in the Register of Births.
Thank you, Madam President.
The Secretary for Security moved the following motion:
"That with effect from 31 October 1997 the Schedule to the Legitimacy Ordinance be amended:
- in paragraph 5, by repealing "$295" and substituting "$340";
- in paragraph 6(1), by repealing "$120" and substituting "$140"."
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Security, to amend the Legitimacy Ordinance as set out on the Agenda, be approved.
Council shall now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated to speak)
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.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Motion made under the Buildings Ordinance. Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands.
BUILDINGS ORDINANCE
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS(in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Agenda.
First of all, I would like to thank the President for agreeing to waive Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure, thereby allowing me to move this motion.
As a result of the public concern over the safety in construction sites and the standard of safety inspections carried out by professionals and building contractors in the course of building and demolition works, the Buildings (Amendment) Ordinance 1996 was enacted on 18 July 1996. The Ordinance provides, inter alia, that a works supervision plan has to be lodged by an Authorized Person with the Building Authority, failing which consent will not be given for the commencement of the building or road works concerned. The Ordinance also stipulates that the authorities concerned have to prepare a Technical Memorandum which should set out in detail the information to be contained in a works supervision plan.
For the purpose of drafting the Technical Memorandum, the Director of Buildings has commissioned the services of a consultant and also appointed a supervision team to provide guidance on the work of the consultant. In addition to senior officers of the Housing Department, the supervision team consists of 13 representatives from the construction sector and related professional bodies. The supervision team is responsible for ensuring that all the requirements in the Technical Memorandum are appropriate, necessary and practicable. Eight meetings have been convened by the supervision team since March 1997 to discuss the contents of the Technical Memorandum. Since the completion of the first draft of the Technical Memorandum, the Buildings Department has been actively seeking the views of Authorized Persons, the Registered Structural Engineers Committee and the Building Subcommittee of the Lands and Building Advisory Committee. Members of the two Committees include representatives from the Hong Kong Institute of Architects, Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Construction Association. During the period from May to July 1997, the two Committees have altogether held four joint meetings to discuss the various principles and details of the Technical Memorandum. The main parts of the Technical Memorandum, including Table 1 on the minimum requirements for different classes of supervision, were passed by the two Committees at the meeting held on 18 July 1997.
All members of the Lands and Building Advisory Committee have also been consulted by the Director of Buildings when this Technical Memorandum was being drafted. Members of the Lands and Building Advisory Committee include the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Construction Association and other related professional bodies. Details of the Technical Memorandum were discussed at the meetings held in May and August of this year. Eventually, the Technical Memorandum submitted by the Government was passed by the Lands and Building Committee at its meeting held in August. The approved Technical Memorandum was immediately gazetted on 29 August 1997 and tabled before the Provisional Legislative Council on 3 September 1997.
A Subcommittee was subsequently formed under the House Committee of the Provisional Legislative Council to scrutinize the Technical Memorandum. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Edward HO, the chairman of this Subcommittee and other Members for their work in scrutinizing the Technical Memorandum. The Subcommittee has received submissions from the Hong Kong Construction Association of Hong Kong, the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong and related professional bodies in respect of the Technical Memorandum. Their views are generally in line with their feedbacks to the Government during the consultation period. We have already discussed and dealt with their concerns at the four joint meetings of the two Committees and the generay meeting of the Lands and Building Advisorty Committee held on 4 August 1997, and these Committees finally agreed to approve the gazetted Technical Memorandum. We reported the responses of the Administration to the concerns of these associations and bodies to the Subcommittee of the Provisional Legislative Council. I wish to thank the Subcommittee for endorsing our responses.
The Government shares the concern of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. We are also of the view that the minimum requirements on site inspection as set out in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum may not be adequate at critical stages of construction works. It has been the intention of the Government to lay down the requirements for additional site inspections and other conditions during critical stages of construction works in the Code of Practice of the supervision plan.
In order to allay the worries of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, we have agreed to add a note in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum to state the relevant arrangements. This is also the purpose of my motion today. The wording of the motion has also been endorsed by the Subcommittee and the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers.
Madam President, I beg to move.
The Secretary for Planning and Environment and Lands moved the following motion:
"That the Technical Memorandum for Supervision Plans, published in Special Supplement No.5 to the Gazette on 29 August 1997 and laid on the table of the Provisional Legislative Council on 3 September 1997, be amended in Part III, in Table 1 -?
- by renumbering Note 2 as Note 3; and
- by adding -
"2. For frequency levels 1 to 4, more frequent site inspection up to full time may be required at critical stages; refer to the Code of Practice for guidance."
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is "That the Technical Memorandum for Supervision Plans, published in Special Supplement No. 5 to the Gazette on 29 August 1997 and laid on the table of the Provisional Council on 3 September 1997, be amended in Part III, in Table 1 as set out on the Agenda. Mr Edward HO.
MR EDWARD HO(in Cantonese): Madam President, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Technical Memorandum For Supervision Plans, I would like to make a few remarks on behalf of the Subcommittee.
The Subcommittee welcomes the Government's move to prepare the Technical Memorandum For Supervision Plans, so that the Buildings (Amendment) Ordinance 1996 enacted by the former Legislative Council can be implemented to enhance the safety management of building works and road works. The Subcommittee has met with five professional bodies of the construction industry to seek their views on the Technical Memorandum, and noted that the professional bodies of the construction industry are generally in favour of the implementation of supervision plans. But, the Subcommittee is also aware that these professional bodies do doubt whether there would be enough technically competent persons to take up the extra supervision responsibilities. The Subcommittee is in favour of the Administration's solution to the shortage problem of technical personnel, T1 grade technical personnel in particular, by allowing serving site supervisory staff with five years of experience but without the required academic qualification as set out in the Technical Memorandum to carry out the duties of T1 grade supervisors within the first two years of the supervision plans' implementation. They would also be allowed to continue to work as T1 grade supervisors for the next three years if they have completed the construction site safety course upon the expiry of the two years limit. The Subcommittee considers this arrangement to be an acceptable temporary solution for alleviating the manpower shortage problem; but, in the long run the Government should work closely with the various training institutions, such as the Vocational Training Council, the Construction Industry Training Authority and the local tertiary institutions, to offer training courses for site supervisors, so that they can be assisted to acquire the minimum academic qualifications as set out in the Technical Memorandum. Although the Government plans to implement the system of supervision plans by stages, the Subcommittee is generally of the opinion that it should review the implementation of the system from time to time, with particular emphasis on manpower so as to prevent any imbalance between manpower supply and demand. The Administration has undertaken to review the supervision plans system from time to time.
Another issue of concern to the Subcommittee is the minimum requirement for different grades of supervision as set out in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum. As the requirements specified in the Technical Memorandum are far lower than the standards currently applied to certain types of works with a high degree of complexity, some professional bodies of the construction industry are worried that those in the trade may mistakenly take these requirements as the minimum requirement and that they would be sufficient at all times. The Administration has already clarified that Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum has only spelt out the minimum requirements for standard site safety supervision, and the Code of Practice of supervision plans will lay down the supervision requirements for the critical stages of building works and road works. But the Subcommittee is still in support of the recommendations of the professional bodies of the construction industry, and has come to the view that it is necessary to add a note to Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum, to specify that more frequent inspections may be required during the critical stages of construction works. The motion just moved by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands reflects the consensus of the Subcommittee, professional bodies and the Administration.
Finally, the Subcommittee is happy to note that the Administration has agreed to run the supervision plans system on a trial basis before actual implementation. The Administration will also study the results of the pilot scheme before laying down the final details of the scheme so as to ensure that the scheme is really practicable.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Dr Raymond HO.
DR RAYMOND HO(in Cantonese): Madam President, since the Technical Memorandum will produce very far reaching practical effects, and particularly since we have convened two emergency meetings within such a short time to tackle the related issues, I have decided to say a few words on the motion.
Apart from setting out a construction site safety management structure, the Technical Memorandum For Supervision Plans issued by the Administration under section 30A of the Buildings Ordinance also specifies the various details that have to be included in a supervision plan. All these requirements are intended to enhance the safety on private construction sites and reduce the incidence of accidents. However, the Memorandum was met with very strong reactions from the engineering sector during the consultation period, and 40 experienced engineers even lodged a joint petition against the proposed Technical Memorandum. In regard to the minimum safety supervision standards for general construction sites as set out in Part III, Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum submitted by the Administration to this Council on 3 September 1997, they view that it is far lower than the existing standards. Although the number of site inspections set out in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum is only the minimum number of site inspections, the engineering field fears that this minimum number may as well be wrongly interpreted as already sufficient to ensure safety. It has, therefore, caused great concern among the engineering sector. The opinions of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers were heard by the Subcommittee on the Technical Memorandum For Supervision Plans. In order to solve the problem before the meeting of the House Committee was convened on the next day, another emergency meeting between the Building Department and the Institution of Engineers was held on the same day at my suggestion. By reaching an agreement before the House Committee's meeting, the motion on passing the Technical Memorandum was eventually retained. Upon further discussions, the Administration agreed to make an amendment by adding Note 2 in Table 1 of the Technical Memorandum so as to dispel the worries of the Institution. I am very pleased with this amendment.
Site safety and quality of private construction works have always been one of the concerns of society. I have particularly mentioned at the second meeting of the Subcommittee that besides certain critical stages of the construction works, the current practice adopted by the Government in major construction works, such as full-time site inspections by professional and technical personnel, should also be applied in the case of construction works of a complex nature. At the meeting, I requested the Buildings Department to include this requirement in the Code of Practice and the Department undertook to act in accordance with my request. The Subcommittee has also requested the Building Department to submit the Code of Practice for our scrutiny upon its completion. The amended Technical Memorandum will play an important role in implementing the requirements of the supervision plans and reducing accidents at construction sites.
With these remarks, Madam President, made in view of public concern and the interests of construction workers, I support the Administration's resolution. Thank you.
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, do you wish to reply?
(The Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands indicated that he did not wish to reply)
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.
MEMBERS' MOTION
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): Member's Motion made under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. Dr LEONG Che-hung.
INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Madam President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Agenda. The eight items of subsidiary legislation seek to increase various fees so as to achieve full cost recovery. At the House Committee meeting held on 12 September 1997, Members agreed to form a Subcommittee to study these eight pieces of subsidiary legislation. To allow the Subcommittee sufficient time to consider these subsidiary legislation, Members agreed at the same meeting that the expiry date for making amendments to these subsidiary legislation be extended to 15 October 1997.
Madam President, I beg to move.
