OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 20 January 1999
The Council met at half-past Two o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS RITA FAN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH TING WOO-SHOU, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE DAVID CHU YU-LIN

THE HONOURABLE HO SAI-CHU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN

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

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL HO MUN-KA

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

THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LEE CHU-MING, S.C., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE LEE KAI-MING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING

DR THE HONOURABLE LUI MING-WAH, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING

PROF THE HONOURABLE NG CHING-FAI

THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG

THE HONOURABLE MRS SELINA CHOW LIANG SHUK-YEE, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE RONALD ARCULLI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG

THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE CHEUNG WING-SUM, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHEUNG-CHING

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTINE LOH

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KWOK-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN

THE HONOURABLE BERNARD CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN WING-CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE GARY CHENG KAI-NAM

THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI

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

DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUNG-KAN

THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HOWARD YOUNG, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE YEUNG SUM

THE HONOURABLE YEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU CHIN-SHEK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH

THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHOY SO-YUK

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO

THE HONOURABLE SZETO WAH

THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE FUNG CHI-KIN

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

MEMBER ABSENT:

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

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE ELSIE LEUNG OI-SIE, J.P.
THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

MR CHAU TAK-HAY, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY

MR DOMINIC WONG SHING-WAH, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING

MRS KATHERINE FOK LO SHIU-CHING, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE

MR RAFAEL HUI SI-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES

MR JOSEPH WONG WING-PING, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER

MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY

MR DAVID LAN HONG-TSUNG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR PATRICK LAU LAI-CHIU, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

PAPERS

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

Subsidiary Legislation

L.N. No.

Port Control (Public Cargo Working Area) Order 1999	8/99
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Pleasure Grounds) (Amendment of Fourth Schedule) Order 1999	9/99
Public Swimming Pools (Designation) Order 1999	10/99
Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Public Markets) (Designation and Amendment of Tenth Schedule) Order 1999	11/99
Declaration of Markets in the Regional Council Area (Amendment) Declaration 1999	12/99
Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (Amendment) Rules 1999	13/99
Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulation 1999	14/99

Sessional Papers

No. 84	─	Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation Annual Report 1997 - 98
No. 85	─	Audited Financial Statements and Programme of Activities of the Hong Kong Examinations Authority for the year ending 31 August 1998

Report

Report of the Bills Committee on Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. I would like to remind Members that question time normally does not exceed one and a half hours, with each question being allocated about 12 to 15 minutes. When asking supplementary questions, Members should be as concise as possible. They should not ask more than one question, and should not make statements. To do so would contravene Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure.

Today we will continue to try out the electronic queuing system for speaking. After I have called upon a Member to ask a main question, other Members who wish to ask supplementary questions to this question need, in addition to raising their hands, indicate the wish by pressing the "Request-to-speak" buttons in front of their seats.

On the other hand, if a Member wishes to follow up and seek elucidation on an answer, or raise a point or order, please stand up to so indicate and wait for me to call before speaking.

I believe Members should have no questions. I now invite Prof the Honourable NG Ching-fai to ask the first question.

Uses and Investment Strategies of Land Fund and Exchange Fund

1. PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, with regard to the uses and investment strategies of the Land Fund and the Exchange Fund, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) on completion of the merger of the Land Fund assets into that of the Exchange Fund, of the differences between the uses of the Land Fund and the Exchange Fund which aims at maintaining the stability and integrity of the monetary and financial systems in Hong Kong; of the recommendations the Administration has on the long-term use of the Land Fund, and when it plans to submit the recommendations to this Council;

(b) whether it has assessed the relationship between the Financial Secretary's earlier disclosure that the Administration has decided to adopt a more progressive strategy in the investment of the Exchange Fund on the one hand and the following two events on the other hand:

(i) the decision to merge the assets of the Land Fund into that of the Exchange Fund;

(ii) the use of more than a hundred billions of the Exchange Fund to purchase equities last year; and

(c) whether it has assessed if the objective of the Administration holding equities through the Exchange Fund at present is different from that pledged at the time of the market intervention which was to maintain the stability and integrity of our monetary and financial systems and, if they are different, whether the holding of equities has changed into an investment?

SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Madam President, with regard to part (a) of the question, the Land Fund was established as a separate fund in July 1997 by a resolution passed by the Provisional Legislative Council pursuant to section 29 of the Public Finance Ordinance. Under this resolution, the Financial Secretary may "in his discretion, authorize and direct the investment of any assets of the Land Fund which are not immediately required to meet expenses in respect of the Land Fund in such a manner as he may determine". The merger of the assets of the Land Fund into the Exchange Fund was an investment decision made by the Financial Secretary in accordance with the Land Fund resolution. It has no relevance or implication for the use of the Land Fund.

The Land Fund remains a separate government fund. The merger of the assets of the Land Fund into the Exchange Fund does not and will not pre-empt consideration of the use of the Land Fund. The Government has yet to consider the use of the Land Fund assets. As and when we have any proposal, we will put it before the Legislative Council for approval. This is because the Land Fund resolution does not provide for the Land Fund to be used for any government services. Nor has the resolution the provision to allow the Government to transfer money from the Land Fund to the General Revenue Account or other government funds. All these were clearly explained by the Government to the legislature when moving the resolution to establish the Land Fund in July 1997.

With regard to part (b)(i) of the question, in his 1998-99 Budget speech last February, the Financial Secretary announced that he would ask both the Land Fund Advisory Committee and the Exchange Fund Advisory Committee to examine how to maximize investment returns while minimizing risk, and how to adjust the asset allocation of the two Funds so that their investment policies can be aligned by 1 April 1999, as envisaged when the Government took over the Land Fund which would bring about administrative efficiency and economies of scale. The merger of the assets of the Land Fund into the Exchange Fund on 1 November 1998 was a natural consequence of the above.

With regard to part (b)(ii) of the question, the adoption of a more progressive strategy in the investment of the Exchange Fund is entirely unrelated to the use of the Exchange Fund to purchase equities last August.

With regard to part (c) of the question, the purpose of using the Exchange Fund to acquire Hong Kong equities by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) last August was to frustrate manipulators' double market play so as to preserve the stability of Hong Kong's monetary system. After attaining the objective, we will exit the market orderly by selling the Hong Kong equity holdings without affecting the stability of the market. The Exchange Fund Investment Limited (EFIL) is examining how to manage the holdings in a prudent and professional manner with a view to selling the equities with the least possible impact on the market.

The HKMA is now examining the long-term investment strategy of the Exchange Fund, including whether Hong Kong equities should be held as a long-term investment; and if yes, the optimal allocation. This exercise is unrelated to the holding of Hong Kong equities by the Exchange Fund due to the market operations last year.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to what the Secretary has just said, does it mean that the use of the Land Fund is not yet determined?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof NG, you may sit down after asking the question.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Yes.

SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Madam President, the answer is yes.

MR JASPER TSANG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the main reply, the Secretary on the one hand said that the adoption of a more progressive strategy in the investment of the Exchange Fund is entirely unrelated to the use of the Exchange Fund to purchase equities last August, but on the other hand she said that whether Hong Kong equities should be held as a long-term investment still awaits further examination. Does this imply that when purchasing the equities, the Government was yet to lay down a strategy on whether or not to hold the equities on a long-term basis? If so, does it imply that the Government's purchase of equities last August has put the investment strategy of the Exchange Fund in a passive position?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretaries, who among you will answer this question?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I do not feel that it is in a passive position. Ever since the reunification, the Financial Secretary has repeatedly stated publicly that there is a need to carry out a fundamental assessment of the various types of assets held by the Hong Kong Government and the necessary adjustment to the long-term strategy. With regard to this question, the Financial Secretary has always kept it under consideration. Indeed, the Secretary for the Treasury has made it very clear in her main reply just now that the market intervention last August was an entirely unrelated incident. I very much appreciate that Mr TSANG may consider that the two matters are somehow interrelated. In fact, concerning the long-term investment strategy and how the assets of our long-term investment should be managed, the Financial Secretary has, after the reunification and especially after taking over the Land Fund, repeatedly made public that he will study whether to adjust the proportion of bonds or securities, or the proportion between overseas bonds and securities and local bonds and securities in order to maximize the return, especially in the long run. These are all matters that will naturally be considered.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the third paragraph of the main reply, it was mentioned that the Financial Secretary had announced in his Budget speech last February that the Land Fund Advisory Committee and the Exchange Fund Advisory Committee would examine how to maximize investment returns while minimizing risk. In this respect, will the Government inform this Council of the respective average rates of return of the Exchange Fund and Land Fund in the decade before July 1997? Did those returns come from different investment strategies and what are the major differences of these investment strategies?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this? Secretary for the Treasury.

SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I shall try to answer this and I would ask the Secretary for Financial Services to fill in omissions, if any. First of all, before the merger of the assets of the Land Fund into the Exchange Fund, the investment strategies adopted by the two Funds were different. Mr NG's second point is about the respective rates of return of the two Funds in the decade before the reunification. I do not have the data for 10 years but I can provide the data for the five years before the reunification. The rates of return of the Exchange Fund from 1993 to 1997 were as follows: 7.05% in 1993, 1.96% in 1994, 10.98% in 1995, 5.31% in 1996 and 6.12% in 1997, while the rates of return of the Land Fund were: 8.41% in 1993-94, 4.36% in 1994-95, 12.52% in 1995-96, 13.06% from 1996 to 30 June 1997 and 4.06% between 1 July 1997 and the end of March in 1998.

MR FUNG CHI-KIN (in Cantonese): Madam President, we can see that the Government wants to adopt a more progressive strategy in the investment of the Exchange Fund but when dealing with the equities acquired in August, its ultimate goal is to sell them. Then, is selling the equities the more progressive strategy in question? In addition, with the Government holding such a large quantity of equities, the market constantly feels the presence of great pressure. How can the Government clearly explain to us that selling the equities can inject vitality into the market?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, please allow me to repeat once again. It is one thing that the Government is now planning on reviewing the investment strategy and combination, including the rate of return and what strategy to adopt in what market, while the reason for its entry into the market last August is quite another thing. They simply cannot be lumped together.

Secondly, as we all know, the Government has repeatedly reiterated after its acquisition of the equities in August that it will try to sell the Hong Kong equity holdings orderly over a period of time without affecting the operation of the market. In light of that, the EFIL was established to advise the Exchange Fund Advisory Committee on the most appropriate form, means and time to deal with such equities. As far as I know, the EFIL has just invited some financial experts to advise it on just that. The EFIL will commission three financial experts in future to put forward recommendations on this. Hence nothing is settled for the time being. Of course, after such recommendations are made, the EFIL still has to wait for the decision of the Exchange Fund Advisory Committee and the Financial Secretary before putting anything into practice.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, at the last meeting of the Panel on Financial Affairs, the Secretary for the Treasury indicated that the advantage of merging the two Funds was to allow the Land Fund a more stable rate of return as the amount of the Land Fund was smaller than that of the Exchange Fund, and a merger would result in an amount of assets totalling over $900 billion which would help bring about better returns. May I ask why we should consider merging the Funds instead of examining the investment strategy for the benefit of a more stable rate of return? After the merger, the amount of the Fund assets have increased but many international investment funds would break a big fund into smaller ones instead in the hope of gaining a better return. In merging the two Funds, the Government has acted exactly contrary to the international practice. In fact, the Exchange Fund is not managed by one single fund manager. Since it is managed by several managers, why should the two Funds be merged then? Would the Government please explain it?

SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Madam President, there is actually no contradiction between the two. We can see that the more the global financial environment fluctuates, the bigger a fund it takes to minimize the average risk borne. This is exactly a factor that the Financial Secretary considered when he decided to merge the assets of the Land Fund into the Exchange Fund. Let me illustrate this with some data. Before the merger, in the six months between 1 April 1998 and the end of October 1998, during which the global financial scene experienced a relatively serious fluctuation, the rate of return of the Land Fund was 7.01%, while the rate of return of the Exchange Fund reached up to 15.38% during the same period. This has taken into account only the rate of return, while the rate of fluctuation has been left out. If the fluctuation factor is also taken into account, a bigger fund can in fact bring in a more stable and better return on average for investments of the Government. This is also exactly the reason why the Financial Secretary decided to go ahead with the merger. I wish to stress again that in publishing the 1998 Budget in February last year, the Financial Secretary already made it very clear to the legislature about this wish of his. Hence the merger has nothing to do with the unusual financial activities that took place after August 1998 at all.

PRESIDENT (Cantonese): Second question.

Studying the Development of the Mainland's Economy

2. MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, in view of the Mainland's rapid economic development, and the constant updating of its trade and industry policies, will the Government inform this Council whether the Administration has put in place a mechanism for conducting regular and systematic studies of the development of the Mainland's economy and related policies, and for providing guidance to those Hong Kong people who have encountered difficulties in their business activities or factory operations on the Mainland; if so, how the mechanism is functioning; whether it has assessed the effectiveness and identified room for improvement of the mechanism; if not, whether the Administration will consider putting in place such a mechanism as soon as possible?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the Mainland is the largest trading partner of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), its economic and trade developments have great impact on us. In view of this, the Government has put in place several mechanisms to study the economic and trade developments in the Mainland to facilitate its formulation of policies and to provide Hong Kong businessmen with business operations in the Mainland with the latest information as far as possible.

In respect of the studies carried out internally by the Government, the Economic Analysis Division of the Financial Services Bureau has been conducting regular and systematic analysis on the Mainland's economic development for some years. Last year, the Central Policy Unit commissioned the Hong Kong Policy Research Institute and the One Country Two Systems Economic Research Institute to conduct two two-year studies respectively. The purposes are to enable the Government to have a better understanding of the Mainland's macro developments and the latest developments in the Guangdong Province.

As regards the provision of information for our businessmen operating in the Mainland, the Hong Kong Trade Development Council (TDC) regularly publishes journals and special reports on the Mainland's economic and trade scenes, and holds seminars upon visits to Hong Kong by trade officials from the central or provincial governments. Such reports and seminars will update our businessmen on the latest business opportunities and changes to regulations in the Mainland. In addition, the Mainland Desk of the Trade Department collates information on trade regulations in the Mainland through liaison with the relevant mainland departments, in particular the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation, and disseminate such information to Hong Kong businessmen through commercial information circulars either by post or via the Internet for their reference.

In regard to researches on industries, since many of our businessmen have set up factories in the Mainland, the "techno-economic and market research studies" undertaken by the Industry Department often cover issues relating to Hong Kong business operations in the Mainland as well as profiles of market developments in the Mainland. Upon the completion of these researches, copies of the reports are issued to the respective industries for their reference. The reports are also available to the public at the Government Publications Centres.

Apart from the abovementioned, the Office of the Government of the SAR in Beijing (the Beijing Office) also plays a part. One of its functions is to report to the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments on the latest developments in the Mainland, such as the macro-economic developments and information on business and trade laws. This is to ensure that the SAR Government is kept abreast of the situation as early as possible for the purpose of analysis and conveying such information to Hong Kong businessmen if necessary so that they may have a clearer picture of the economic situation as well as the business and trade policies of the Mainland.

Hong Kong businessmen encountering commercial disputes or taxation or legal problems when conducting business outside Hong Kong should settle the problems according to the laws and related proceedings in the place of business. Under normal circumstances, the SAR Government will not, and should not, get involved in individual cases. Under this general principle, we are making the best efforts to provide Hong Kong businessmen with the latest information to facilitate their better understanding of various measures adopted in the Mainland. In cases where important issues of general concern to Hong Kong businessmen are involved, we will contact the departments concerned in the Mainland to reflect Hong Kong businessmen's views. For example, the Director-General of Trade visited the mainland departments concerned in late October last year to reflect Hong Kong businessmen's views on the enforcement of anti-smuggling measures in the Mainland. Besides, the 11 offices set up in the Mainland by the TDC also provide information and referral services to Hong Kong businessmen with operations in the Mainland.

The economic and trade developments in the Mainland involve extremely wide-ranging issues. Researches and follow-up actions on these developments constitute an enormous and complicated task. Our existing research mechanisms have evolved over time and are built on experiences accumulated over the years. With its continuous implementation of reforms and market openings, economic developments in the Mainland have taken on an ever-increasing pace. When necessary, we will take steps to modify these mechanisms in the light of changing circumstances to ensure their practicability and reliability.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, various problems such as intellectual property infringement, import of people of talent, changing local taxes, import and export restrictions and opening up of the mainland market encountered by small and medium sized enterprises in Hong Kong and Hong Kong factory owners setting up factories in the Mainland are not individual incidents as the Secretary has said, but material problems arousing general concern. The Secretary has indicated in his main answer that occasional visits to Beijing are made to reflect the views of Hong Kong businessmen, and the TDC also provides information. We know that Hong Kong businessmen encounter many such problems in the Mainland, and these are major problems. Thus relying solely on the reflection of views in Beijing occasionally .......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY, please come to your question direct and be as concise as possible for many Members are still waiting to ask questions.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): ...... and helpless answers are often given by the TDC. The Secretary has just said that suitable modification will be made. Will the Secretary inform the Council when and what modification will be made?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, we surely understand that regular contact should be made between the SAR Government and the Central Government but we do not just send personnel to Beijing after incidents have occurred. After the Beijing Office has commenced operation, we believe that we should be able to achieve this aim and make great improvement in this respect.

Besides, colleagues in the Trade Department and Trade and Industry Bureau maintain frequent contact with the Central Government especially the personnel of the Ministry for Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation resident in Hong Kong to reflect the views of Hong Kong businessmen on various matters affecting the overall interests of Hong Kong businessmen and reflect their difficulties. We have to understand that under the premise of "one country, two systems", Hong Kong businessmen conducting business in the Mainland must respect the laws and policies of the Mainland after all, and they cannot expect the SAR Government to ask the Central Government to adopt special measures of exemption for Hong Kong businessmen on each and every issue. Certainly, if some new measures will really have serious impact on the overall interests of Hong Kong businessmen, we will convey our views to the Central Government. However, we cannot guarantee that the Central Government will certainly take head of the views expressed or make changes as the authority rests with the Central Government.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY, which part of your supplementary has not been answered?

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not answered the part concerning when and what modification will be made.

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, as the Beijing Office has just commenced operation, I do not think we have reached the stage where a modification of the existing mechanism is called for.

MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, given that the Beijing Office will inform the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments of the latest developments in the Mainland, will Members of the Council be given copies of such reports?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, we did distribute to Honourable Members of the Legislative Council regular reports of overseas offices in the past. When I return to my office, I will discuss this with colleagues in the Constitutional Affairs Bureau and the Beijing Office to find out how we can systematically dispatch their regular reports to Honourable Members for perusal.

MR HUI CHEUNG-CHING (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is stated in the Secretary's main answer that Hong Kong businessmen encountering commercial disputes when conducting business outside Hong Kong should settle the problems according to the laws and related proceedings in the place of business. Hong Kong businessmen are the biggest investors in the Mainland and so far when they encounter commercial disputes, they will very often negotiate with the relevant mainland bodies on the basis of their social affiliation. Now that there is a Beijing Office, will the Government consider setting up a special department to give Hong Kong businessmen assistance?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, the government policies mentioned by me just now are applicable in all parts of the world as many Hong Kong businessmen are actually conducting business outside Hong Kong. If the Government gives assistance to every person in respect of his difficulty or legal problem, the size of the Government will have to be doubled. Therefore, I have just said and I now reiterate that we cannot possibly intervene directly and give assistance in all the problems encountered by individual businessmen. We are obliged to convey our views to the Central Government only when the overall interests of Hong Kong businessmen are affected.

MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, if the Government does not want to be involved if Hong Kong businessmen encounter pure commercial disputes when conducting business in China, how does the Administration differentiate pure commercial disputes encountered by Hong Kong businessmen from cases in which Hong Kong businessmen seek help after being unlawfully detained by mainland authorities? If the Beijing Office will not intervene, which organizations will assist those helpless people detained in the Mainland and help them seek legal assistance?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, this question has been asked before probably in the Provisional Legislative Council but not the present Legislative Council and an answer was given by the then Secretary for Constitutional Affairs. I will give Mr CHEUNG a written answer after I have looked up the relevant information. (Annex I)

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese):Madam President, the Secretary has indicated in the fourth paragraph of the main answer that in regard to researches on industries, the Industry Department has undertaken "techno-economic and market research studies". How are these studies conducted? Have cases been sampled from among organizations in the industry or have studies been made after reports were made to the Industry Department by Hong Kong businessmen conducting business in the Mainland who encountered problems? Has the Industry Department worked together with the industry in looking for answers during these studies?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese):Madam President, these studies are normally conducted systematically. After the Industry Department has decided to study a certain industry or scope, the personnel concerned will issue questionnaires and contact factory owners to collect information before drawing a conclusion or making an analysis.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese):Dr HO, which part of your supplementary has not been answered by the Secretary?

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese):The Secretary has not answered the part of my question concerning whether the Industry Department has worked together with the industry when looking for answers in its research on cases.

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese):Since there are different industry committees under the Industry Development Board, so if the Industry Department has to conduct such researches, it will consult the relevant committee the membership of which includes members of the industry.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese):Madam President, although the Secretary said in answering a supplementary question earlier that the Government would not involve in individual disputes, we all know that the difficulties encountered by many small and medium enterprises conducting business in the Mainland often involve the mainland authorities and their fairly irregular policies, and these problems can be categorized into a few major types. Will the Secretary inform this Council if hotlines are set up, if not, if hotlines will be set up to collect the problems and difficulties encountered by Hong Kong businessmen in general and then negotiate with the relevant mainland authorities policy-wise in order to solve the problems for most Hong Kong businessmen?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese):I do not think it is suitable for hotlines to be set up for this purpose because hotlines usually allow the public to call a certain government department direct when emergencies occur to see what assistance the Government can give. But we are now talking about the channels through which the Government collects such information.

In fact, the Government has been collecting information concerning conducting business in the Mainland through different channels. The Trade and Industry Bureau, the Trade Department and the relevant mainland departments, for instance, the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Co-operation I have mentioned, have maintained frequent contact. We also contact the representatives of the various chambers of commerce and the trading sector to listen to their views. Besides, we often hold meetings with the advisory committees under the Trade and Industry Bureau especially the Trade Advisory Committee to discuss relevant matters. Furthermore, there is a China Trade Advisory Committee comprising Hong Kong businessmen under the TDC which provides the TDC with valuable views on trading in the Mainland. If small and medium enterprises encounter problems and would like to let the Government know or see if the Government can help them, I suggest that they should contact the Industry Department or the Trade and Industry Bureau direct and we will gladly take note of the information they offer.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese):Honourable Members, we have spent 17 minutes on this question. Although many Members are still waiting for their turn, I am sorry that we have to proceed to the third question now.

Safety of Residents during Maintenance Period of Fire Service Systems

3. MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is reported that in a recent fire incident at a unit in Ching Yung House of Cheung Ching Estate in Tsing Yi, as maintenance works for the fire service pump of the building were underway, the fire alarms and other fire service installations and equipment could not function. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the public housing estates which have installed fire service systems identical to that installed in Ching Yung House, and of the measures that the Housing Department (HD) will adopt to ensure the safety of the residents concerned during the maintenance period of such fire service systems;

(b) whether similar problems will arise during the maintenance period of fire service systems installed in other public housing estates; if so, of the measures that the HD will adopt to ensure the safety of the residents concerned during the maintenance period of such fire service systems; and

(c) whether any legislation is currently in force to require the management companies of private premises to provide temporary fire service equipment during the maintenance period of the fire service systems of the premises under their management; if not, whether the Administration will consider introducing legislation to this effect?