Dr LEONG Che-hung moved the following motion:
"That in relation to the:
- Securities and Futures Commission (Fees) (Amendment) Rules 1997, published as Legal Notice No.430 of 1997;
- Immigration (Amendment) Regulation 1997, published as Legal Notice no.432 of 1997;
- Registration of Persons (Amendment) Regulation 1997 published as Legal Notice No.433 of 1997;
- Marriage Reform (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 1997, published as Legal Notice No.434 of 1997;
- Births Registration (Special Registers) Ordinance (Amendment of Fifth Schedule) Order 1997, published as Legal Notice No.435 of 1997;
- Deaths Registration (Special Registers) Ordinance (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) Order 1997, published as Legal Notice No.436 of 1997;
- Marriage Ordinance (Amendment of Second Schedule) Order 1997, published as Legal Notice No. 437 of 1997; and
- Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 1997, published as Legal Notice No.438 of 1997,
which were laid on the table of the Provisional Legislative Council on 10 September 1997, the period referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap.1) for amending subsidiary legislation be extended under section 34 (4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 15 October 1997."
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr LEONG Che-hung to extend under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance the period for amending subsidiary legislation which was laid on the table of the Provisional Legislative Council on 10 September 1997 to the meeting of 15 October 1997 as set out on the Agenda, be approved.
Council shall now proceed to a debate. Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated to speak)
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.
NEXT SITTING
PRESIDENT(in Cantonese): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 8 October 1997.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Six o'clock on 28 September 1997.
Annex I
WRITTEN ANSWER
Written answer by the Secretary for Health and Welfare to Mrs Peggy LAM's supplementary question to Question 3
The information requested is as follows:
Portable Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (PCSSA) Scheme:
Contractual Arrangement between
Social Welfare Department and Hong Kong Red Cross
Duration of the Contract
The contract between Social Welfare Department (SWD) and Hong Kong Red Cross (HKRC) runs for two years starting from 1 April 1997.
Services provided by HKRC
The HKRC provides the following services with regard to elderly CSSA recipients who have retired to live in Guangdong:
- conducts 5% spot checks, by means of home visits, on the recipients for the purpose of verifying their financial and material particulars which might affect their CSSA entitlement and/or continual eligibility to CSSA;
- conducts an annual postal review of all recipients and, where necessary, conducts interviews and/or visits to further verify the recipient's financial and other conditions;
- provides escort service to those recipients who have a genuine need to return to Hong Kong but cannot make the necessary arrangement themselves;
- visits, investigates and assists those recipients who reportedly have become mentally unfit to proceed with the application for CSSA on their own;
- conducts investigation into suspected fraud cases; and
- handles enquiries from the recipients residing in Guangdong.
The HKRC makes regular reports to SWD and the Department monitors closely the work of the HKRC to ensure that it fulfils its contractual obligations and adheres to the procedural guidelines and standards laid down by the Department in its dealings with elderly PCSSA recipients.
Payment Arrangement
The SWD pays for the service of the HKRC pursuant to the following fee schedule, based on the number of the number of cases involving elderly receiving CSSA in Guangdong, to cover the costs of accommodation, office equipment, staff, administrative and programme expenses:
|
|
Case range |
|
|
0-2 500 |
2 501-5 000
|
5 001-7 500
|
| Amount of payment for the year 1997-98 |
$1.80M |
$2.15M
|
$2.39M
|
| Amount of payment for the year 1998-99 |
$1.63M |
$2.15M
|
$2.66M
|
Payments are made to the HKRC by instalments on a quarterly basis, starting from April 1997.
Annex II
WRITTEN ANSWER
Written answer by the Secretary for Financial Services to Mr NG Leung-sing's supplementary question to Question 6
As at the end of September, the total amount of bank notes issued by the three note-issuing banks was HK$84 billion. However, we do not have a precise figure for the amount of Hong Kong Dollars circulating outside Hong Kong and can therefore only make a rough estimation. As the Guangdong Province has the closest financial affinity with Hong Kong, we assume that the Hong Kong Dollar circulating outside Hong Kong would be mainly circulated in Southern China and Macau, and is used as a medium for transaction and stored for value. Based on the gross domestic product of the Guangdong Province and assessed in accordance with statistical modes, the amount of Hong Kong Dollars circulating outside Hong Kong at present is in the region of HK$19 billion, amounting to about 22% of the total amount of bank notes issued.
Annex III
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs
| Clause |
Amendment Proposed |
| 3(1) |
(a) In the definition of "elector", by deleting "subsequently".
|
|
(b) In the definition of "ex-officio member", by deleting "1(7)" and substituting "1(7A)". |
| 4 |
- In subclause (3), by deleting "order" and substituting "notice".
- In subclause (6), by deleting "on the date on which" and substituting "immediately after".
- By adding -
"(7) The consideration of any Bill or other business of the Legislative Council is to lapse on the dissolution of that Council.".
|
| New |
By adding -
"9A. First meeting of first term of office of Legislative Council
(1) The Chief Executive must, by notice published in the Gazette, specify a date and time for holding the first meeting of the first term of office of the Legislative Council.
(2) The date and time specified in the notice must be within 14 days after the first term of office of the Legislative Council begins.
(3) The first item of business at the first meeting, after the taking of the Legislative Council Oath by Members, must be the election of a Member to preside at that meeting for the purpose of electing the President.
(4) The presiding Member must be elected under subsection (3) by the Members present at the first meeting from amongst themselves. The Clerk to the Legislative Council must preside at that meeting for the purpose of electing the presiding Member.
(5) The President must, after his election at the first meeting, preside at that meeting.".
|
| 10(1) |
By deleting "that begins immediately after" and substituting "next following".
|
| 11 |
(a)By adding -
"(2A) A notice of non-acceptance takes effect on the date on which the notice is received by the Clerk to the Legislative Council and the person giving the notice is taken to have resigned from office as a Member from that date.".
(b) In subclause (3) -
- by adding ", within 14 days after receiving the notice," before "publish";
- by deleting everything after "Member." where it first appears.
|
| 12(3)(a) |
By deleting "it is given to" and substituting "the notice is received by".
|
| 13 |
(a)By renumbering the clause as clause 13(1).
(b) In subclause (1), by adding -
"(ba) subject to subsection (2), alters either the Member's nationality or the fact as to whether the Member has a right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China as declared under section 38(1)(b)(ii); or".
(c) By adding -
"(2) Subsection (1)(ba) does not apply to a Member elected at an election for a functional constituency specified in section 35(3) unless the Member has declared under section 38(1)(b)(ii) that he or she has Chinese nationality or has no right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China and subsequently he or she -
- acquires a nationality other than Chinese nationality; or
- acquires a right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), the kind of misbehaviour for which a Member may be censured under Article 79(7) of the Basic Law includes (but is not limited to) a breach of an oath given under section 38(1)(b)(iiii).".
|
| 16 |
(a) In subclause (1), by deleting "There" and substituting "For the first term of office of the Legislative Council, there".
(b) In subclause (2), by adding "published in the Gazette" after "by order".
(c) By deleting subclause (4).
|
| 17(2) |
By adding "at the first general election" after "geographical constituency".
|
| 18 |
By deleting "The" and substituting "For the first term of office of the Legislative Council, the".
|
| 20(1) |
By deleting "A" and substituting "For the first term of office of the Legislative Council, a".
|
| 22. |
(a)In subclause (1)(a), by adding "of geographical constituencies" after "register".
|
|
(b)In subclause (2), by deleting "believes" and substituting "is satisfied".
|
| 23. |
- In subclause (4), by deleting "to (4)" and substituting "to (5)".
- In subclause (5) -
- by deleting "item 4" and substituting "item 4(1), (2), (44) to (49)";
- by deleting "26(1)" and substituting "26(1A) or (1)".
- In subclause (6), by deleting "to (6)" and substituting "to (6C)".
|
| 24
|
(a)In subclause (2) -
- in paragraph (c), by deleting the full stop and substituting "; and";
- by adding -
"(d) is not disqualified from being registered or voting under section 29 or 51.".
- In subclause (6), by deleting everything after "Officer for the" and substituting "purposes of subsection (1) or (5) in accordance with regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997) by the corporate elector concerned. The application must be in writing and be in the specified form.".
|
| 29(1) |
(a)In paragraph (a), by adding "either" after "has not".
|
|
(b)In paragraph (c) -
- in subparagraph (iii), by adding "Part II of" after "under";
- in subparagraph (iv), by deleting "prescribed offence under" and substituting "offence prescribed by".
- In paragraph (e), by deleting "any country" and substituting "the Central People's Government or any other country or territory".
|
| 30 |
(a)In subclause (4)(a), by deleting "persons who appear to that Officer to be" and substituting "those persons whom the Electoral Registration Officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds as being".
(b)In subclause (5), by adding "have been entered on an omissions list" after "register".
|
| 32(4) |
- By deleting "and any" and substituting "or any".
- By adding "or any other person" after "practitioner".
|
| 33 |
(a)By renumbering the clause as clause 33(1).
(b) By adding -
"(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Clerk to the Legislative Council must declare the existence of a vacancy under that subsection after becoming aware that, after the close of polling for an election, a candidate returned at the election has died before that candidate is declared to be elected as a Member at the election.".
|
| 36 |
(a)In subclause (6), by deleting "is to be adjusted".
|
|
(b) By renumbering subclause (10) as subclause (8A).
|
|
(c) In subclause (9) -
- by deleting "Subject to subsection (10), the" and substituting "The";
- by deleting "subsection (6)" and substituting "subsections (6) and (8A)";
- by deleting "is to be" and substituting "are taken as constituting".
|
| 37 |
(a) In subclause (1) -
- paragraph (a)(iii), by deleting everything after "an officer" and substituting "of the Legislative Council (including the Provisional Legislative Council) or a member of staff of The Legislative Council Commission (including The Provisional Legislative Council Commission); or ";
- in paragraph (b), by adding "either" after "has not";
- in paragraph (e) -
(A) in subparagraph (iv), by adding "Part II of" after "under";
(B) in subparagraph (v), by deleting "prescribed offence under" and substituting "offence prescribed by";
in paragraph (g), by deleting "salaried representative" and substituting "representative or salaried functionary";
in paragraph (i), by adding "or a voluntary arrangement" after "person's creditors". (b)In subclause (5), in the definition of "prescribed public officer", by adding "的" after "(訂明".
| 38(1)(b) |
- In subparagraph (ii), by deleting the full stop and substituting "; and ".