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING(in Cantonese): Madam President, the design of fire service installations in about 200 public housing blocks is similar to that of Ching Yung House in Cheung Ching Estate. I shall provide Members with a list of all the public housing blocks when the present investigation is completed next month.

In all public housing blocks which have similar fire services installations, the HD will carry out improvement works to separate the fire alarm system from the fire fighting system so that shutdown of either of them for maintenance will not affect the other. These improvement works have started and will be completed within this year.

At present, when the fire fighting system is shut down for maintenance, the HD will provide portable fire extinguishers as a standby facility so as to avoid recurrence of the problem similar to that in Ching Yung House. In case the fire alarm system is shut down for maintenance, tenants will be advised to be on the alert for possible outbreak of fire during the maintenance period.

There is no legislative requirement for owners and management companies of buildings to provide temporary fire services equipment during the maintenance period of fire services installations. But having discussed with the Fire Services Department (FSD) recently, the Registered Fire Services Installation Contractors' Association has promised that temporary equipment, such as portable fire extinguishers, will be provided for emergency use during the shutdown of fire services system in public housing estates or private buildings. Fire services installations contractors will also inform the FSD when the installations need to be shut down for maintenance. The FSD will issue a circular soon to all contractors to remind them to follow the above arrangements. When the FSD is informed by a contractor of shutdown of fire services installations in a particular building, officers from the relevant fire station will visit the building and draw up a contingency plan to deal with any possible outbreak of fire during the shutdown period.

Existing arrangements are working well in general. Nevertheless, the FSD will keep under regular review the effectiveness of the existing arrangements and put in place necessary improvements as appropriate.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, as mentioned by the Secretary just now, more than 200 public housing blocks are equipped with similar fire services installations, which means more than 10 000 tenants will be affected in the like manner. For this reason, I consider it will be too late if the list of public housing blocks could be made available only next month. As regards the portable fire extinguishers, my concern is whether they will still be there when workers are taking breaks; besides, I should also like to know if there is any difference between the contingency plan and the general procedures in terms of safety protection.

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the portable fire extinguishers will be available inside the buildings for residents' use in case of fire, during the period when the fire services system has been shut down. If the fire services system has not been shut down, or if it has resumed normal function, there would of course be no need for the portable fire extinguishers to remain inside the buildings concerned. As regards the contingency plan of the FSD, in conducting routine inspections the officers concerned will investigate where the exact locations of the feed pumps and water points are and how the water hoses could be connected with them in case of fire. For this reason, in any fire incident fire fighters are able to expeditiously connect their hoses to outside water supply systems to put out the fire upon their arrival at the scene.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Madam President, it has been mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the Government's main reply that "existing arrangements are working well in general", but I am afraid this remark should be relevant to public housing blocks only. This is because many of the modern commercial buildings today are the so-called intelligent buildings the installations and equipment within which are mostly automatic; in other words, instead of waiting for the arrival of fire fighters, the entire process of fire prevention and fire fighting should begin with the functioning of the automatic fire services installations. In the event that the fire services systems of such buildings are shut down for maintenance, could problems or situations similar to that in the movie "Towering Inferno" be resolved by making available several additional portable fire extinguishers or by informing Divisional Officers of relevant fire stations? I hope that the Government could give some thought to this question, and that it will explain whether it considers the fifth paragraph of the main reply partial and incomplete.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, the subject of the main question is related to the situation in public housing estates, but the supplementary you raised just now is about commercial buildings ......

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Not so, Madam President, ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please listen to me first. You need not be so anxious.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Fine, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If the Secretary for Housing has such information at hand, he may answer you right away; however, if he does not have it now, I think he might wish to make some consultation before giving you a reply.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I wish to explain why I have raised the supplementary. Just now I had struggled for about a minute before making up my mind to raise the supplementary. While parts (a) and (b) of the main question asked about public housing blocks, part (c) has referred to private buildings. Since you, Madam President, have approved this question, I believe the Secretary should have prepared the answer.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, a mechanism has in fact been put in place whereby the FSD requires fire services installations contractors to promptly notify the Department should any installations need to be shut down for maintenance, and it will set out a number of other requirements for them to comply. For instance, contractors will be required to shorten the maintenance period as far as practicable; apart from that, the Department will also request contractors to avoid shutting down the entire system for maintenance but to carry out separately the improvement works relating to the fire alarm system, fire hoses and smoke doors. Upon receipt of notification from contractors, Divisional Officers of the relevant fire stations will deploy officers to pay more frequent inspection visits to the buildings concerned. Moreover, management offices or Owners Corporations of the buildings will also be advised to be on the alert for possible outbreak of fire, as well as to make sure that portable fire extinguishers are available at such appropriate locations as corridors, passageways leading to the rooftops of the buildings and so on, so that emergency measures could be taken to put out the fire should any accidents occur. According to the information I have in hand, the mechanism has been operating effectively. In 1997, the FSD received a total of 597 notifications of maintenance work from fire services installation contractors; in 1998, the number of notifications received has risen to 1 156. These figures serve to prove that more improvement works have been carried out on the one hand, and that contractors have become more aware of the need to notify the FSD of the works on the other.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, which part of your supplementary has not yet been answered?

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Is the reply provided by the Secretary just now relevant to those so-called fully automated intelligent buildings? If the Secretary was only referring to public housing blocks just now, then the reply should of course be relevant.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to my understanding, the automatic fire alarm system of certain buildings are directly connected to the Fire Services Communication Centre and relevant fire stations will be informed when any of those buildings need to shut down its fire alarm system for maintenance. In other words, despite the suspension of the fire services communication system, all parties concerned will still be on the alert for any outbreak of fire. In regard to the arrangements in intelligent buildings to which the Honourable James TO has referred, I need to carry out some careful studies before giving a reply in this connection.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it has been mentioned by the Secretary in the third paragraph of the main reply that tenants will be advised to be on the alert for possible outbreak of fire during any shutdown of fire alarm system for maintenance. If alertness could be improved or problems be resolved by advices, it would have obviated the need for fire alarm systems since advices alone would suffice. I should therefore like to ask the Secretary the following questions. Firstly, could anything be done to improve the alertness of the people so that they could run for their lives instead of waiting for rescue in case of fire? Secondly, advice is still a piece of advice and it may not necessarily be able to resolve problems; as such, could the Government consider deploying more wardens or security guards to patrol the buildings, with a view to resolving the possible problems that would arise in case of fire?

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Speaking of advices, Madam President, the HD will inform all the tenants concerned of any temporary shutdown of the fire alarm or fire fighting system, with a view to alerting them to any possible outbreak of fire. The effectiveness of such advices will of course depend very much on the civic awareness of the people. In this connection, I am sure members of the public will directly inform the FSD of any fire accidents. As a matter of fact, tenants could always use the fire extinguishers or other equipment available to put out any fire should such need arise. I should like to remind Honourable Members that after a fire has broken out, fire fighters normally will arrive at the scene in a few minutes to put out the fire.

The second part of the supplementary is related to the wardens and security guards of public housing estates. In the event of a shutdown of the fire alarm or fire fighting system, the wardens and security guards concerned will be instructed to inspect the respective public housing blocks and the surrounding environment, and they would of course employ various methods to inform the tenants concerned should any fire break out.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, which part of your supplementary has not been answered?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it appears the Secretary has not answered the part of my supplementary asking about the way to improve tenants' alertness. The general function of a fire alarm system should be to help tenants to escape from fire accidents, but then the Secretary has just said that in the event of a shutdown of the system the Government could resolve the possible problems involved by giving tenants some advice, which means there should in fact be no need for such a system. I was really surprised to hear that. In view of the reply given by the Secretary just now, I believe he must be very confident that his advice-giving approach could resolve fire hazards. As regards the supplementary I raised just now, which asked about the way to improve people's sense of fire prevention, I am afraid it has yet to be answered by the Secretary.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Do you have anything to add, Secretary?

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING(in Cantonese): Madam President, the HD has all along been carrying out a lot of publicity work to help improve the civic awareness of tenants. The Department has printed posters to explain clearly to the tenants the various types of fire prevention facilities, the use of fire hoses and so on. As regards the FSD, it has also carried out general educational programmes to inform members of the public of, firstly, the way to alert neighbours in case of fire; and secondly, the way to handle small scale fire accidents. Besides, members of the public are also advised to co-operate with and inform the FSD promptly should any fire break out, so that fire fighters could arrive at the scene expeditiously to put out the fire.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council will now proceed to the fourth question, since we have already spent more than 14 minutes on this one.

Visa Applications from Nationals of Russia, Eastern European and Middle East Countries

4. MR HOWARD YOUNG: Madam President, for many years, the travel industry has been urging the Government to relax the criteria for approving visit visa applications from nationals of Russia, Eastern European and Middle East countries. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council what relaxations it has made since 1995?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, Hong Kong operates a liberal regime which gives nationals of about 170 countries and territories visa-free access to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). Our visa requirements are kept under constant review to facilitate visitors while ensuring that immigration control and security are effectively maintained.

A number of steps have been taken to facilitate visitors from Russia, East European and Middle East countries.

Since 1992, nationals of Russia can obtain visit visas from overseas diplomatic or consular missions without reference to the Immigration Department. A fast-track visa service was introduced on 18 January 1999 in favour of Russian tour groups travelling in the Mainland. The new service will enable visas to be issued within three working days for these groups to visit Hong Kong.

For Middle East countries, only visitors from six countries require visa to visit Hong Kong. In the past, visit visa applications from nationals of these countries took about four to six weeks. In 1995, we simplified the application procedures for the nationals of five of these countries. They may now obtain their visit visas from overseas Chinese Diplomatic and Consular Missions 14 days after the date of application. The requirement for local sponsor is waived, unless there is doubt to the intention of the visit.

For East European countries, visitors from 19 of the 27 countries require visa to visit Hong Kong. They can obtain visit visas from overseas diplomatic or consular missions without reference to the Immigration Department. We are in contact with some of the consulates and embassies to explore the possibility of mutual visa abolition or relaxation of visa requirement.

In addition, bona fide businessmen from the above mentioned countries may apply for multiple-journey visas to come to Hong Kong for business.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I noted the Secretary had mentioned in the third paragraph of the main reply that the Government had introduced new measures in favour of Russian tour groups the day before yesterday. Of course, this is welcomed by the tourism sector. In view of the new global trend (the people of Hong Kong have this tendency too) that more and more tourists will choose not to join tour groups, will the Director of Immigration or the Secretary for Security consider extending these measures from tour groups to individuals?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, as for Russia, we have no intention to abolish the visa requirement for nationals of Russia for the time being, in line with the practice adopted by 159 countries or territories throughout the world. In other words, with the exception of the Commonwealth of Independent States or former Soviet countries, that is, some East European countries, most territories in the world (including China) require nationals of Russia to apply for visas. Therefore, in the short run, we will not consider lifting the requirement on Russian nationals to apply for visas to come to Hong Kong. However, we will handle cases which have a genuine need flexibly. Let me cite the abovementioned tour groups as an example. After negotiation, we learned that about 500 000 people travel from Russia to China for sightseeing annually. After reaching Shenzhen, many of them would also like to detour to Hong Kong for sightseeing and shopping. This is welcomed by us, and we have therefore reached an agreement and, that is, tour groups organized by approved travel agencies can enter Hong Kong from designated crossings. We will issue visas to them within three working days.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government mentioned in the main reply that some visa applications need not to be referred to the Immigration Department in Hong Kong for processing. My question is: For cases of non-referral, does it mean that Hong Kong will not be informed even if a certain visa application has been rejected by the local consulate? Will the relevant application be eventually approved by the local consulate or the Immigration Department of Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I can briefly explain the two measures commonly adopted by foreign consulates in processing visas on our behalf: One is each application has to be referred to the Immigration Department for approval and notification of issuance of visas; the other is, for the sake of simplifying the procedure, we agree that foreign consulates can issue approval notice to us in advance and, if no objection is raised by us within 14 days, the visas can be issued. The nationals who can enjoy the simplified service as I mentioned earlier are granted visas under this mechanism.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now, in responding to the question related to tour groups, the Secretary mentioned that the Government would make the simplified visa service available only to approved travel agencies. As far as I know, there are only two approved agencies, namely, China International Travel Service and the China Travel Service. Under such circumstances, does the Secretary consider it necessary to expand the arrangement so that more travel agencies can become approved travel agencies? Otherwise, the overly-restricted list of approved agencies might lead to monopoly.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, the current arrangement is indeed restricted in the sense that there are only two approved travel agencies and the quota for each day is 100 persons, and that they must also enter from designated crossings. As the fast-track visa service provided to facilitate Russian tour groups to visit Hong Kong is only run as a pilot scheme, we must handle it with extreme caution. This is in fact similar to restricting to four travel agencies to make arrangement for mainland residents to join tour groups to visit Hong Kong. Of course, we would not rule out the possibility of conducting a review later. If it is considered to be feasible, we would allow more travel agencies to provide the service.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I want to follow up the supplementary question raised by Mr HO Sai-chu. The arrangement for mainland tour groups to visit Hong Kong is the same as that for Russian tour groups visiting Hong Kong. As the latter is just at the early stage of a pilot scheme, we need to observe for a period of time. It has been quite a long time since mainland tour groups started to come to Hong Kong, but only four travel agencies are allowed to apply for visas on their behalf. Many people in the trade have voiced that this is unfair and tantamount to monopoly, whereas our policy is to reinforce such a monopolistic situation. Will the Government inform this Council if it is because there are difficulties untold or certain reasons that make it possible for these travel agencies to entrench this monopolistic system through this arrangement?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all, I have to explain that we are not encouraging monopoly. There is indeed such a practical need. Approved travel agencies must gain considerable trust from the Government because we need their co-operation. For mainland residents joining tour groups to visit Hong Kong, for instance, we have not only recently relaxed the restriction on the number of people, but also abolished the requirement for nominating a local sponsor for the sake of facilitating their travel. Without a local sponsor, we must seek the co-operation of the travel agencies which must not allow those who are not genuine visitors to come to Hong Kong to work illegally or engage in other illegal activities. We must also secure their assistance so that if one of their members leaves the tour and goes missing, they will inform us or help us as to how to establish liaison. Therefore, we must establish a good co-operative relationship with the relevant travel agencies and they must be trusted by the Government. Of course, there are some practical difficulties. For instance, after relaxing the number of tour groups which are allowed to visit Hong Kong (I believe Members should be aware of the relevant figures), the number of people arrested for prostitution has risen. Similarly, we will take note of whether or not those who join Russian tour groups are genuine visitors, whether they will commit illegal acts after coming to Hong Kong, and whether the travel agencies responsible for making the arrangement will co-operate with us before considering relaxing the relevant arrangement.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary for Security mentioned about East European countries in the penultimate paragraph of the main reply. Considering the fact that we are so eager to attract overseas visitors to come to Hong Kong, why can travellers from East European countries, particularly those who would also like to visit the Mainland, not enjoy the simplified visa arrangement that takes only three working days like Russian tourists do?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as East European countries are concerned, we have in fact relaxed our visa requirement in 1992 and, as a result of that, nationals of some East European countries do not need to apply for visas in order to come to Hong Kong. We have not provided other countries with a fast-track visa service similar to that provided for Russian tour groups because we have not received such a request. The number of people from East European countries visiting Hong Kong is very small. We have never heard that many tour groups would like to come to Hong Kong in this manner. In fact, for those East European countries which are still required to apply for visas, we have started studying the possibility of mutual visa abolition with the relevant diplomatic missions.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has mentioned in the main reply that some nationals of Middle East countries can enjoy simplified visa service while nationals of some countries are not required to apply for visas. Will the Government consider providing the simplified visa service to people who have permanent residence elsewhere but are in possession of the People's Republic of China passports? For instance, nationals of the Philippines are not required to apply for visas to come to Hong Kong and will be granted a two-week visa-free period. But for those who have permanent residence in the Philippines or who were even born in the Philippines and have lived there for a few generations as well as holding the People's Republic of China passports so far, it is not possible for them to obtain a visa to come to Hong Kong within a short period of time. Will the Government simplify the visa application procedure for these people?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, what Miss CHOY has mentioned is the arrangement for overseas ethnic Chinese who reside in foreign countries but have not acquired the nationality of those foreign countries as well as foreign passports to come to Hong Kong. In fact, many people did mention this to us before. After the reunification, we have taken a number of steps to facilitate these people to come to Hong Kong. One of the measures is if Chinese diplomatic missions consider the applicants have proper visa arrangements to allow them to return to their domicile when possessing their visa applications for Hong Kong, the diplomatic missions can issue visas to them without reference to the Immigration Department. Such an arrangement is far simpler and quicker than the previous practice.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in talking about the East European countries in the penultimate paragraph of the main reply, the Secretary mentioned that nationals from 19 of the 27 countries require visas to visit Hong Kong. Does it mean that nationals of the remaining eight countries are not required to apply for visas to come to Hong Kong? If so, why?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I did mention the remaining eight countries earlier. After the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, as the first step of a review we conducted in 1992, we considered nationals of these countries would not pose any threat to Hong Kong and their visits to Hong Kong will be beneficial to us and so we decided to abolish their visa requirement.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last supplementary.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in the penultimate paragraph of the main reply, the Secretary indicated that she would examine the possibility of mutual visa abolition or relaxation of visa requirement with some consulates. Mutual visa abolition is a good thing because we can then be benefited. But as far as I understand it, the Hong Kong Government often exempt some countries which do not grant us visa-free arrangement from visa requirement because of their tourism potential. In mentioning the mutual visa or visa-free arrangement, will the Government still observe the past principle, that is, to provide those countries with visa-free arrangement based on the ground that they will bring benefits to Hong Kong even though they do not offer us visa-free arrangement in reciprocity?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, what Mr YOUNG has said is correct. Our visa policy has never insisted on mutual benefit. Nor have we insisted that a certain country should grant us visa-free arrangement before we give it visa-free arrangement in return. Our principal consideration is the benefits it will bring to Hong Kong. As part of the exercise to fight for visa exemption for the SAR passport, we have, after the reunification, requested several East European countries to reach an agreement with us on the mutual visa abolition arrangement. Now we are still at the negotiation stage, and we believe it will take some time before we can achieve any result. But in the meantime, we will of course handle the matter flexibly by considering such factors as whether many nationals of these countries will come to Hong Kong and how many benefits this will bring to Hong Kong.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

Suicide Cases

5. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the respective numbers of suicides and attempted suicides committed by Hong Kong residents in the past year;

(b) whether these figures are higher than those of the previous year; if so, whether the Administration has analysed the relationship between such a phenomenon and the economic downturn and the hardship experienced by the people; and

(c) what measures the Administration has in place to prevent the occurrence of suicides?

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

(a) At present, the agencies involved namely, the police, the Social Welfare Department (SWD), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the Hospital Authority do not keep statistics on the number of individuals who commit or attempt suicide. To overcome this problem, the SWD has embarked on a feasibility study to establish a computerized Client Information System. This will, if introduced, capture information on the profile of clients served by the SWD and the nature of services provided. In the short-term, the Director of Social Welfare is examining how the collection and presentation of data can be improved.

(b) In the absence of comprehensive statistics on suicide cases, it is not possible to conduct any meaningful study on the correlation between suicide and the prevailing economic climate. Suicide cases are always tragic and are often complex in nature. As such, each case has its own causes which often comprise more than one specific reason.

(c) The Government, with the assistance of NGOs, provide a wide range of services designed to help individuals and families overcome their problems. This clearly involves dealing with cases of attempted suicide and handling the aftermath of actual suicide cases.

Remedial counselling and support services are provided by caseworkers in the 65 Family Service Centres run by the SWD and NGOs, by family life education officers, outreaching social workers and clinical psychologists. In response to the prevailing economic situation and the resulting pressure on individuals and their families, staff are available to provide early intervention, and practical assistance, to those in need.

In addition, 22 Family Activity and Resources Centres organize programmes designed to strengthen the ability of individuals, and their families, to cope with stress. Staff in these Centres also help to encourage the establishment of mutual help networks amongst families in local neighbourhoods.

There are also a number of telephone hotlines, run by the SWD and NGOs, which provide immediate counselling services to those in need. Cases requiring further or more in-depth assistance, are referred for follow-up action by other welfare service units.

The SWD will continue with its publicity efforts to bring to the public's attention, the availability of these support services and to encourage those in need to seek assistance as early as possible.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, cases of suicide are often reported in the press, sometimes even in prominent headlines. So, why has the Government not kept any records on such cases? I really wonder. The Government says only now that it is going to make improvements by collecting the statistics concerned. If it is really going to do so, what kinds of statistics will it collect and how is it going to use the information concerned?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, each Member is allowed to ask only one supplementary question at any one time, but you have asked two. Which of them would you like the Secretary to answer?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I will ask my second supplementary question later on. I wish now to ask the first supplementary question first.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, at present, we do not keep any statistics on the number of individuals who commit or attempt suicide, because such cases are handled by different organizations and government departments like hospitals, NGOs and the SWD. We hope to be able to collect the relevant information systematically, so that we can analyse these cases in greater depths.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I do not know whether I have heard the Secretary's reply clearly. My supplementary question is: Why did the Government not collect the relevant statistics and information in the past? I wish to ask this question because it is strange that we ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, many Members are waiting for their turn. If your questions are too long, other Members will not have the chance to ask their supplementary questions. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): No.

MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in asking this supplementary question, I actually wish to clarify one point. It is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the main reply that organizations like the SWD do not keep any statistics on the number of Hong Kong residents who commit or attempt to commit suicide. But as I understand from the Secretary's reply just now, the real problem is not so much of they do not actually have the relevant statistics, but rather there is simply an absence of a central collection and collation mechanism. May I therefore ask the Secretary to clarify whether or not they have the relevant statistics? If yes, why do they not attempt to collate these statistics?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Each organization will keep records of the cases which it handles, but we do not have a central information collection and collation system as such. We hope therefore to establish such a system under which all information can be properly collated for the purpose of statistical analysis. Most of the information concerned in fact comes from hospitals, but the information collected by hospitals and social welfare organizations may overlap. That is why we hope that the system to be established can achieve a better collation effect.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, people may choose to commit suicide because they encounter problems in their life. And, under the current economic downturn, I believe that more people will attempt suicide because of economic hardships. Part (c) of the main reply mentions the 65 Family Service Centres run by the SWD and NGOs, but in the past, these centres might well have handled nothing more than marriage problems and those relating to the behaviour of children. So, they may not be able to offer any counselling services to those affected by economic hardships. Therefore, may I ask the Government whether it will provide any training to the caseworkers of these 65 centres, so that they can be equipped with the skills to assist those who contemplate suicide purely because of economic difficulties?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Family Service Centres run by the Government and NGOs are all manned by professional social workers who possess the professional expertise necessary for providing counselling services to families encountering emotional problems. The causes of emotional problems are many, and economic hardships may well be one of them. But I can say that the social workers concerned are all adequately trained on how to handle emotional and behavioural problems. I must of course add that there are also other experts such as clinical psychologists who are able to offer assistance whenever necessary.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is mentioned in part (c) of the Secretary's main reply that in response to the prevailing economic situation and the resulting pressure on individuals and their families, staff are available to provide early intervention and practical assistance to those in need. May I ask what kinds of practical assistance will be provided to those people who face economic problems?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, such practical assistance will cover their application for public housing, Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, hospital services and hospital social work services.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I think cases of suicide are very much like a thermometer which can tell us what have gone wrong with our society. Unfortunately, and very disappointingly, the Government has so far failed to compile any relevant statistical records, with the result that we are now unable to find out what have gone wrong with our society. Though the Secretary says that a central collation system will be established, but this may well be a central collation system under the SWD only. Upon the establishment of such a system, will the police, the SWD, NGOs and the Hospital Authority all be able to input their respective statistics on suicide cases? That way, when questioned by us, the Secretary will be able to quote statistics from the system and tell us clearly whether people have committed suicide because of unemployment or other reasons.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is our hope that a comprehensive system can be set up to collect information from all different organizations.

MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the second last sentence in part (c) of the Secretary's main reply refers to the telephone hotlines run by the SWD and NGOs. But people usually choose to commit suicide in the flash of a second, and their life or death is thus determined within such a very, very short time. That being the case, how can they possibly have the time to find the numbers of all these telephone hotlines? Are people who contemplate suicide supposed to find out all these telephone numbers well beforehand? Does the Administration have any idea in mind which can help these people find the telephone numbers?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I really have to thank the Honourable Member for asking this supplementary question. We have in fact conducted a lot of publicity work in this respect, and we have also distributed many leaflets and booklets. Many of these telephone hotlines are understandably not specifically meant for people who commit or attempt suicide. But these people can also make use of these hotlines if necessary. Many government organizations and voluntary agencies do conduct publicity on their telephone hotlines, and many other organizations in Hong Kong also run similar hotlines. Many people do in fact make use of these hotlines.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, like many colleagues of mine, I am extremely disappointed at such a reply because it is all about the general situation instead of being specific to the crux of the problem. As far as the social problem of suicide is concerned, what information does the SWD possess which can enable it to prevent the occurrence of these tragic incidents? May I ask the Secretary whether she possesses any statistics which can help us prevent cases of suicide? How many telephone hotlines are there, for example? When the Secretary gave her reply just now, she suddenly said that the hotlines she referred to were just general in nature, not meant specifically for people who contemplate suicide. If so, just what kinds of measures have been put in place to deal specifically with suicide, and to prevent the occurrence of the same?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, all of us hope very much to prevent suicide, but this is an extremely difficult task. In order to prevent suicide, we cannot possibly rely on one single government department alone. The concern of one's family members and one's own way of thinking are also important, and so are the efforts of hospitals. Social workers who monitor the situation regularly will be able to detect any emotional and behavioural problems which may lead to suicidal tendencies. Once they discover any such problems, they will intervene at an early stage and refer the cases to the relevant professionals. We certainly need to do more in this respect; we simply should not tell people that once a certain government department is given some specific responsibilities, suicide cases will be prevented altogether, because the causes of suicide are indeed numerous and very complex.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. I asked whether or not the Secretary is in possession of any information which is directly related to the problem of suicide. I wish to ask this question because she has told us that there are no such statistics, and even the hotlines are not meant specifically for people contemplating suicide. With respect to this social problem, what information does the Secretary possess?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Health and Welfare, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is indeed true that our hotlines are not meant specifically to deal with the problem of suicide, but some of these hotlines can also prevent some cases of attempted suicide. Let me perhaps give one example. The Hong Kong Association of Youth conducted a survey on its hotline between April and June of 1998. During the period in question, the Association received calls from 25 hotline users who had tendencies of committing suicide. The rough analysis conducted by the Association reveals that the problems encountered by people aged between 24 and 26 and by those over 30 are mostly related to love, self-image, mental health and family problems. In the cases under survey, the case workers involved were all able to intervene and allay their frustrations at an early time. The clients concerned were also given assistance in solving their problems. This is of course just a survey which covers a very short period of time. But we do hope to conduct more investigation work in this respect. We hope that by doing so, we can get an overall statistical picture, so as to identify the areas which require focused efforts.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Can the Secretary give us any performance pledge? In case the SWD receives a telephone call in which the caller expresses very obvious suicidal tendencies ...... Assuming that there is no need for waiting, no need for prior booking ...... How soon can the SWD deploy a counsellor or clinical psychologist to interview and counsel the caller after the initial telephone conversation?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the telephone hotline of the SWD is manned by staff members especially chosen for the purpose. That is why the quickest way to help the callers should be the advice offered by the staff members on the hotline, and there is in fact no need to book any separate appointments with other social workers. Of course, follow-up work may be required after the initial telephone counselling. In cases like this, the relative urgency of the cases should be considered, and whenever necessary, immediate arrangements can always be made.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, is the Secretary saying that if the hotline staff member receiving a call thinks that there is the urgency to do so, he can send somebody to meet the caller immediately? I wish to ask such a question because we know that if somebody wants to jump to his death from a building, firemen will be sent for immediately. Will the Secretary tell us whether or not people with professional counselling expertise will be sent to visit the caller immediately?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): This is a question which involves the professional judgment of social workers. If they think that immediate actions are warranted, they will certainly act accordingly.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.

Structural Safety of Small Houses

6. DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is learnt that the Government will, upon completing the investigation of the collapse of a balcony in Swallow Garden, a small-house estate in Fanling, draw up measures to monitor the structural safety of small houses. The new measures will lay down building guidelines to govern the construction of small houses, specify the technology requirement for high risk structures and require that high risk structural works be undertaken by contractors authorized by the Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether consideration has been given to requiring registered structural engineers to submit the structural plans to the Buildings Department for approval, and that in such plans, the standard structural parts should be designed in accordance with guidelines issued by the Government, and detailed structural designs and plans be attached for the non-standard structural parts such as the foundation and balconies, so as to ensure that the materials and procedure for the construction of small houses are up to the required standard and that public safety is guaranteed; if not, why not;

(b) since the proposed new measures would not have any legal effect, how the Administration ensures that contractors will conform to such guidelines in the absence of professional supervision; and

(c) whether consideration will be given to re-drafting the guidelines and the approval criteria and discussing the supervisory details with engineering sectors?

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

(a) We have started to review the Buildings Ordinance (Application to the New Territories) Ordinance to see if tighter control is called for in relation to building works that are exempted under the Ordinance. As part of this review, we will consider whether registered structural engineers should be required to submit structural plans for small houses to the Building Department for approval and if so how such submission should be prepared;

(b) as announced on 31 December 1998, we will impose additional conditions relating to the technical requirements for the construction of certain critical structural elements such as balconies when granting certificates of exemption under the Ordinance for small houses. No certificates of compliance which are required for the occupation of these small houses will be issued in the event of non-compliance with these conditions. We will also require the owners of the small houses to employ contractors recognized by the Government to carry out building works involving critical structural elements. For small houses for which we have already issued certificates of exemption under the Ordinance and are about to be constructed or being constructed, it is not possible for us to impose conditions and requirements retroactively. We will issue to individual owners construction guidelines in respect of critical structural elements; and

(c) we are formulating the implementation details of the new measures and will consult the engineering sectors and Heung Yee Kuk. We have just received a letter from the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers to the Land and Building Advisory Committee on this issue. They have put forward some proposals to the Committee for their consideration. We shall refer to the discussions made by the Committee and consider these proposals.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (b) of the main reply, the Secretary mentioned that guidelines will be issued requiring the owners of small houses to employ contractors recognized by the Government to carry out building works involving critical structural elements, but how in the absence of design and supervision by structural engineers, can one be certain that the construction of critical structural elements such as balconies can meet the technical requirements?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, as I have said just now, those works which have been issued certificates of exemption are given such exemptions under current legislation whereby once exemption is granted to the owners, it is not possible for us to impose conditions and requirements retroactively. We can only issue guidelines to them through administrative means. It would not be correct to say that these guidelines are totally ineffective. For we all know that after the Swallow Garden incident, the buyers and sellers of small houses are very concerned about the issue of structural safety of small houses. The interplay of market forces can be seen in recent reports in the newspapers on the very prudent attitude of the banks in arranging mortgage loans to the owners of small houses. So, from both the perspectives of the buyers and sellers, if a small house cannot make a buyer rest assured at its structural safety, no matter it is a psychological, structural or material kind of assurance, it can have very far-reaching effects. Therefore, in the personal interests of the buyer and the seller, the guidelines will be complied with and extra care will be paid to ensure that the construction guidelines are met when building works are carried out.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now I asked about the issue of small houses approved for construction in the future, but the Secretary gave a reply on the question of the few thousand small houses which were approved. I was asking if in the future only authorized contractors were required to undertake the building works, but there would not be any structural engineer responsible for the design and supervision, and when the houses are completed, would there be no knowing of what plans were based and what materials were used and there would be no way to know the building materials and quality then. I was asking about the question of those small houses to be approved in the future.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add on this?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, maybe I have not made myself clear enough just now. I was saying when small houses were to be approved in future, we would impose this condition to require contractors recognized by the Government be employed to undertake the construction works. According to the Buildings Ordinance, these contractors shall be held liable for faults committed leading to personal injuries or death or loss of property as a result of the works undertaken. As to whether the contractor concerned would be absolved of his liability owing to the absence of the supervision of an Authorized Person when the works were undertaken, as I have mentioned in part (b) of the main reply, we are at present drawing up new regulations, and in this respect, we would take Dr HO's suggestion into consideration, that is, on the question of whether a structural engineer or an Authorized Person is required to supervise the works to be undertaken.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary did not answer the part of the question on structural plans. I was asking about the situation when the recognized contractors were building the houses, they would not have any design and plans made by a structural engineer, and a house could not possibly be built when there were no plans. Part (b) of the main reply mentions the consequences of failing to meet the conditions imposed, but if there is no way the Government can assess whether the construction works have met the conditions so imposed, when the house is built, then there would be no way at all to know how in fact the house has been built.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr HO, I am well aware that you consider the Secretary has not answered your supplementary question, but as there are still a few Members waiting to ask their questions, I think you should let them ask their questions first. However, you may still wait for your turn to ask your question.

MR WONG YUNG-KAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, part (c) of the main reply mentions some new measures are being formulated and the engineering sectors and Heung Yee Kuk would be consulted. May I know apart from these two sectors, whether the district boards and other groups concerned will be consulted?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): I think the issue of small houses is mainly the concern of people in the Heung Yee Kuk, because the small house policy is subject to the regulation of the current Buildings Ordinance (Application to the New Territories) Ordinance. Moreover, at that time we also held discussion with the Heung Yee Kuk on the Ordinance, so we feel that we should consult the Heung Yee Kuk again. Also, as the engineering sector also has given us a lot of advice and so we have to respond to that as well. Therefore, in my main reply I have pointed out especially that we would consult these two sectors. As to whether we should consult the district boards, I think we can come up with a decision on that only after we have made some considerations.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to follow up the question raised by Dr HO just now on structural plans. The Secretary has mentioned earlier that the announcement made on 31 December is an administrative measure. But the problem which has surfaced as a result of the Swallow Garden incident is that only some fragmentary plans on steel bars were found. There were no complete plans available to inspect the structural safety of the building. Would the Government consider including a requirement in the above-mentioned administrative measure to the effect that a copy of the structural plans of the small house to be built should be signed by an Authorized Person or a registered structural engineer which should then be submitted to the Buildings Department for record purposes? The Government is considering whether or not to make any amendments to the legislation, and whether it would undertake the task of granting approval, but there is a problem of not having enough time to amend the legislation. The announcement on 31 December is an administrative measure, if something can be done such as only requiring the submission of a structural plan for record purposes, I think this is feasible. Could the Secretary inform us whether he has considered this point?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, we shall consider this suggestion.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary have used phrases to the meaning of "frightened birds" and "over-reacting" to describe the public's reaction to the Swallow Garden incident. It seems to me that these remarks are taking public reactions lightly. Would the Administration inform us whether the Swallow Garden incident has been seriously looked into and whether the main causes are identified? As the developers are planning to undertake maintenance works, will the Government monitor such works closely?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, after the collapse of a balcony in Swallow Garden, the Buildings Department has already undertaken preliminary investigations and the findings are presently being analysed. We expect to get a formal report of the investigation by the end of this month. On the other hand, last week the owners of the Swallow Garden hired an independent registered structural engineer to conduct an investigation. We feel that in order that the independent investigation will not be affected, we hope to wait until the registered structural engineer has made his investigation and submitted his report to the Buildings Department, then we shall analyse the findings of the two reports before we decide on how stringent we should exercise our control.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question, and that is, although the developers are planning to undertake some repair works, but as the measures are not yet put into practice, will the Government carry out some kind of special monitoring of the works?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): As far as I know, the structural engineer whom the owners and the developers have agreed to hire will also undertake repair works. In other words, the repair works will come under the supervision of a registered engineer.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, will the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands tell us, in future when approval is granted to applications to build small houses, no requirement is made in respect of design and supervision by a registered engineer, should the building of these small houses exceed the requirements in respect of slopes handling and site formation as stipulated in Guideline No. 147 for Authorized Persons, then who will be in the position of deciding whether the requirements are in any way being exceeded?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, if the site concerned has slopes, then it will be another issue. For the Buildings Ordinance has other regulatory measures in respect of slopes. If the owners wish to apply for exemption, then they should do so through some procedures to apply for exemption in respect of site formation. But that goes beyond the kind of exemption for building works we are talking about now.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Guideline No. 147 is in fact on the exemption of design for small houses, it is about site formation and slopes, and so it is absolutely related to this question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr HO, in order to conform to the Rules of Procedure, would you mind changing your supplementary comments into a supplementary question? (Laughter)