- By adding -
"(iii) a promissory oath given by the person to the effect that, if elected, he or she will not do anything during his or her term of office that would result in his or her -
(A) becoming -
- a prescribed public officer within the meaning of section 37(5); or
- an officer of the Legislative Council (including the Provisional Legislative Council) or a member of staff of The Legislative Council Commission (including The Provisional Legislative Council Commission);
(B) being sentenced to death in Hong Kong or any other place;
(C) being convicted of treason;
(D) being convicted -
(I) of a corrupt practice or an illegal practice (other than the illegal practice consisting of a contravention of section 19 of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Ordinance (Cap. 288)); or
(II) of a corrupt or an illegal practice within the meaning of any other enactment providing for the punishment of corrupt or illegal practices; or
(III) of any offence under Part II of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201); or
(IV) of any offence prescribed by regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997);
(E) being disqualified from being elected as a Member at an election because of the operation of this or any other law;
(F) becoming a representative or salaried functionary of a government of a place outside Hong Kong;
(G) becoming a member of any national, regional or municipal legislature, assembly or council of any place outside Hong Kong, other than a people's congress or people's consultative body of the People's Republic of China, whether established at the national or local level;
(H) becoming a member of the armed forces of the Central People's Government or any other country or territory; or
(I) in the case of a Member elected for a functional constituency, ceasing to have a substantial connection with the constituency.".
|
| 39. |
By deleting subclause (1) and substituting -
"(1) A person is not eligible to be nominated -
- as a candidate for a constituency if the person is currently nominated either as a candidate for another constituency or as a candidate for election by the Election Committee; or
- as a candidate for election by the Election Committee if the person is currently nominated as a candidate for a constituency.".
40(2)By deleting "made" and substituting "in force".
42.(a) In subclause (1), by deleting "disrupted" and substituting "obstructed, disrupted, undermined".
(b) In subclause (2), by deleting "disrupted" and substituting "obstructed, disrupted, undermined".
47 (a) In subclause (11) -
- by deleting "recount" and substituting "re-count";
- in paragraph (b), by deleting "exceed" and substituting "exceeds".
(b) In subclause (12) -
- by deleting "candidates is" and substituting "candidates are";
- by deleting "the proceeding" and substituting "then proceeding".
48(5)(b) By adding ", or those candidates' votes," after "votes".
49(2) By adding "or relative" after "simple".
50 (a) In subclause (1), by adding "or relative" after "simple".
(b) In subclause (2), by deleting "At a general" and substituting "At the first general".
(c) In subclause (3), by deleting "a" and substituting "the first".
(d) In subclause (4), by adding "to" before "fill".
51 (a) In subclause (1)(b), by deleting "Part 1 or 2 of".
(b) By deleting subclause (3)(a) and (b) and substituting -
"(a) has ceased to be eligible to be registered as an elector for a geographical constituency; or
(b) is not registered or has ceased to be registered as an elector for a geographical constituency.".
(c) In subclause (5) -
- in paragraph (a), by adding "either" after "has not";
- in paragraph (c)(iii), by adding "Part II of" after "under";
- in paragraph (e), by deleting "any country" and substituting "the Central People's Government or any other country or territory".
57(3) By deleting "liable to conviction under this section only if" and substituting "not to be liable to conviction under this section unless".
58 By adding -
"(2A) In this section, "elector" (選民) includes an authorized representative of a corporate elector.".
59(3) By deleting everything after "includes" and substituting "nomination proceedings and the decisions of the Returning Officer or any Assistant Returning Officer.".
67 By deleting subclause (2) and substituting -
"(2) If an election petition is lodged by 2 or more petitioners, the petition is terminated if the last remaining petitioner -
- (where that petitioner is a natural person) dies; or
- (where that petitioner is a body) ceases to exist.".
70 By deleting subclause (1) and substituting -
"(1) If, on the hearing of an election petition, the Court determines that a person who was originally declared to have been elected as a Member at an election was not duly elected, that person ceases to be a Member and, subject to subsection (2), that person's office as a Member becomes vacant from the date of the determination.".
73(5) By deleting "executive authorities of the".
80(2) (a) In paragraph (c), by adding "and" at the end.
(b) In paragraph (d), by adding "and" at the end.
81 (a) By renumbering the clause as clause 81(1).
(b) By adding -
"(2) In this section, "Legislative Council" (立法會) includes the Provisional Legislative Council.".
83 (a) By adding -
"(1A) The Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance (Cap. 204) is amended as indicated in Part 1A of Schedule 4.".
(b) By adding -
"(3) The Federation of Hong Kong Industries Ordinance (Cap. 321) is amended as indicated in Part 3 of Schedule 4.".
Schedule In item 6 -
1, Part 2
- in paragraph (13), by deleting "(F.M. Ltd.)." and substituting "(F.M.) Ltd.";
- in paragraph (15), by deleting "Company Limited." and substituting "Co. Ltd.";
- in paragraph (19), by deleting "Assocation" and substituting "Association";
- in paragraph (36), by deleting "The";
- by deleting paragraphs (37), (54), (81), (93) and (152);
- in paragraph (59), by deleting "HK" and substituting "Hong Kong,";
- in paragraph (61), by deleting "Association" and substituting "Associations";
- in paragraph (70), by deleting "Light Bus" and substituting "Lightbus";
- in paragraph (79), by deleting "Instructors" and substituting "Instruction";
- by deleting paragraph (82) and substituting -
"(82) Public and Private Light Buses Driving Instructors' Society.";
- in paragraph (106), by deleting "Star" and substituting ""Star"";
- by deleting paragraph (131) and substituting -
"(131) Hong Kong Guangdong Transportation Association Ltd.";
- in paragraph (145), by deleting "Poineer" and substituting "Pioneer". Schedule (a) In item 7 -
1, Part 3
- in paragraph (2), by deleting "the following bodies";
- in paragraph (4), by adding "or provisionally registered" after "registered";
- in paragraph (6) -
(A) in subparagraph (a), by deleting "and industrial training centres" and substituting ", industrial training centres and skills centres";
(B) by adding -
"(d) Pinehill Village Advanced Training Centre of the Hong Kong Association for the Mentally Handicapped;
(e) Caritas Lok Mo Vocational Training Centre of the Caritas - Hong Kong under the Caritas - Hong Kong Incorporation Ordinance (Cap. 1092).".
(b) In item 8, by adding -
"(6) The Legal Adviser of the Legislative Council Secretariat (including the Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat) and his assistants who are in the full-time employment of The Legislative Council Commission (including The Provisional Legislative Council Commission) and are barristers or solicitors as defined in the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159).".
(c) In item 11 -
- by deleting paragraph (7) and substituting -
"(7) Radiographers registered under the Radiographers (Registration and Disciplinary Procedure) Regulation (Cap. 359 sub. leg.) and applicants for provisional registration who are deemed to be registered in respect of the radiographers' profession under section 18A of the Supplementary Medical Professions Ordinance (Cap. 359).";
- in paragraph (9), by adding "in respect of the physiotherapists' profession" after "deemed to be registered";
- in paragraph (11), by adding "in respect of the optometrists' profession" after "deemed to be registered";
- in paragraph (13)(c), by deleting "Government clinics" and substituting "the Government".
(d) In item 17(3), by adding "in Hong Kong" after "Representatives".
(e) In item 24 -
- in paragraph (1), by adding ", China" after "Hong Kong";
- in paragraph (2), by deleting "that have no" and substituting ", China that have no statutory bodies or";
- in paragraph (6) -
(A) by deleting "the following bodies entitled to vote at general meetings of those bodies";
(B) in subparagraphs (a) to (e), by adding "the" at the beginning;
(C) in subparagraph (e), by deleting the full stop and substituting a semicolon;
(D) by adding -
"(f) the Hong Kong Book and Stationery Industry Association Company Limited,
entitled to vote at general meetings of the respective bodies.";
- in paragraph (7), by deleting "sub-item (6) above" and substituting "paragraph (6)".
- in paragraph (8) -
(A) by deleting "the following bodies entitled to vote at general meetings of those bodies";
(B) in subparagraphs (a), (c) to (e), by adding "the" at the beginning;
(C) by adding "entitled to vote at general meetings of the respective bodies." at the end.
(f) In item 25 -
- in paragraph (1) -
(A) by deleting "the following bodies who entitled to vote at general meetings of those bodies";
(B) in subparagraph (i), by deleting "Hong Kong" and substituting "Hongkong";
(C) in subparagraph (j), by deleting "Hong Kong" and substituting "Hongkong";
(D) by deleting subparagraph (1) and substituting -
"(1) The Liquor & Provision Industries Association;";
(E) by deleting subparagraph (o);
(F) in subparagraph (u), by deleting the full stop and substituting a comma;
- by deleting paragraphs (2) to (4) and substituting -
"(2) Companies licensed under the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Cap. 109) for the import and/or export of dutiable commodities.
(3) Companies registered under the Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax) Ordinance (Cap. 330) for the import of motor vehicles for use in Hong Kong.
(4) Companies licensed under the Control of Chemicals Ordinance (Cap. 145) for the import and/or export of controlled chemicals.
(5) Companies licensed under the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60) for the import and/or export of outboard engines and left hand drive vehicles and for the export of prescribed articles.".
- In item 26 -
- in column 1, by adding "constituency" after "functional";
- by adding before paragraph (1) -
"(1A) Members of the Textile Council of Hong Kong Limited (other than those referred to in paragraph (1)(a) to (k)) entitled to vote at general meetings of the Council.";
- in paragraph (1) -
(A) by deleting "the following bodies entitled to vote at general meetings of those bodies";
(B) in subparagraph (j), by deleting the full stop and substituting a semicolon;
(C) by deleting subparagraph (1);
(D) by adding "entitled to vote at general meetings of the respective bodies." at the end;
- by adding before paragraph (2) -
"(2A) The Hong Kong General Chamber of Textiles Limited.".
(h) In item 27 -
- by deleting "the following bodies entitled to vote at general meetings of those bodies";
- by deleting paragraphs (41) and (60);
- in paragraph (43), by deleting "Limited" and substituting "Ltd.";
(i) In item 28 -
- in paragraph (1), by deleting "Fellow" and substituting "Fellows";
- in paragraph (3) -
(A) by deleting "Fellow" and substituting "Fellows";
(B) by deleting "Electronic" and substituting "Electronics";
- in paragraph (4) -
(A) by deleting "Fellow" and substituting "Fellows";
(B) by deleting "Electronic" and substituting "Electronics";
- in paragraph (5), by deleting "Fellow" and substituting "Fellows";
- in paragraph (6), by deleting "Fellow" and substituting "Fellows";
- by adding -
"(6A) Fellows, Senior Professional Members and Professional Members of the Hong Kong Association for Computer Education Ltd. entitled to vote at general meetings of the Association.
(6B) Full Members (Information Technology) of the Hong Kong Society of Medical Informatics Ltd. entitled to vote at general meetings of the Society.";
(6C) Ordinary Members of the Hong Kong Telemedicine Association entitled to vote at general meetings of the Association.";
- in paragraph (7) -
(A) by deleting "the following bodies entitled to vote at general meetings of those bodies";
(B) in subparagraph (d), by deleting the full stop and substituting a comma;
(C) by adding "entitled to vote at general meetings of the respective bodies." at the end;
- in paragraph (10), by deleting "Electronics".
Schedule (a) In section 1 -
2, Part 1
- in subsection (6), by deleting "subsection (8)" and substituting "subsections (7), (7A), (8) and (8A)";
- in subsection (7) -
(A) by deleting "The Election" and substituting "Subject to subsections (7A), (8) and (8A), the Election";
(B) in paragraph (c), by deleting "subject to subsection (8),";
(C) by deleting "The persons referred to in paragraph (c) are the ex-officio members of the Election Committee.";
- by adding -
"(7A) The Electoral Registration Officer must register the persons referred to in subsection (7)(c), other than those persons who have by notice under subsection (7B) declined registration, as ex-officio members of the Election Committee in accordance with regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997).
(7B) A person referred to in subsection (7)(c)(i) or (ii), who is registered as an elector in a functional constituency may, by giving written notice to the Electoral Registration Officer in accordance with regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997), decline registration as an ex-officio member of the Election Committee.".
- by adding -
"(8A) If, after adding the difference referred to in subsection (8), the number of members allocated to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference subsector is equal to or exceeds the number of the Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, subsection (7)(b) is not to apply in relation to this subsector and the number of members allocated to this subsector is to be filled by all the persons holding office on the relevant date as Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and, where there is an excess in the number of members allocated, the excess number is to be allocated equally between the subsectors specified in items 5 and 6 of Table 4 and the remaining number, if any, is to be allocated to the subsector specified in item 6 of Table 4.".
(b) In Table 5 -
- in item 5 -
(A) in paragraph (2), by adding "or provisionally registered" after "registered";
(B) in paragraph (4) -
(I) by deleting "in the following" and substituting "with the following bodies";
(II) in subparagraph (a), by deleting "and industrial training centres" and substituting ", industrial training centres and skills centres";
(III) in subparagraph (c), by deleting the full stop at the end and substituting a semicolon;
(IV) by adding -
"(d) Pinehill Village Advanced Training Centre of the Hong Kong Association for the Mentally Handicapped;
(e) Caritas Lok Mo Vocational Training Centre of the Caritas - Hong Kong under the Caritas - Hong Kong Incorporation Ordinance (Cap. 1092).";
(ii) in item 6(8), by deleting "Companies engaged in catering which are holders" and substituting "Holders".
Schedule (a) By deleting section 2(2) and substituting -
2, Part 2
"(2) The Chief Executive in Council may, by order published in the Gazette, distribute the number of members allocated to the religious subsector among the designated bodies.".
(b) In section 3(7), by deleting "of this Schedule".
(c) In section 4(2) -
(i) by deleting paragraph (a) and substituting -
"(a) a person referred to in section 1(7)(c)(i) or (ii) (whether or not the person is an ex-officio member); or";
(ii) by deleting "and".
(d) In section 5 -
(i) in paragraph (a)(ii), by adding "or" at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (b), by adding "or" at the end;
(iii) in paragraph (c) -
(A) in subparagraph (ii), by adding "for" after "providing";
(B) in subparagraph (iii), by adding "Part II of" after "under";
(C) in subparagraph (iv), by deleting "prescribed offence under" and substituting "offence prescribed by";
(iv) in paragraph (e), by deleting "any country" and substituting "the Central People's Government or any other country or territory".
Schedule (a) In section 7 -
2, Part 3
(i) in the definition of "last geographical constituencies provisional register", by deleting "選舉登記冊)" and substituting "選民登記冊)";
(ii)in the definition of "last functional constituencies provisional register", by deleting "組別臨時選舉登記冊)" and substituting "界別臨時選民登記冊)";
(iii) in the definition of "subsector final register", by adding "組" after "(界別分";
(iv) in the definition of "subsector register", by deleting "of this Schedule".
(b) In section 8 -
(i) in subsection (1)(c) -
(A) in subparagraph (i), by deleting "the third column" and substituting "column 3";
(B) in subparagraph (ii) -
(I) by deleting "the Ordinance" and substituting "this Ordinance";
(II) by deleting "otherwise";
(ii) in subsection (2) -
(A) in paragraph (a), by deleting "item 6" and substituting "item 7";
(B) in paragraph (b), by deleting "item 6" and substituting "item 7";
(iii) in subsection (3) -
(A) in paragraph (a), by deleting "item 6" and substituting "item 7";
(B) in paragraph (b), by deleting "item 6" and substituting "item 7";
(iv) in subsection (4)(c), by deleting "4,";
(v) in subsection (6), by deleting "item 6" and substituting "item 7";
(vi) in subsection (7), by deleting "item 6" and substituting "item 7";
(vii) in subsection (9)(a), by deleting "the Ordinance" and substituting "this Ordinance".
(c) In section 9 -
(i) in subsection (2)(d), by deleting "disqualification from registration or voting under section 51 of the" and substituting "disqualified from registration or voting under section 29 or 51 of this";
(ii) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting -
"(4) A person cannot act as an authorized representative of a corporate voter unless the person is registered as such a representative by the Electoral Registration Officer.";
(iii) in subsection (5) -
(A) by adding ", but" before "only";
(B) by adding "The replacement does not have effect until it is registered by the Electoral Registration Officer." at the end;
(iv) in subsection (6), by deleting "Ordinance ( of 1997)" and substituting "Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997) by the corporate voter concerned".
(d) By deleting section 13(2)(b) and substituting -
"(b) a person referred to in section 1(7)(c)(i) or (ii) (whether or not the person is an ex-officio member); or".
(e) In section 14 -
(i) in paragraph (e)(iii), by adding "Part II of" after "under";
(ii) in paragraph (g), by deleting "any country" and substituting "the Central People's Government or any other country or territory".
(f) In section 16, by adding "to" before "be held".
(g) In section 18 -
(i) in subsection (1), by deleting "disrupted" and substituting "obstructed, disrupted, undermined";
(ii) in subsection (2), by deleting "he or she is of the opinion that the polling or counting is likely to be or is being disrupted" and substituting "the Chief Executive is of the opinion that the polling or counting is likely to be or is being obstructed, disrupted, undermined";
(iii) in subsection (4), by deleting "is directed" and substituting "are directed".
(h) In section 20 -
(i) in subsection (2), by adding "the regulations and" before "regulations in force";
(ii) in subsection (3), by deleting "regulations in force under" and substituting "this Ordinance and".
(i) In section 22 -
(A) in subsection (2), by deleting "numbver" and substituting "number";
(B) in subsection (3), by deleting everything after "If," and substituting "after the counting is finished at an Election Committee subsector election, a member or members is still to be returned for the subsector and the most successful candidates remaining have an equal number of votes, the Returning Officer must determine the result of the election by drawing lots.".
(j) In section 23(1) -
(i) in paragraph (b) -
(A) in subparagraph (i), by adding "undergone" before "such";
(B) in subparagraph (ii), by deleting "and" and substituting "or";
(ii) in paragraph (d) -
(A) in subparagraph (ii) -
(I) by deleting "and" and substituting "or an";
(II) by deleting everything after "providing" and substituting "for the punishment of corrupt or illegal practices; or";
(B) in subparagraph (iii), by adding "Part II of" after "under";
(C) in subparagraph (iv), by deleting "prescribed offence under" and substituting "offence prescribed by";
(iii) in paragraph (f), by deleting "any country" and substituting "the Central People's Government or any other country or territory".
(k) In section 24, by deleting "it appears to the Revising Officer" and substituting "the Revising Officer is satisfied on reasonable grounds".
(l) In section 26, by deleting "of this Schedule".
(m) In section 29(1), by adding "on conviction" after "is liable".
(n) In section 30 -
(i) in subsection (2), by deleting "particular" and substituting "particulars";
(ii) in subsection (3), by deleting "summary";
(iii) by adding -
"(4) In this section, "voter" (投票人) includes an authorized representative of a corporate voter.".
(o) In section 32(4), by deleting "adviser" and substituting "practitioner or any other person".
Schedule (a) In subsection (2), by deleting everything after "30 June 1997" 3, section 1 and substituting -
"but -
(a) only in so far as that register relates to prescribed functional constituencies and those constituencies correspond to functional constituencies under this Ordinance; and
(b) subject to the limitations specified in subsection (3A).".
(b) In subsection (3), by deleting everything after paragraph (b) and substituting -
"(c) the rural functional constituency;
(d) the education functional constituency;
(e) the legal functional constituency;
(f) the accountancy functional constituency;
(g) the medical functional constituency;
(h) the health services functional constituency;
(i) the engineering functional constituency;
(j) the architectural, surveying and planning functional constituency;
(k) the labour functional constituency;
(l) the social welfare functional constituency;
(m) the real estate and construction functional constituency;
(n) the tourism functional constituency;
(o) the commercial (first) functional constituency;
(p) the commercial (second) functional constituency;
(q) the industrial (first) functional constituency;
(r) the industrial (second) functional constituency;
(s) the finance functional constituency;
(t) the financial services functional constituency.".