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, if the Secretary receives an application to build a small house, and it is found that there is a slope problem in the site which should be handled and that a design by a structural engineer is required in site formation, would the Secretary require the applicant to hire a registered structural engineer to make a design first?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, this is quite a technical problem and I must say I need to study it together with my colleagues in the Buildings Department.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last supplementary.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, would the Secretary consider consulting the recognized contractors for their advice because these recognized contractors may be responsible for the details of the measures to be implemented?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am grateful to Mr HO for raising this question. The sector Mr HO has mentioned is also a target of our consultation.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Release of Two Hong Kong Residents Kidnapped in the Philippines

7. MR HO SAI-CHU (in Chinese): It is reported that two Hong Kong residents and one Malaysian Chinese kidnapped by Muslim guerrillas in the Philippines in September last year were released at the end of last month. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it has taken any action to facilitate the release of the two Hong Kong residents; if so,

(i) the details of it;

(ii) whether the action has been taken through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China; if not, of the reasons; and

(b) it has paid any ransom to the kidnappers; if so, of the details, and the circumstances under which the decision to pay the ransom was made?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) After receiving information on this kidnapping incident in September last year, the Security Bureau immediately requested the Chinese Embassy in Manila, through the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to urge the Philippine Government to take effective actions to secure the safe and early release of the two Hong Kong residents. The Chinese Embassy in Manila liaised with the Philippine Government regularly and kept us informed of the development of the case. We reiterated our concerns about the safety of the two Hong Kong residents. Assurances were secured from the Philippine Government that the safety of the kidnapped persons would be given paramount importance in any negotiation or rescue action. The two residents were eventually released on 23 December 1998 and returned safely to Hong Kong the day after.

(b) No ransom was paid by the Government to the kidnappers.

Riding in First Class Compartments of KCR Trains without Holding Valid Tickets

8. DR LUI MING-WAH (in Chinese): It is learnt that quite a number of passengers of the Kowloon-Canton Railway now travel in first class compartments without valid first class tickets. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:

(a) the actions taken by the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC) against such passengers; and

(b) whether it constitutes a breach of the KCRC's regulations for the staff of the KCRC to only order the rule-breaking passengers to return to ordinary class compartments without imposing fines on them?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, passengers travelling in first class compartment of East Rail trains are required to hold valid first class tickets, or for those using the Octopus, to register their cards at the first-class processors installed on the station platform before boarding.

Ticket inspectors are on duty in first class compartment of the East Rail trains to check boarding passengers' tickets. If ordinary class passengers are found to have boarded first class compartments unintentionally or with reasonable excuse, ticket inspectors may allow them to switch to the ordinary class compartments without having to pay any surcharge.

Ticket inspectors also conduct surprise checks in first class compartments. Passengers who fail to produce valid first class tickets will have to pay a surcharge of $100 for adults, and $50 for the elderly and children, in accordance with the KCRC Bylaws. In 1998, 22 000 adults and 4 060 seniors/children taking the East Rail were levied a surcharge for travelling in first class compartments without valid first class tickets.

The key in preventing passengers from travelling in first class compartments without valid first class tickets lies in stepping up enforcement and adequate publicity. Under the current practice, the ticket inspection arrangements ensure that over 70% of the first class compartment passengers are checked. The Corporation will keep this matter under close review.

Development of Young People's Potentials in Culture, Arts and Sports

9. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): Regarding the promotion of the development of young people's potentials in culture, arts and sports, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it knows if an applicant's outstanding performance in culture, arts and sports will be considered by tertiary institutions in their admission of students; if so, of the details of such consideration;

(b) whether it knows if tertiary institutions have made alternative arrangements in respect of their curricula to enable their students to undergo relevant training in culture, arts and sports;

(c) how the relevant authorities assist tertiary institutions in providing an environment conducive to the development of their students' potentials in arts, culture and sports; and

(d) whether the outstanding performance of tertiary institution graduates in culture, arts and sports will be considered by the relevant authorities in the selection of candidates for appointment to the Civil Service?

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

(a) In a bid to encourage secondary school students to develop in an all-round manner, and to send a clear signal that our society values attributes such as athletic or artistic talent, the University Grants Committee (UGC)-funded institutions launched a pilot scheme in 1998 to admit a small number of students who excel in areas other than pure academic performance.

Under the pilot scheme, secondary schools with applicants in the Joint University Programmes Admission System (JUPAS) were invited by the UGC-funded institutions to recommend up to three such students for consideration. 266 schools submitted a total of 701 recommendations. A total of 184 students were eventually admitted through this pilot scheme in the 1998-99 academic year.

The UGC-funded institutions have recently decided to incorporate this scheme into JUPAS with effect from the 1999-2000 academic year, so that it will become a regular feature of the admission system. Furthermore, each secondary school may recommend up to six students.

The institutions also admit students outside the JUPAS. These applicants are encouraged to provide as much information as possible on their non-academic achievements for the institutions' consideration. Such achievements will be taken into account in the applicant's assessment results.

(b) All UGC-funded institutions have adopted, or are moving towards, credit-unit systems which provide students with the flexibility in arranging their courses of study so that they would be able to undergo training in culture, arts and sports. The institutions are also prepared to make appropriate arrangements to facilitate students in developing their potential in these areas. For example, one institution has recently allowed one of its students to suspend studies for half a year so that she could practise for and participate in the 1998 Asian Games.

Apart from facilitating students' training in culture, arts and sports, the institutions also include these elements in their regular curricula. For example, all UGC-funded institutions offer courses on general education, culture, arts and sports either on a compulsory or elective basis for all their students.

(c) All UGC-funded institutions are equipped with indoor and outdoor sports facilities as well as swimming pools for students. Arts and cultural facilities are provided to suit individual institutions' need in academic development, as well as to facilitate the development in whole-person education. For example, some institutions which do not offer academic programmes in art and music are also provided with art galleries and music rooms so as to increase students' exposure in these areas.

The UGC is currently undertaking a review on space and accommodation to assess the space provision and requirements of the UGC-funded institutions. Space requirements for students' non-academic activities will also be taken into account.

(d) Recruitment to the Civil Service is based on open and fair competition which aims to select the best person for the job in the Government. Selection is made on the basis of qualifications, experience and any other qualities or abilities required for the job. Where the job requires experience or abilities in respect of culture, arts or sports (for example, Cultural Services Managers, Curator, Recreation and Sport Officer), the performance of candidates in these aspects will be relevant factors for consideration.

Impact of Deflation

10. MR KENNETH TING (in Chinese): It is learnt that Hong Kong's economy has entered a period of deflation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it has assessed the impact of deflation on the volume of investment in the manufacturing sector and on the sales volume in the retail sector in Hong Kong; if not, whether such assessments will be made as soon as possible, and of the estimated time taken to complete the assessments;

(b) whether it has estimated the respective numbers of job losses in these sectors as a result of deflation; and

(c) of the specific measures in place to stimulate consumer sentiment, boost the public's spending power and attract more power and attract more people

to invest in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Chinese): Madam President, consumer prices indeed recorded a decline in November 1998, by 0.7% over a year earlier. This was the first decline recorded since 1975. The fall in consumer prices, whilst largely due to the weak economic activity in the recent period, was also an indication of the expeditious cost/price adjustment in the local economy to weather the shock from the regional financial turmoil.

Yet to a considerable extent, the recent decline in consumer prices was also due to implementation of the relief measures announced earlier by the Government, including the freezing in a number of government fees and charges as well as the rebate of rates for one quarter. These measures, together with the freezing in a number of public utility charges, are estimated to have lowered the Composite Consumer Price Index in last November by nearly two percentage points.

Apart from these, import prices of consumer goods have continued to soften amidst the relative strength of the US dollar in the earlier period, the sustained fall in world commodity prices, and the low inflation in major supplier economies. With the high degree of dependence of Hong Kong for imports of consumer goods, consumer prices thus eased more distinctly in recent months.

From these, it can be seen that the fall in local consumer prices was not induced entirely by the weakness in economic activity. The positive effects from the relief measures of the Government and from the external factors should not be ignored.

(a) The latest statistics on retail sales are available up to October 1998 only, and those on overall investment up to the third quarter of 1998 only. As such, an assessment of the possible impact of "deflation" in last November on retail sales and on investment expenditure can only be made after more statistics become available.

(b) Similarly, the latest available statistics can only reflect the vacancy position in the manufacturing sector and the retail trade up to the third quarter of 1998. As such, whether or not "deflation" has affected job vacancies can only be analysed later.

(c) The Government has already granted substantial tax concessions in the 1998-99 Budget, with a view to reducing the financial burden of the corporate sector and households. In addition, the Government has introduced two packages of relief measures in May and June last year, to help weather the pressure faced during the economic adjustment process.

Quite obviously, because of the close linkage of Hong Kong with the regional economy, the recovery of the Hong Kong economy has to hinge on improvement in the external environment. But equally important is the flexibility and adaptability of the private sector in Hong Kong. Also, the fall in internal costs and prices in the recent period is part and parcel of the adjustment process in the economy to help restore the competitiveness of Hong Kong's products, and to alleviate the burden on households. The Government will certainly strive to play a supportive role in facilitating the economic adjustment process.

More recently, there are certain positive signs emerging in the local economy. These include improved liquidity, successive cuts in local interest rates, and rebound in share prices and flat prices. This should help improve market sentiment and lift overall economic activity.

Public Interest Tests on the Internet Market

11. MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): The Government had stated that in considering the application for Hong Kong Star Internet Limited to transfer its Internet-related business to Hongkong Telecom IMS Limited, it would, by making reference to experience in other countries, conduct public interest tests on the impact of the transaction on the competition position and efficiency of the Internet market. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the details and results of such tests?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Chinese): Madam President, in considering the application for the acquisition of the Internet-related business of Hong Kong Star Internet Limited by Hongkong Telecom IMS Limited (HKTIMS), the Telecommunications Authority (TA) assessed the impact of the acquisition on effective competition in the Internet market and the interests of consumers. The results of this assessment, including the public interest tests on the impact of the transaction on competition in, and the efficiency of, the Internet market, are contained in a report published by the TA on 23 December 1998. We passed copies of the report that day to Members of this Council's Information Technology and Broadcasting Panel.

In summary, the TA considered that the relevant markets for the analysis were those for leased circuit Internet access and dial-up Internet access. In assessing the potential impact of the proposed acquisition on competition, the TA considered whether HKTIMS would become dominant in the market (that is, whether HKTIMS would be able to take decisions in the market without significant competitive restraint from its competitors and customers) as a result of the proposed acquisition. He also considered whether there could be anti-competitive behaviour that might bring about possible harm to the public interest and affect the efficiency of the economy of Hong Kong.

In performing the above analysis, the TA had considered the following factors:

(a) Market Share and Market Concentration

The TA obtained updated statistics from the Internet Service Providers to calculate their market shares at the time of the proposed acquisition.

(b) Entry Barriers to the Relevant Markets

The TA assessed whether there were potential barriers to entry such as regulatory restrictions in licensing, control of essential facilities by certain operators, reluctance of, or difficulties for, customers to switch suppliers, the level of sunk investment and economy of scale.

(c) Price and Profitability

The TA considered whether operators in the relevant markets were able to raise prices to increase their profits without a reaction from their competitors or customers that would force them to lower their prices again.

(d) Operation of Competition in the Market

The TA considered the intensity of competition and the operation of competitive forces in the relevant markets. Issues examined included whether the market was an expanding one or a mature one; whether new operators had the opportunity to compete for new customers; whether there was any significant product differentiation; and what factors affected customers' purchasing decision.

The TA's findings in the analysis and his conclusions were as follows:

(a) The proposed acquisition would not strengthen HKTIMS's position in the leased-line Internet access market to an extent that would cause competition or other concerns to the TA; and

(b) Although the TA considered that HKTIMS would not become dominant in the dial-up Internet access market immediately as a result of the proposed acquisition, he was concerned that in the short to medium term HKTIMS could become dominant.

To address the latter concern, the TA gave his consent to the proposed acquisition subject to the inclusion of two new conditions in HKTIMS's licence for Internet services ─ one to prevent the abuse of a dominant position and the other to expressly prohibit unfair subsidies or cross-subsidies.

Regarding the efficiency of the relevant Internet markets, the TA had considered whether the proposed transaction would enable HKTIMS to achieve greater efficiency in terms of lower operating costs and improved quality of service as a result of economy of scale. The TA came to the conclusion that it is unlikely that HKTIMS would enjoy economy of scale after the proposed transaction for the following reasons:

(a) the provision of Internet access service is not a capital-intensive business and the proportion of fixed cost for the provision of such service is low;

(b) a high proportion of the operating costs for the provision of Internet access service (for example, staff cost, expenses for the leasing of telecommunications lines, expenditure on advertising and promotion, and so on) are service-related and are highly dependent on the number of customers.

Termination of Flights Service

12. DR DAVID LI: It is reported that the Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) will terminate its scheduled flights service from Hong Kong to Europe on 1 March 1999 due to a slump in business and high operating costs of such flights. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of international airlines that have ceased operating scheduled flights to and from Hong Kong since the opening of the new airport at Chek Lap Kok and whether it knows the reasons for such decisions;

(b) whether it has compared the airplanes landing fee and other airport charges levied on airlines at the new and old airports; if so, of the details; and

(c) whether it knows if the Airport Authority (AA) will consider reducing the landing fee and other airport charges to attract more airlines to use Hong Kong for their scheduled flights?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES: Madam President, our replies to the three parts of this question are as follows:

(a) Since the opening of the new airport, one international airline, namely, Varig of Brazil, has ceased operating its twice weekly service between Hong Kong and Rio de Janeiro. We understand that this was mainly due to the regional economic downturn and that Varig intends to come back to this market when the circumstances improve.

The SAS announced last month the suspension of its four times weekly service between Hong Kong and Copenhagen with effect from 1 March 1999. We were given to understand by the SAS that the main reasons for its decision were unsatisfactory route result and uncertainty concerning the economic situation in Asia.

The information we have received from the SAS has not suggested that the level of airport charges was a reason for the SAS's decision. Moreover, as we understand it, the SAS's decision to suspend service to Hong Kong is part of its global readjustment which includes suspending services to other places such as Rotterdam, Venice and Archangel in Russia. The SAS has also indicated to us that it hopes to resume operation to Hong Kong when the market situation improves.

In addition, the United Airlines (UA) has announced that it would suspend its daily service between Hong Kong and Delhi from 4 April 1999. According to the UA, the service is not performing up to expectations, especially given the prevailing economic climate. This combined with the fact that the low season to India is approaching led the UA to its decision. The UA has said that it would continue to review the situation in respect of the timing for resumption of its service to Delhi.

(b) The airport charges of the new airport represent increases between 15% and 35% over the level of charges at Kai Tak. The exact percentage increase varies with aircraft types as the structure of charges at the new airport is different from that at the Kai Tak Airport. An illustration of the impact on two common aircraft types operating in Hong Kong is at Annex.

(c) We have consulted the AA. It has a mechanism to review the level of airport charges regularly. In doing so, it would take into account the views of the aviation industry as well as other relevant factors such as the competitiveness of the airport, the financial position of the AA and the requirement under the Airport Authority Ordinance that the AA shall, as far as practicable, ensure that, taking one year with another, its revenue is at least sufficient to meet its expenditure.

Annex

Illustration of the Difference between the
airport charges at the new airport and those at the
Kai Tak Airport by using two common aircraft types
(on a total airport charges per visit basis)

Aircraft Type	Kai Tak Airport (1997 $)	New Airport (1998 $)	% increase
B737-300	8,742	10,024	14.7%
B747-400	32,953	44,200	34.1%

Note

(1) Total airport charges for the new airport include landing charge, parking charge and terminal building charge.

(2) Total airport charges for Kai Tak Airport includes landing charge, peak movement surcharge, parking charge and security services charge (this charge element, albeit recovered by airlines from passengers, are included to provide a like with like comparison because charges for security services at the new airport are covered by the terminal building charge).

(3) Calculations assume one hour turnaround for B737-300, four hours turnaround for B747-400 at frontal stands and a load factor of 67%.

HKUST's Decision to Reduce Funding for Acquisition of Publications

13. MISS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): It is reported that the amount of funds allocated by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST) to its library for the acquisition of publications in 1998-99 is drastically reduced by 40% compared to the funding in the last financial year. In this connection, will the executive authorities inform this Council if they know:

(a) the criteria adopted by the HKUST for allocating funds to its library for the acquisition of publications;

(b) the justifications for the HKUST's decision to reduce funding for that purpose in 1998-99; and

(c) the impact of such a decision on the HKUST library in the acquisition of publications?

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

(a) In determining the budget for the acquisition of library materials (for example, books, journals and electronic and other media), HKUST takes into account many factors, including the actual requirements of its library, the historical pattern of allocation for its library and other competing priorities of the University.

(b) The development of a library collection is a long-term commitment. In previous years, in order to accelerate the development of the basic library collection, the HKUST's budgeted funding for acquisition of publications for its library was frequently supplemented by savings from other areas. The HKUST has by now built up a respectable basic collection.

As the tertiary sector enters a stage of consolidation, the HKUST has tried to identify measures to enhance cost effectiveness in all areas. In the case of the library collection, the expenditure on journal subscriptions accounted for about half of the annual expenditure on library materials. After consultation with faculty member in its four schools, the HKUST considered that such expenditure could be adjusted downward by reviewing priorities and by better management of resources.

(c) In adjusting the expenditure on library materials, the HKUST would continue to maintain high standards of support for teaching and research, and minimize the disruption to the University's normal operations. The HKUST will also be making more extensive use of inter-library co-operation with other University Grants Committee-funded institutions to provide loans of books and copies of articles in the journals not in its own library collection.

Safety of Passengers on MTR Platforms

14. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): In its reply to a question raised by this Council on 16 December last year, the Government said that the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation had plans to install retrofitting platform screen doors on all platforms of underground stations, and the company also estimated that the studies into the technical aspects of such installation programme would be completed by the latter part of 1999. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it knows the total number of passengers who fell onto the railway track from MTR platforms (please list them by various causes) in the past three years; among them, the numbers of persons who were injured or killed respectively;

(b) it knows if the corporation has plans to install retrofitting platform screen doors on the platforms of stations at ground level; if there are no such plans, the reasons for that; and

(c) the Administration will urge the company to expedite the progress of its studies, so as to implement the programme for installing screen doors at an earlier date?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) A total of 107 passengers fell onto the railway track from MTR platforms over the past three years, (details at the Annex).

(b) We understand from the MTR Corporation that plans for retrofitting screen doors at MTR platforms are limited only to underground stations. This is because before platform screen doors are installed, it is necessary to have environmental control systems including air-conditioning, ventilation and smoke extract provided for the enclosed platform. Such systems are not available at above ground stations.

(c) The MTR Corporation's studies will assess the technical changes to the station and tunnel environmental control systems required for the retrofitting programme. Plans for the best method of construction and installation also need to be developed to ensure that normal station operations can be maintained during the period of implementation without any impact on safety or service levels. As this is the first ever project undertaken anywhere to retrofit platform screen doors on an operational railway, it is essential that the Corporation proceeds with caution and makes every effort to ensure that safety and normal operations are not compromised.

We have urged the Corporation to complete the studies as soon as practicable.

Annex

No. of passengers fell onto railway track on MTR Corporation 1996-1998

	1996
Causes	Death	Injury		Unhurt
Suicide	10	-		-
Attempted suicide	-	8		1
Falling from platform accidentally	-	8		7
Feeling unwell	-	-		-
Total	10	16		8		34
	1997
Causes	Death	Injury		Unhurt
Suicide	7	-		-
Attempted suicide	-	6		1
Falling from platform accidentally	-	2		-
Feeling unwell	-	8		2
Total	7	16		3		26

	1998
Causes	Death	Injury		Unhurt
Suicide	8	-		-
Attempted suicide	-	6		2
Falling from platform accidentally	-	13		6
Feeling unwell	-	9		3
Total	8	28		11		47

Collapses of Tunnel Sewers under Construction

15. MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Chinese): In connection with the collapses of the tunnel sewers currently under construction, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the details of the collapses and their impacts on the progress and the construction costs of the project;

(b) of the present progress of the works, and whether assessment has been made as to whether the project can be completed on schedule; and

(c) whether any mechanism is in place to monitor the works progress and cost control of the project; if so, the details of it?

SECRETARY FOR WORKS (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) There are seven deep tunnels with a total length of 25 km under the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme (SSDS) Stage I. Among them, the interim outfall tunnel, which is 1.7 km in length and 5 m in diameter, has already been completed satisfactorily at a depth of about 100 m below the harbour. The other six sewage collection tunnels were originally scheduled for completion in mid-1997 under two contracts. These six tunnels comprise two western tunnels from Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi to Stonecutters Island and four eastern tunnels from Tseung Kwan O and Chai Wan to Kwun Tong, from Kwun Tong to To Kwa Wan and from To Kwa Wan to Stonecutters Island. In mid-1996, the original tunnel contractor responsible for both contracts unilaterally suspended works in all six tunnels. This finally led to the forfeiture of the two contracts in December 1996. Works for completing the tunnels were subsequently re-let under three separate contracts each for two tunnels. These contracts were let in stages from mid-1997 to early 1998. All three contractors have actively resumed the tunnelling works upon award of the respective contracts.