(c) By adding -
"(3A) The following limitations are specified for the purposes of subsection (2) -
(a) the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(c) forms the basis of the first provisional register for the Heung Yee Kuk functional constituency;
(b) in its application to the labour functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(k) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to the names and other relevant particulars of the trade unions registered under the Trade Unions Ordinance (Cap. 332);
(c) in its application to the social welfare functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(1) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of The Hong Kong Council of Social Service;
(d) in its application to the real estate and construction functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(m) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to -
(i) natural persons who are members of The Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong; and
(ii) the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of The Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong, The Hong Kong Construction Association, Limited and The Hong Kong E&M Contractors' Association Limited;
(e) in its application to the tourism functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(n) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of the Hong Kong Tourist Association (being travel industry members), the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong and the Board of Airline Representatives;
(f) in its application to the commercial (first) functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(o) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce;
(g) in its application to the commercial (second) functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(p) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to -
(i) natural persons who are members of The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce; and
(ii) the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce;
(h) in its application to the industrial (first) functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(q) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to -
(i) natural persons who are members of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries; and
(ii) the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries;
(i) in its application to the industrial (second) functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(r) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of The Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong;
(j) in its application to the finance functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(s) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to the names and other relevant particulars of the banks, restricted licence banks and deposit-taking companies within the meaning of the Banking Ordinance (Cap. 155);
(k) in its application to the financial services functional constituency, the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(t) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to -
(i) natural persons who are members of the Exchange Company within the meaning of the Stock Exchanges Unification Ordinance (Cap. 361), the Exchange Company within the meaning of the Commodities Trading Ordinance (Cap. 250) or The Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society; and
(ii)the names and other relevant particulars of the corporate members of the Exchange Company within the meaning of the Stock Exchanges Unification Ordinance (Cap. 361), the Exchange Company within the meaning of the Commodities Trading Ordinance (Cap. 250) or The Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society;
(l) the names and other relevant particulars of the insurers authorized or deemed to be authorized under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41) in the provisional register for the prescribed functional constituency referred to in subsection (3)(t) forms the basis of the first provisional register only in relation to the insurance functional constituency.".
(d) In subsection (4) -
(i) in paragraph (a), by adding "and other relevant particulars" after "names";
(ii) in paragraph (b), by adding "and other relevant particulars" after "names" where it twice appears.
Schedule By deleting item 1 and substituting -
4, Part 1
"1. Section 33 Repeal the section and substitute -
"33. Effect of conviction of an offence under this Ordinance
Any person convicted of an offence under Part II of this Ordinance shall, by reason of such conviction, be disqualified for a period of 5 years from the date of such conviction from -
(a) being elected as a Member of the Legislative Council; or
(b) being or being elected or appointed as a member of the Executive Council, the Urban Council, the Regional Council and any other public body, other than a public body specified in the Schedule.".
Schedule By adding -
4, new
"PART 1A
INDEPENDENT COMMISSION AGAINST CORRUPTION
ORDINANCE
| Provision |
| Item |
affected |
Amendment |
| 1. |
10(5) |
Repeal paragraph (ea) and substitute -
"(ea) any offence under regulations in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997);".".
Schedule (a) In item 9 -
4, Part 2
(i) in the proposed subsection (1)(e), by deleting "elected";
(ii) in the proposed subsection (1)(f), by deleting "elected".
(b) By deleting item 12 and substituting -
"12. Section 9 (a) Repeal subsection (1) and substitute -
"(1) Where upon the hearing of an election petition relating to an election to become a Member of the Legislative Council, it is found by the certificate or report of the Court made in pursuance of the appropriate section of the relevant Ordinance, that any corrupt practice has been proved to have been committed in reference to the election questioned by such petition by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such election, that candidate shall not, for 5 years from the date of that certificate or report (as the case may be), be capable of -
(a) being elected as a Member of the Legislative Council; or
(b) holding office as an officer or servant of that Council, and he shall further be subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the said certificate or report he had been convicted of a corrupt practice.
(1A) Where upon the hearing of an election petition relating to an election to become a member of a body other than the Legislative Council, it is found by the certificate or report of the Court made in pursuance of the appropriate section of the relevant Ordinance, that any corrupt practice has been proved to have been committed in reference to the election questioned by such petition by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such election, that candidate shall not, for 5 years from the date of that certificate or report (as the case may be), be capable of being elected or of holding office as a member, officer or servant of that body, and he shall further be subject to the same incapacities as if at the date of the said certificate or report he had been convicted of a corrupt practice.".
(b) In subsection (2), repeal "Boundary and Election Commission" where it twice appears and substitute "Electoral Affairs Commission".
(c) Repeal subsection (3) and substitute -
"(3) If the report is that any candidate for election to the Legislative Council has been guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice in reference to such election, that candidate shall be incapable of -
(a) being elected as a Member of the Legislative Council; or
(b) holding office as an officer or servant of that Council, during a period of 5 years from the date of the report.
(3A)If the report is that any candidate for election to a body other than the Legislative Council has been guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice in reference to such election, that candidate shall be incapable of being elected or of holding office as a member, officer or servant of that body during a period of 5 years from the date of the report.".
12A.Section 12(1) Repeal "made under section 7 of the Boundary and Election Commission Ordinance (Cap. 432)" and substitute "in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997)".
12B.Section 14(2) Repeal "made under section 7 of the Boundary and Election Commission Ordinance (Cap. 432)" and substitute "in force under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance (129 of 1997)".
12C.Section 24 Repeal the section and substitute -
"24.Incapacity of candidate reported guilty of illegal practice
(1) Where upon the hearing of an election petition relating to an election to become a Member of the Legislative Council, it is found by the certificate or report of the Court made in pursuance of the relevant Ordinance that any illegal practice, other than an offence contrary to section 19 of this Ordinance, has been proved to have been committed in reference to the election questioned by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such election, the candidate shall be incapable of -
(a) being elected as a Member of the Legislative Council; or
(b) holding office as an officer or servant of that Council,during a period of 5 years from the date of that certificate or report (as the case may be).
(2) Where upon the hearing of an election petition relating to an election to become a member of a body other than the Legislative Council, it is found by the certificate or report of the Court made in pursuance of the relevant Ordinance that any illegal practice, other than an offence contrary to section 19 of this Ordinance, has been proved to have been committed in reference to the election questioned by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at such election, the candidate shall be incapable of being elected or of holding office as a member, officer or servant of that body during a period of 5 years from the date of that certificate or report (as the case may be).".".
(c) By adding -
"14.Section 29A Repeal "Boundary and Election Commission" wherever it appears and substitute "Electoral Affairs Commission".".
|
Schedule By adding -
4, new
"PART 3
FEDERATION OF HONG KONG INDUSTRIES ORDINANCE
Provision
| Item |
affected |
Amendment |
| 1. |
45(5) |
Repeal everything after "vote under" and substitute "item 20 of Schedule 1 to the Legislative Council Ordinance ( of 1997), the exercise of those powers does not take effect until the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs has given his written approval.".". |
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs
| 3(2) |
By deleting "高級人員或僱員" wherever it appears and substituting
"僱員或（如該團體是法人團體）高級人員或（如該團體不是
法人團體） 人員".
|
| 26(1) |
By deleting "可" and substituting "有資格".
|
| 29(1)(c)(i) |
By adding a comma before "但".
|
| 35(3)(k) |
By deleting "出入口界" and substituting "進出口界".
|
| 36(8) |
By adding "單" after "提名名".
|
| 41(1) |
(a) By deleting "(或" and substituting "或".
(b) By adding "(以每份名單計" after "如此寄出".
|
| 42(2) |
By deleting "受因" and substituting "正受".
|
| 46(a) |
In subclause (1) -
(i) by deleting "選區或某選舉界別" and substituting
"某選區或某選舉界別";
(ii) by deleting "選區或該選舉界別" and substituting
"該選區或該選舉界別".
(b) In subclause (4) -
(i) by deleting "選區或某選舉界別" and substituting
"某選區或某選舉界別";
(ii)by deleting "選區或該選舉界別" and substituting
"該選區或該選舉界別".
(c) In subclause (5) -
(i) by deleting "記為選區" and substituting "記為某選
區";
(ii)by deleting "列為選" and substituting "列為該選".
|
| 49(5) |
By deleting "，要" and substituting "經必要".
|
| 52(b) |
By deleting "提明" and substituting "提名".
|
| 58(a) |
In subclause (1), by deleting "所選" and substituting "投票所選".
(b) In subclause (2) -
(i) by deleting "所選" and substituting "投票所選";
(ii)by deleting "要求" where it twice appears and
substituting "規定".
|
| 62 |
(a) In subclause (2), by adding "終審法院"
before "首席".
(b) In subclause (3) -
(i) by adding "終審法院" before "首席";
(ii)by deleting "本部、規管" and substituting
"本部和規 管".
|
| 80(2)(b) |
By deleting "繳付" and substituting "繳存".
|
|
Schedule In item 6 -
1, Part 2
(a) in paragraph (10), by deleting "華" and substituting "國";
(b) in paragraph (61), by adding "及" after "共";
(c) in paragraph (80), by deleting "柜" and substituting "櫃";
(d) in the Chinese text, by deleting paragraphs (151) to (154) and substituting -
"(151) 東義造船業總商會有限公司。
(152) 香港海事保險業協會。
(153) 海上救援會（香港辦事處）。
(154) 海上遊覽業聯會。".
|
|
Schedule (a) In item 7(2)(k),
by adding "會成員" after "校董".
1, Part 3
(b) In item 11 -
(i) in paragraph (5), by adding "業" before "及";
(ii)in paragraph (13), by deleting "牙科診療師"
and substituting "牙科治療師".
(c) In item 24 -
(i) in paragraph (3), by deleting "十八個行
政區的地區體育協會。" and substituting "下
列地區體育協會 ─";
(ii)in the Chinese text, in paragraph (7), by deleting
"Hong Kong Publishing Federation Ltd." and substituting"
香港出版總會有限公司".
(d) In item 25(1)(p), by deleting "口" and substituting
"品".
(e) In the Chinese text, in item 27(67), by deleting
"The Kowloon Pig Laan Merchants Association" and substituting
"九龍豬欄商會".
(f) In item 28(8), by adding "類別" after "以下".
|
| Schedule |
(a) In Table 1, in item 16, by deleting "運輸界" and substituting
|
| 2,
|
Part 1 "航運交通界".
|
|
(b) In Table 5, in item 4 -
(i) in paragraph (1), by deleting "在下列機構任
教的全職教學人員或相等職級的研究和行政人
員" and substituting"在下列機構從事教學或研究
的全職學術人員及同等職級的行政人員";
(ii)in paragraph (2)(k), by adding "會成員" after
"校董".
|
|
Schedule In section 6, by deleting "一樣". 2, Part 2
|
|
Schedule (a) In section 7 -2, Part 3
(i) in the definition of "界別分組正式投票人登記冊",
by adding "所有" after "須為";
(ii)in the definition of "選舉委員會界別分組選舉" -
(A) by deleting "選舉委員會界別分組的委員的選 舉"
and substituting "某選舉委員會界別分組選出";
(B) by deleting "選出；" and substituting "的委員
的選舉；".
(b) In section 8 -
(i) in subsection (1)(b)(i), by adding "有關的"
before "訂明";
(ii)in subsection (1)(c)(ii), by adding "的申請"
before "，或";
(iii)in subsection (13), by adding "章程" before
"細則".
(c) In section 14(c)(ii), by deleting "及" and
substituting "或".
(d) In section 15(1), by adding "或已" after "已以".
(e) In section 22(1), by deleting "選舉制" where it
secondly appears and substituting "投票制".
(f) In section 22(3), by deleting "韱" and substituting
"籤".
(g) In section 23(1)(d), by deleting "被定罪".
|
|
Schedule In section 1 - 3.(a) in subsection (3), by adding "選舉" before "組別";
(b) in subsection (5)(b), by deleting "xxx";
(c) in subsection (6)(a), by deleting "有關" and substituting "第(4)(b)款所提述".
|
| Schedule
|
In item 8, in the definition of "選舉主任", in paragraph (b), by 4, Part 2 adding "、" after "議員".
|
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Andrew WONG Wang-fat, J.P.
9 By adding -
"(4)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.".
New By adding -
"9B.Emergency sessions of Legislative Council
(1) The President 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 or the dissolution of the Legislative Council but, before the date (if more than one, the first date), specified for the holding of a general election for all the Members of the Legislative Council.
(2) For and only for the purpose of subsection (1), the persons holding office as Members of the Legislative Council during the term of office of the Legislative Council which immediately precedes the beginning of the emergency session shall be deemed to be Members of the Legislative Council.".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Andrew WONG Wang-fat, J.P.
29(1) (a) In paragraph (a) -
(i) by deleting ", in Hong Kong or any other place," and substituting "in Hong Kong";
(ii)by deleting "(by whatever name called)" and substituting "for a term exceeding 6 months";
(iii)by adding "either" after "has not".
(b) By deleting paragraph (b).
(c) By deleting paragraph (c).
51(5) (a) In paragraph (a) -
(i) by deleting ", in Hong Kong or any other place," and substituting "in Hong Kong".
(ii)by deleting "(by whatever name called)" and substituting "for a term exceeding 6 months".
(b) By deleting paragraph (b).
(c) By deleting paragraph (c).
|
| Schedule |
In section 23(1) - 2, Part 3
(a) in paragraph (b) -
(i) by deleting "or in any other place";
(ii) by deleting "(by whatever name called)" and substituting "for a term exceeding 6 months";
(b) by deleting paragraph (c).
(c) by deleting paragraph (d).
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Andrew WONG Wang-fat, J.P.
| 37(1) |
(a) In paragraph (b) -
(i) by deleting ", in Hong Kong or any other place," and substituting "in Hong Kong";
(ii) by deleting "(by whatever name called)" and substituting "for a term exceeding 3 months";
(iii) by adding "either" after "has not".
(b) By deleting paragraph (c).
(c) In paragraph (e) -
(i) by deleting "5 years" and substituting "4 years";
(ii) in subparagraph (i), by deleting "3 months" and substituting "3 years".
(d) In paragraph (i), by deleting everything after "undischarged bankrupt" and substituting a fullstop.
|
| Schedule |
(a) In section 5(a) - 2, Part 2
(i) by deleting "or in any other place";
(ii) by deleting "(by whatever name called)" and substituting "for a term exceeding 3 months";
(iii) in subparagraph (ii), by adding "or" at the end.
(b) In section 5(b), by adding "or" at the end.
|
| Schedule |
In section 14(c) - 2, Part 3
(a) by deleting "or in any other place";
(b) by deleting "(by whatever name called)" and substituting "for a term exceeding 3 months".
|
| Schedule |
In item 1, by deleting "5 years" and substituting "4 years".
4, Part 1
|
| Schedule |
In item 12, by deleting "5 years" and substituting "4 years".
4, Part 2 |
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Andrew WONG Wang-fat, J.P.
New By adding -
| "23A. |
Who is eligible to be registered as a member:
Election Committee
Subject to this Part, a person is eligible to be registered as a member of the Election Committee only if the person -
(a) has been duly elected or nominated by an Election Committee subsector as a member in accordance with Part 3 of Schedule 2 or who is an ex-officio member; and
(b) is either -
(i) registered as an elector under this Part for a geographical constituency; or
(ii) eligible to be registered as an elector under this Part for a geographical constituency and has made an application to be so registered.".
New By adding -
"36A. A Nomination lists for Election Committee
Section 36 applies to nomination lists for the Election Committee as if all references to geographical constituency were references to the Election Committee and with necessary modifications.".
50.By deleting the clause and substituting -
50. System of voting and counting of votes:
Election Committee
Section 47 applies to the system of voting and counting of votes for the Election Committee as if all references to geographical constituency were references to the Election Committee and with necessary modifications.".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Andrew WONG Wang-fat, J.P.
|
| Schedule |
In Table 4, by deleting items 5 and 6 and substituting -
2, Part 1
"5. District Organizations for Districts in the Urban Council Area Members of the Provisional Urban Council and members of the Hong Kong and Kowloon Provisional District Boards. 21
6. District Organizations for Districts in the Regional Council Area Members of the Provisional Regional Council and members of the New Territories District Boards. 21"
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Bruce LIU Sing-lee
| 13. |
By adding -
"(ba) alters either the Member's nationality or the fact as to whether the Member has a right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China as declared under section 38(1)(b)(ii), except where the Member has declared that he or she has a nationality other than that of Chinese or has a right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China, and subsequently the Member -
(i) has acquired or restored the Chinese nationality or has been naturalized as a Chinese national; or
(ii) has given up or otherwise ceased to have that right of abode; or".
|
| 35 |
(a) In subclause (1)(e), by adding "subject to section 35A," before "is a Chinese citizen".
(b) In subclause (2)(f), by deleting "except in the case of the 12 functional constituencies specified in subsection (3)," and substituting "except in the case of the 6 functional constituencies specified in section 35A(4)".
(c) By deleting subclause (3).
New By adding -
"35A.Allocation of relevant nationality quota
(1) In this section -
"candidate not of Chinese nationality" (非中國籍候選人) means a candidate who is a permanent resident of Hong Kong but he or she has a nationality other than that of Chinese or has a right of abode in a country other than the People's Republic of China;
"candidate of Chinese nationality" (中國籍候選人) means a candidate who is a permanent resident of Hong Kong and he or she has a Chinese nationality with no right of abode in any country other that the People's Republic of China;
"list"(名單) means a list of candidates referred to in section 36(9);
"nominee not of Chinese nationality" (非中國籍獲提名人) means a candidate not of Chinese nationality and whose name is included in a nomination list as a candidate referred to in section 36;
"nominee of Chinese nationality" (中國籍獲提名人) means a candidate of Chinese nationality and whose name is included in a nomination list as a candidate referred to in section 36;
"permitted nationality quota" (容許國籍名額) means the maximum number of Members who are candidates not of Chinese nationality, not more than 12, to be returned for the geographical constituencies, the functional constituencies and the Election Committee;
"relevant nationality quota" (有關國籍名額) means the permitted nationality quota allocated to the geographical constituencies, the functional constituencies or the Election Committee (as the case may be) under subsection (2).
(2) The permitted nationality quota must be allocated in the following manner -
(a) 6 in the functional constituencies;
(b) 5 in the geographical constituencies (being 1 for each geographical constituency); and
(c) 1 in the Election Committee election.
(3) The election is not to be invalidated by reason of Members returned not taking up the permitted nationality quota or the relevant nationality quota.
(4) The following 6 functional constituencies are specified for the purposes of section 35(2) -
(a) the legal functional constituency;
(b) the accountancy functional constituency;
(c) the engineering functional constituency;
(d) the commercial (first) functional constituency;
(e) the industrial (first) functional constituency; and
(f) the finance functional constituency.
(5) At an election to return Members for the geographical constituencies, the allocation of the relevant nationality quota is to be in the following manner in respect of each geographical constituency -
(a) at most one nominee not of Chinese nationality is permitted on a list;
(b) if there are more than one list for the same geographical constituency consisting of nominees not of Chinese nationality, such lists are to be ranked in the order of priority according to the number of votes they have obtained;
(c) the list which has obtained the largest number of votes in a geographical constituency is eligible to take up the relevant nationality quota for each geographical constituency and the nominee not of Chinese nationality who is returnable for that list in accordance with section 47 is to be elected;
(b) if the list which has obtained the largest number of votes in a geographical constituency does not include any nominee not of Chinese nationality, then the list which has obtained the next largest number of votes, or if necessary, the next larger, is eligible to take up the relevant nationality quota for each geographical constituency and the nominee not of Chinese nationality who is returnable for that list in accordance with section 47 is to be elected; and
(e) when the relevant nationality quota for each geographical constituency has been taken up by a nominee not of Chinese nationality in accordance with subsection (5)(c) or (d), as the case may be, other nominees not of Chinese nationality in other list, if any, shall be disregarded for the purpose of returning a Member for the geographical constituency and be taken not to be elected. The seats that should have been taken up by those nominees not of Chinese nationality, if any, are to be taken up by either the nominees who are of Chinese nationality of the same list according to the order of priority on such list or if there are no such nominees on the list for the case of single candidate, those seats would be taken up in accordance with section 47 by applying the largest remainder formula.
(6) At an election for returning Members by the Election Committee, the candidates are to be ranked in the order of priority according to the number of votes they have obtained. The candidate not of Chinese nationality who ranks in the highest priority and is returnable in accordance with section 50 is eligible to take up the relevant nationality quota for the Election Committee and is to be elected. When the relevant nationality quota for the Election Committee has been taken up by a candidate not of Chinese nationality, other candidates not of Chinese nationality in the election by the Election Committee, if any, is to be disregarded for the purpose of returning a Member by the Election Committee and be taken not to be elected. The seats that should have been taken up by those candidates not of Chinese nationality, if any, is to be taken up by other candidates who are of Chinese nationality according to the order of priority as ranked.
36 (a) In subclause (3), by adding -
"(ba) not consist of more than one nominee not of Chinese nationality within the meaning of section 35A;
(b) By adding -
"(6A) The Returning Officer must strike out the names of nominees who are not of Chinese nationality from a nomination list if there are more than one such nominees on that list and adjust the order of priority in which the names of nominees appear on that list accordingly.".
|
| 47 |
(a) In subclause (5), by adding "section 35A and" before "this section".
(b) In subclause (13), by deleting "As soon as practicable" and substituting "Subject to section 35A and this section, as soon as practicable".
59(3) By adding "registration of electors," after "includes".
|
| Schedule |
(a) In section 1, by adding - 2, Part 1
"(8A) If, after adding the difference referred to in subsection (8), the number of members allocated to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference subsector is equal to or exceeds the number of the Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, subsection (7)(b) is not to apply in relation to this subsector and the number of members allocated to this subsector is to be filled by all the persons holding office on the relevant date as Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and, where there is an excess in the number of members allocated, the excess number is to be allocated to the subsector specified in item 5 of Table 4 in accordance with the order of priority of the Provisional District Boards as ranked therein beginning with the Wong Tai Sin PDB and then proceeding in descending order to the Wan Chai PDB and the remaining number, if any, is to be allocated to the Provisional District Boards subsector as ranked therein beginning with the Eastern PBD and then proceeding in descending order.".
(b) In subsection 1(6), by deleting "section (8)" and substituting "subsections (8) and (8A)";
(c) In subsection 1(7)(b), by deleting "items 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Table 4" and substituting "items 3, 4 and 5 of Table 4".
(d) In Table 4, by deleting items 5 and 6 and substituting -
|
|
| "5. Provisional District |
Members of the - |
| Boards ("PDB") |
(a) Eastern PDB 3
|
| established under the |
(b) Kwun Tong PDB 3
|
| Provisional District |
(c) Sha Tin PDB 3
|
| Boards Ordinance |
(d) Kwai Tsing PDB 3
|
| (Cap. 366) |
(e) Yuen Long PDB 3
|
|
(f) Tuen Mun PDB 3
|
|
(g) Wong Tai Sin PDB 2
|
|
(h) Kowloon City PDB 2
|
|
(i) Sham Shui Po PDB 2
|
|
(j) Tai Po PDB 2
|
|
(k) Tsuen Wan PDB 2
|
|
(l) Southern PDB 2
|
|
(m) Yau Tsim Mong PDB 2
|
|
(n) North PDB 2
|
|
(o) Central and Western PDB 2
|
|
(p) Islands PDB 2
|
|
(q) Sai Kung PDB 2
|
|
(r) Wan Chai PDB 2".
|
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Revised Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI
13 By adding -
"(1)(bb) is the President and has been found by the court, in accordance with the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136), to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself or herself and his or her affairs, but a person disqualified under this subsection shall be eligible for re-election if, under that Ordinance, it is subsequently found that the person's unsoundness of mind has ceased; or".
|
| 37(1) |
By deleting paragraph (a)(iii) and substituting -
"(iii) an officer or employee of the Legislative Council (including the Provisional Legislative Council), the Urban Council (including the Provisional Urban Council) or the Regional Council (including the Provisional Regional Council) or a member of staff of The Legislative Council Commission (including The Provisional Legislative Council Commission); or".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by Prof the Honourable NG Ching-fai
|
| 23. |
(a) In subclause (3)(d), by deleting ", the insurance".
(b) In subclause (4) -
(i) by deleting "5,";
(ii) by adding "23(4),".
(c) In subclause (5), by deleting "23" and substituting "23(1) to (3)".
(d) In subclause (6), by deleting "7(2)" and substituting "7A(2)".
|
| 35 |
In subclause (3) -
(i) by deleting "the semicolon" in item (k) and substituting "a fullstop";
(ii) by deleting item (1).
|
| Schedule |
By deleting item 5. 1, Part 2
|
| Schedule |
(a) before item 7, by adding - 1, Part 3
|
| "7A. Higher Education |
(1) Full-time academic staff
|
| functional |
engaged in teaching or
|
| constituency |
research and administrative
staff of equivalent rank in -
(a) institutions of higher education funded through the University Grants Committee;
(b) approved post secondary colleges registered under the Post Secondary Colleges Ordinance (Cap. 320);
(c) technical colleges established under the Vocational Training Council Ordinance (Cap. 1130);
(d) The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts;
(e) The Open University of Hong Kong.
(2) Members of the following bodies -
(a) the Council of the University of Hong Kong;
(b) the Council of The Chinese University of Hong Kong;
(c) the Council of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology;
(d) the Council of the City University of Hong Kong.
(e) the Council of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University;
(f) the Council of The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts;
(g) the Council of The Open University of Hong Kong;
(h) the Council of the Vocational Training Council;
(i) the Council of The Hong Kong Institute of Education;
(j) the Council of the Hong Kong Baptist University;
(k) the Board of Governors of the Lingnan College;
(l) the Board of Governors of the Hong Kong Shue Yan College.".
(b) In item 7, by deleting paragraphs (1) and (2).
(c) In item 23, by adding -
"(4) Insurers authorized or deemed to be authorized under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41).".
|
| Schedule 2, Part 1 |
(a) In section 1(5)(a), by deleting "except in the case of the higher education and education subsectors" and substituting "except in the case of the insurance and the financial services subsectors.".
(b) In section 1(5)(c), by deleting "higher education, education", and substituting "insurance, financial services".
(c) In Table 5, by deleting items 4 and 5 and substituting -
"4. Insurance Insurers authorized or deemed to be authorized under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41);
|
| 5.Financial Services |
(1) Members of the Exchange Company within the meaning of the Stock Exchanges Unification Ordinance (Cap. 361) entitled to vote at general meetings of the Company.
(2) Members of the Exchange Company within the meaning of the Commodities Trading Ordinance (Cap. 250) entitled to vote at general meetings of the Company.
(3) Members of The Chinese Gold & Silver Exchange Society entitled to vote at general meetings of the Society.".
|
| Schedule 2, Part 3
|
In section 8 -
(a) by deleting "higher education" and substituting "insurance".
(b) by deleting "education" and substituting "financial services".
(c) by deleting "paragraph (1) or (2) of item 6" and substituting "paragraph (4) of item 23".
(d) by deleting "paragraph (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7) of item 6" and substituting "paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of item 23".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam
| 23(4) |
| By adding "15(3) or (4)," after "14,".
| Schedule 1, Part 3 |
In item 15, by adding -
"(3)Exempted societies within the meaning of the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151) whose aims are as follows -
- to promote the co-ordination and improvement of social service activities;
- to develop resources, such as manpower, funds and data, for social service activities; or
- to promote public understanding of social service needs and the role of the voluntary agencies in meeting those needs.
(4) Non-profit making companies registered under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32) whose aims are as follows -
- to promote the co-ordination and improvement of social service activities;
- to develop resources, such as manpower, funds and data, for social service activities; or
- to promote public understanding of social service needs and the role of the voluntary agencies in meeting those needs.".
| Schedule 2, Part 1 |
(a) In section 1 -
(i) in subsection (6), by deleting "subsection (8)" and substituting "subsections (8) and (8A)";
(ii) in subsection (7) -
(A) in paragraph (b) -
(I) by adding "subject to subsection (8A)," before "the number of members";
(II) by deleting ", 5 and 6" and substituting " and 5";
(B) in paragraph (c), by deleting "subsection (8)" and substituting "subsections (8) and (8A)";
(iii) by adding -
"(8A) If, after adding the difference referred to in subsection (8), the number of members allocated to the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference subsector is equal to or exceeds the number of the Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, subsection (7)(b) is not to apply in relation to this subsector and the number of members allocated to this subsector is to be filled by all the Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference and, where there is an excess in the number of members allocated, the excess number is to be allocated to the subsector specified in item 5 of Table 4.".
(b) by deleting Table 2 and substituting -
" TABLE 2
Second Sector
| Item |
Subsector |
Number of
members
| 1. |
Accountancy |
18
|
| 2. |
Architectural, surveying and planning |
18
|
| 3. |
Chinese medicine |
18
|
| 4. |
Education |
19
|
| 5. |
Engineering |
18
|
| 6. |
Health services |
19
|
| 7. |
Higher education |
18
|
| 8. |
Information technology |
18
|
| 9. |
Legal |
18
|
| 10. |
Medical |
18
|
| 11. |
Sports, performing arts, culture and publication |
18". |
(c) by deleting Table 3 and substituting -
" TABLE 3
Third Sector
| Item |
Subsector |
Number of
members |
| 1. Agriculture and fisheries |
40
|
| 2. Labour |
80
|
| 3. Religious |
40
|
| 4. Social welfare |
40". |
|
|
|
(d) by deleting Table 4 and substituting -
" TABLE 4
Fourth Sector
Item Subsector Constituents Number of members
1. National People's Hong Kong deputies 36
Congress to the NPC.
("NPC")
2. Provisional Legislative Members of the PLC. 60
Council
("PLC")
3. Chinese People's Hong Kong members 41
Political Consultative of the National
Conference Committee of the
("CPPCC") CPPCC.
4. Heung Yee Kuk Chairman and Vice- 21
Chairman of the
Heung Yee Kuk and
the Ex-Officio,
Special and Co-opted
Councillors of the
Full Council of the
Heung Yee Kuk.
5. Provisional District Members of the 42".
Boards Provisional District
Boards.
Schedule In section 8 -
2, Part 3
(a) in subsection (4)(c), by deleting ", 5 or 6" and substituting "or 5";
(b) in subsection (9), by deleting ", 5 or 6" and substituting "or 5".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Choy So-yuk
23 In subclause (4), by adding "to (4)" after "26(3)".
Schedule In item 26 -
1, Part 3
(a) By deleting item 26(2) and substituting "Members of Hong Kong Institution of Textile and Apparel entitled to vote at general meetings of the Institution.".
(b) By adding -
"(4) textiles traders who are registered by the Director-General of trade as Textiles Traders pursuant to regulation 5A of the Import and Export
(General) Regulations (Cap. 60 sub. leg.) and are carrying on business of -
(a) importing textiles from any country or place;
(b) exporting textiles that are not entitled to a certificate of Hong Kong origin to any country or place; or
(c) exporting 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.".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Ambrose LAU Hon-chuen, J.P.
Schedule (a) In item 17, by adding -
1, Part 3
"(4) Members of the Hong Kong Hotels Association entitled to vote at general meetings of the Association.
(5) Members of the Federation of Hong Kong Hotel Owners entitled to vote at general meetings of the Federation.".
(b) In item 28, by adding -
"(1A) Fellows, Members and Graduate Members of Information Technology Division of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers who are entitled to vote at general meetings of the Division.".
Schedule (a) In section 1(5) -
2, Part 1
(i) in paragraph (a), by adding "and the tourism and hotel subsectors" after "subsectors";
(ii) in paragraph (c), by adding "tourism," before "hotel,".
(b) in Table 5, by adding -
"1A. Tourism (1) Travel industry members of the Hong Kong Tourist Association entitled to vote at general meetings of the Association.
(2) Members of the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong entitled to vote at general meetings of the Council.
(3) Members of the Board of Airline Representatives in Hong Kong.".
Schedule In section 8 -
2, Part 3
(a) in subsection (1) -
(i) in paragraph (a), by adding "and the tourism and hotel subsectors" after "subsectors";
(ii) in paragraph (c), by adding "and the tourism and hotel subsectors" after "subsectors";
(b) by adding -
"(3A) A person is eligible to be registered as a voter for the tourism subsector if the person -
(a) is a person described in paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of item 17 of Schedule 1 and has made an application to be registered for the tourism functional constituency; or
(b) was registered for the functional constituency corresponding to the tourism functional constituency in the last functional constituencies provisional register and is eligible to be registered as an elector for the tourism functional constituency by reason of being a person described in paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of item 17 of Schedule 1.
(3B) A person is eligible to be registered as a voter for the hotel subsector if -
(a) the person is a person described in paragraph (4) or (5) of item 17 of Schedule 1 and has made an application to be registered in the tourism functional constituency; or
(b) the person was registered for the functional constituency corresponding to the tourism functional constituency in the last functional constituencies provisional register and is eligible to be registered as an elector for the tourism functional constituency by virtue of being a person described in paragraph (4) or (5) of item 17 of Schedule 1.";
(c) by adding -
"(8A) A person who is registered, or applies to be registered, as an elector for the tourism functional constituency by virtue of being a person described in paragraph (1), (2) or (3) of item 17 of Schedule 1 may be registered only as a voter for the tourism subsector.
(8B) A person who is registered, or applies to be registered, as an elector for the tourism functional constituency by virtue of being a person described in paragraph (4) or (5) of item 17 of Schedule 1 may be registered only as a voter for the hotel subsector.
(8C) A person who is eligible to be registered as a voter for both for the tourism subsector and the hotel subsector, may only be registered as a voter for the hotel subsector.";
(d) in subsection (10), by adding "1A," after "item 1,".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable MA Fung-kwok
Clause Amendment Proposed
Schedule (a) In item 24(8) -
1, Part 3
(i) in subparagraph (e), by deleting the comma and substituting a semicolon;
(ii) by adding -
"(f) the Hong Kong Theatres Association Ltd.;
(g) The Hong Kong Video Industry Association Ltd.,".
(b) By deleting item 27(50) and (51).
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable MA Fung-kwok
Schedule In section 1 -
2, Part 1
(a) in subsection (7)(b), by adding "subject to subsection (10)," before "the number of members";
(b) by adding -
"(10) (a) Subject to paragraph (b), the number of members allocated to the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector is to be divided equally among the 4 sub-subsectors constituting the said subsector, namely sports, performing arts, culture and publication sub-subsectors.
(b) If the number of members cannot be allocated equally as an integer, the sub-subsectors are to be allocated the largest possible integer, and the remaining number is to be allocated according to the number of voters of the sub-subsectors such that the sub-subsector having the greatest number of voters is allocated a seat first until all the seats are allocated.".
Schedule (a) By renumbering section 7 as section 7(1);
2, Part 3,
Division 1 (b) In section 7(1), by adding -
""Election Committee sub-subsector election" (選舉委員會小組選舉) means an election to elect members by the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector in accordance with section 1(10);";
(c) By adding -
"7(2) In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, all references to the "Election Committee subsector election" and "subsector" shall, in respect of the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector, mean an "Election Committee sub-subsector election" and "sub-subsector" respectively and with any necessary modifications.".
Schedule 2, Part 3,In section 8, by adding -
Division 2 "(1A) A person is eligible to be registered as a voter for the sports, performing arts, culture and publication subsector subject to the following conditions -
(a) a person who is registered, or applies to be registered, as an elector for the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency by virtue of being a person described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), (23), (27), (42), (43), (45), (51), (55) or (60) of item 24 of Schedule 1 may be registered only as a voter for the sports sub-subsector; and
(b) a person who is registered, or applies to be registered, as an elector for the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency by virtue of being a person described in paragraph (8), (9), (10), (12), (17), (18), (19), (20), (21), (22), (29), (38), (41), (44), (46), (47), (48), (49), (53), (56), (57), (58), (61), (62) or (67) of item 24 of Schedule 1 may be registered only as a voter for the performing arts sub-subsector; and
(c) a person who is registered, or applies to be registered, as an elector for the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency by virtue of being a person described in paragraph (4), (5), (11), (13), (14), (15), (24), (25), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), (35), (36), (37), (40), (50), (54), (59), (63), (66) or (68) of item 24 of Schedule 1 may be registered only as a voter for the culture sub-subsector; and
(d) a person who is registered, or applies to be registered, as an elector for the sports, performing arts, culture and publication functional constituency by virtue of being a person described in paragraph (6), (7), (16), (26), (39), (52), (64), (65), (69) or (70) of item 24 of Schedule 1 may be registered only as a voter for the publication sub-subsector.".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable CHAN Choi-hi
35(1)(e) By deleting -
"is a Chinese citizen who" and "with no right of abode in any country other than the People's Republic of China"
35(2)(f) By deleting -
"except in the case of the 12 functional constituencies specified in sub-section (3), is a Chinese citizen who" and "with no right of abode in any country other than the People's Republic of China"
35(3) By deleting this clause.
47 By adding -
"(12A) Among the 20 members to be returned for all geographical constituencies, there must be no more than 4 Members ("the quota") who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries. If the number of candidates elected returned in the geographical constituencies who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries exceeds the quota, those who get the greatest and next 3 greatest percentage of votes are to be elected as Members. The unfilled places, if any, are to be taken by the candidates of the same constituency obtaining the next greatest percentage of votes who are of Chinese nationality and who do not have the right of abode in foreign countries."
47 By adding -
"(12B) For the purpose of subsection (12A), foreign countries mean countries other than the People's Republic of China."
48(7) By deleting "As soon as" and substituting "Subject to section 49(A), as soon as".
49 By adding -
"(A) Among the 30 members to be returned for all functional constituencies, there must be no more than 6 Members ("the quota") who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries. If the number of candidates elected returned in the functional constituencies who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries exceeds the quota, those who get the greatest and next 5 greatest percentage of votes are to be elected as Members. The unfilled places, if any, are to be taken by the candidates of the same constituency obtaining the next greatest percentage of votes who are of Chinese nationality and who do not have the right of abode in foreign countries."
49 By adding -
"(B) For the purpose of subsection (A), foreign countries mean countries other than the People's Republic of China."
49(7) By deleting "As soon as" and substituting "Subject to section 49(A), as soon as".
50 By adding -
"(1B) Among the 10 members to be returned for the Election Committee, there must be no more than 2 Members ("the quota") who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries. If the number of candidates elected returned in the Election Committee who are not of Chinese nationality or who have the right of abode in foreign countries exceeds the quota, those who get the greatest and the next greatest number of votes are to be elected as Members. The unfilled places, if any, are to be taken by the candidates of the Election Committee obtaining the next greatest number of votes who are of Chinese nationality and who do not have the right of abode in foreign countries."
50(1) (i) By deleting "the simple majority system of election (otherwise known as the "first past the post" voting system)" and substituting "the single transferable vote system of election".
(ii) By adding after "vacancies and no more.": "The system shall include the following features, that is to say -
(a) the Election Committee shall return the relevant number of Members;
(b) the elector voting in respect of the Election Committee shall have a single vote;
(c) the single vote shall be transferable amongst the candidates, the elector marking perferences on his/her ballot paper in descending order against a number of candidates being not less than the relevant number of those candidates;
(d) subject to the paragraph (g), the candidates to be elected shall obtain a quota of votes, the quota to be determined as follows -
total number of valid votes + 1 = quota*
relevant number + 1
*(any part of the resulting number which is a fraction to be disregarded);
(e) surpluses in excess of the quota shall be transferred on a proportional basis to the candidates then remaining in accordance with the next available preferences marked on the ballot papers;
(f) subject to the paragraph (g), the candidate or candidates with the least number of votes shall be eliminated and the votes of that candidate or those candidates shall be transferred to the candidates then remaining in accordance with the next available preferences marked on the ballot papers until the relevant number of candidates are elected as Members; and
(g) where, at the final stage of the count, one or more of the relevant number of candidates have not been elected as Members because of his or her or their inability to obtain a quota of votes in accordance with paragraph (d) that candidate or those candidates then remaining (and not eliminated at that stage) shall be declared by the returning officer to be elected."
50 By adding -
"(1A) For the purpose of subsection (1), 'relevant number' (有關數目) -
(a) in relation to the first general election, means the number specified in section 21;
(b) in relation to an election held to fill a number of vacancies for Members remaining where -
(i) no candidate is validly nominated at the first general election;
(ii) every validly nominated candidate has withdrawn his nomination at the first general election; or
(iii) the number of candidates who have not withdrawn their nominations at the first general election is less than the number specified in section 21;
means the number of those remaining vacancies; or
(c) in relation to an election held under section 34(1), means the aggregate number of vacancies declared under section 33 for which that election is held."
50 By adding -
"(1C) For the purpose of subsection (1B), foreign countries mean countries other than the People's Republic of China."
50 By deleting subclauses (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6).
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by Dr Honourable LEONG Che-hung, J.P.
35 (a) In subclause (2)(f), by deleting "specified in subsection (3)" and substituting "specified by notice published in the Gazette under subsection (3)".
(b) By deleting subclause (3) and substituting -
"(3) The Chief Executive must, as soon as practicable, but not later than 14 days after the commencement of this Ordinance, determine by the drawing of lots which 12 of the functional constituencies are to be specified for the purpose of subsection (2)(f). The Chief Executive must, by notice published in the Gazette, specify -
(a) the time and place for the drawing of lots not less than 7 days before it is to take place; and
(b) the results of his determination as soon as practicable after the drawing of lots.".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Mrs Elsie TU
50(2) By deleting the sub-clause and substituting -
"(2) (a) At the first general election a member of the Election Committee is entitled to cast 10 votes for candidates nominated for election by that Committee. At a by-election during the first term of office of the Legislative Council to fill a vacancy among the Members returned by the Election Committee, a member of that Committee is entitled to cast the same number of votes as the number of Members to be returned at the by-election.
(b) In order for his votes to be valid at the first general election or by-election during the first term of office of the Legislative Council, a member of the Election Committee must cast all the votes under his entitlement in paragraph (a)."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL BILL
COMMITTEE STAGE
Amendments to be moved by the Honourable Frederick FUNG Kin-kee
46 By deleting the subclause (4) and substituting -
"(4) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Ordinance or any other law, each elector shall be entitled to vote once and once only at an election.".
51 By adding -
"(1A) A person registered as an elector is disqualified from voting at an election if the person has voted more than once at an election.".
|
|