Since the recommencement of tunnelling work under these three contracts, there were several incidents during tunnel excavation where weak rocks were encountered and some earth materials entered into the tunnels. These incidents were not "collapses". In February last year, the Tsing Yi to Stonecutters Island tunnel entered into a band of weak rock. Some 20 cu m of mixed rock and soil had become loosened from the top of the tunnel. The contractor took immediate action and secured the area. Excavation through this weak zone then progressed very carefully and there was a several months' delay arising from this incident. Around last November, the Tsing Yi to Stonecutters Island and Kwun Tong to To Kwa Wan tunnels both met zones of weak rock, and each had several cu m of materials entering into the tunnels. It took the contractors about two weeks to stabilize the ground weak zones and resume normal tunnelling process. Apart from these incidents, there were also relatively minor cases where small quantities of weak materials became loosened during operation of the tunnel boring machines (TBMs). All these are not something unusual in terms of tunnel excavation. On all occasions, the contractors had taken effective measures immediately to stabilize the areas and tunnelled through them in a safe manner.

Pursuant to the terms of the contracts, the contractors are entitled to additional payments for stabilizing weak zones. Because of the uncertainty associated with tunnelling work, we have allowed a contingency sum under each of the relevant projects to cover unforeseen expenditure. For example, about 30% of the contingency allowed in the western tunnel project has so far been committed for this purpose.

(b) The two western tunnels (from Kwai Chung and Tsing Yi to Stonecutters Island) restarted excavation in late 1997. However, tunnelling works have suffered some delays mainly as a result of the breakdown of a vertical mucking system which was installed by the previous contractor at the Tsing Yi vertical shaft for removing spoil excavated from the two tunnels. The mucking system finally proved to be unsuitable for the works and the contractor had to stop tunnelling works for both tunnels in March 1998 to effect replacement of the mucking system. A replacement mucking system was completed in July 1998 and excavation for the tunnels has resumed since then.

At present, excavation for the tunnel from Kwai Chung to Tsing Yi using drill and blast method is about 95% completed and is progressing well. At the present progress rate, excavation of this tunnel would be completed by early 1999. Excavation for the tunnel from Tsing Yi to Stonecutters Island using a TBM is now about 25% completed. Apart from the delay caused by the replacement of the mucking system, the progress of tunnelling works has also been affected by the geological problems encountered. As explained in the above answer to (a), there were two incidents where loosening of weak materials had temporarily held up normal tunnelling operation. At present, the tunnel is still in a region of weak rocks. Because of the need to carry out extensive ground stabilization work; installation of temporary steel supports and grouting ahead of excavation face so as to prevent excessive ground water inflow, the progress has been slower than expected.

Since award of contracts in January 1998, the contractors have been actively mobilizing resources and constructional plant to restart excavation works of the four eastern tunnels (from Tseung Kwan O and Chai Wan to Stonecutters Island). Like the western tunnels, the contractors of the eastern tunnels have suffered some delay in the early stages of their contracts due to the need to replace the vertical mucking systems left on site by the previous contractor.

Excavation in the tunnel from Tseung Kwan O to Kwun Tong started in August 1998 and reached full swing production in mid-November 1998. The initial progress rate is satisfactory and at present about 12% of the tunnel has been excavated. For the tunnel from Chai Wan to Kwun Tong, the contractor has completed the blasting of the 160 m long TBM launching chamber at Chai Wan, and TBM excavation is expected to commence in early 1999.

Excavation in the tunnels from Kwun Tong to To Kwa Wan and from To Kwa Wan to Stonecutters Island commenced in August and September 1998 respectively. At present, about 18% and 8% of the respective tunnel lengths have been excavated. Whilst the contractor is optimizing the matching of the TBM excavation work with the installation of the precast concrete lining, the TBM in the tunnel from Kwun Tong to To Kwa Wan has also met several bands of weathered rock. Tunnelling progress has been affected slightly due to the need for ground stabilization works. We expect that the progress will pick up after the initial phase is passed.

Various obstacles have been encountered by the contractors since commencement of the three completion contracts. As a result, it is likely to take four to eight months longer to complete all the tunnels than provided for in the contracts. It is however worthwhile to note that the tunnelling work is carried out in rock which, being a natural material, could vary significantly in its degree of weathering along such a substantial length. Dealing with possible unforeseen variability is part and parcel of the tunnelling operation itself. The current contractors have already demonstrated that they can deal with these difficult ground conditions in a professional and safe manner. From the results of previous site investigation work, we note that there are still possible bands of weak rock to be traversed. Progress of the remaining tunnel boring work will be determined by the actual geological conditions to be encountered. There is no magic way of changing the rock conditions that are encountered as tunnel construction progresses. Our present estimate is that all tunnels under SSDS Stage I will be completed in year 2000.

(c) Our Consulting Engineer has retained a team of experienced resident site staff to directly supervise the tunnelling works. The Drainage Services Department has also deployed a dedicated team of engineers to look after the project management aspects. Apart from these, the Director of Drainage Services has set up and chaired a Project Steering Committee to oversee and monitor the progress and expenditure of all projects under the SSDS Stage I.

Assistance to the Toy Manufacturing Industry

16. MR KENNETH TING(in Chinese): In view of the increasingly keen competition faced by Hong Kong's toy manufacturing industry in the world market, will the Government inform this Council whether it will consider:

(a) allocating more resources and formulating measures to assist the local toy manufacturers in introducing and developing new technology for making toys; if so, the details of them; and

(b) providing the necessary assistance to the manufacturers concerned in securing bank loans with longer repayment periods for the purchase of machinery and equipment?

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

(a) The Government fully appreciates and recognizes the importance of technological upgrading in our industries. The Government has long been providing technological support to our industries through relevant industrial support agencies (such as the Hong Kong Productivity Council). In addition, with the establishment of the Industrial Support Fund (ISF) in 1994, we have been providing financial support to our industries, industrial support agencies and universities to carry out projects which will contribute to technological upgrading and improvement in our industries. Since its establishment, the ISF has committed a total of $32 million to 16 projects relating to the toy industry. Recent examples include a manufacturing resource database for Hong Kong's toy industry set up by the Hong Kong Toys Council and the low cost rapid prototyping technology introduced by the Hong Kong Productivity Council.

Moreover, the Government has accepted the recommendation of the Chief Executive's Commission on Innovation and Technology to set up a $5 billion Innovation and Technology Fund. The Fund aims to finance ad hoc projects which will contribute to innovation or technology upgrading in our industries. We believe that the Fund will add new impetus to the development of technology in various industrial and commercial sectors. We are now working out the detailed operational arrangements for the Fund.

(b) The Government has no plan to assist individual sectors to obtain bank loans with longer repayment period. However, the Government introduced the Special Finance Scheme (SFS) for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in 1998 to assist SMEs, including manufacturers, to obtain finances from banks by acting as the guarantor for their loans. Since the Scheme does not impose eligibility limitations on sectors and the specific uses of the loans, toy manufacturers are also eligible to participate in the Scheme.

Intellectual Property Rights of Information on the Internet

17. MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether any legislation and administrative measures are in place to protect the intellectual property rights of information in text, picture, audio-visual and other forms accessible on the Internet; if so, of the specific stipulations in this respect; and

(b) of the number of complaints received in the past year about infringement of intellectual property rights of information accessible on the Internet, the details of such complaints and how the Administration handled such complaints?

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

(a) The intellectual property laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) protect not only the intellectual property rights manifested through traditional media (for example, paper and film), they also cover the electronic or digital medium.

Under the Copyright Ordinance, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to make available his copyright work to the public through a medium commonly known as the Internet. The copying of copyright works or the distribution to the public of such copyright works on the Internet without the consent of the copyright owner constitutes an infringement of copyright. The Ordinance also protects the copyright of a work by creators from any part of the world on a fair and open basis, thus ensuring protection of copyright works on the "borderless" Internet.

The Copyright Ordinance has already incorporated the standards on the protection of the copyright of digital data which were stipulated in the Copyright Treaty drawn up by the World Intellectual Property Organization in December 1996. The SAR is one of the first areas in the world to adopt these latest copyright standards.

Under the Trade Marks Ordinance, it would also be an infringement for anyone to use a registered trade mark on the Internet without the agreement of the trade mark owner.

(b) So far, the Government has not received any complaints against infringements of intellectual property rights on the Internet.

Excess of Franchised Bus Services

18. MISS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): It is reported that recently an excessive number of franchised buses has been put into service in some districts on Hong Kong Island, causing traffic congestion and aggravating air pollution in the districts concerned. In this connection, will the executive authorities inform this Council:

(a) how the number of franchised buses at present compares with that a year ago;

(b) how franchised bus ridership at present compares with that a year ago;

(c) whether there are cases of franchised bus service running behind schedule; if so, of the details and how the situation compares with that a year ago; and

(d) whether, on the understanding that the bus services will not be seriously affected, there is any plan to require the various franchised bus companies to adjust their schedules of bus services where there is an excess of bus services; if so, the details of it?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT (in Chinese): Madam President, the number of licensed franchised buses on Hong Kong Island is 1 459 in December 1998, as compared to 1 377 in December 1997. Currently, the average daily patronage of the franchised bus services on Hong Kong Island is around 936 000. The average daily patronage for the year before is around 900 000.

In the last quarter of 1998, the Transport Complaints Unit received 91 complaints concerning erratic bus services on Hong Kong Island, as compared to 76 complaints of such a nature recorded in the same quarter of 1997.

The Administration is equally concerned about the traffic congestion which has built up in some districts on Hong Kong Island over the last quarter of 1998. We have been monitoring the performance of the two Hong Kong Island franchised bus operators closely. A task group led by the Transport Department and involving the Hong Kong Police Force, the public transport operators and Provisional District Board/Traffic and Transport Committee Chairmen has been set up to examine the problems and to formulate solutions. A package of improvement measures including traffic management schemes, diversion of bus routes, and rationalization of bus stops have been implemented over the last few months and some degree of relief is noted. On 10 January 1999, a major exercise to rationalize the use of 26 bus stops on Hong Kong Island was implemented.

The Transport Department is now conducting surveys to collect data on bus utilization and occupancy on all routes which operate along the east-west corridor to Central on Hong Kong Island. Upon completion of the surveys at the end of January 1999, the Transport Department will discuss with the bus franchisees the appropriate rationalization measures to bus services including adjustments to frequency and routing in order to further improve the efficiency of bus services.

Introduction of LPG Taxis into Hong Kong

19. MISS CHRISTINE LOH: With regard to the introduction of taxis fuelled by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) into Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether the existing LPG taxis imported from Japan used in the trial scheme of LPG taxis meet Hong Kong's specifications on vehicle engine;

(b) whether modifications to the design of the engine of these taxis are required if they are to meet such specifications; if so, whether it knows,

(i) the earliest date that such taxis with the modified designs can be manufactured; and

(ii) the estimated price of the modified taxis;

(c) the measures that the Government will take with regard to the licensing requirements of LPG taxis which do not meet such specifications; and

(d) whether the Government has any plan to enable the introduction of second-hand taxis which meet such specifications?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Madam President,

(a) The existing LPG taxis imported from Japan used in the trial scheme of LPG taxis meet Hong Kong's specifications on vehicle engine.

(b) (i) There is no requirement to modify the design of the engine of the existing LPG taxis. We have, however, suggested some minor modifications to the refill connection fitting of the existing LPG taxis, in view of the common practice of the local taxi trade to carry out refilling during shift changes. These modifications can improve the efficiency in refilling operations and enhance safety. The manufacturers of Japanese LPG taxis have already commenced the design modifications and aim at making LPG taxis of the new design available by the end of 2000.

(ii) As the modifications are minor in nature, we do not expect any substantial changes in the price of LPG taxis arising from the modifications.

(c) All taxis have to comply with statutory requirements such as those for roadworthiness, safety and emission. Until such time as the modified LPG taxi type (that is, with modification to the refilling connecting fitting) is available, we will allow the import of new LPG taxis of the existing type.

(d) It has been an established practice of the Government to permit only new vehicles to be registered as taxis so as to enhance the quality of taxi services, in terms of vehicle design, safety and maintenance standards as well as passenger comfort. Given that there are numerous supply sources of new LPG taxis from different countries and our interim arrangements mentioned in (c) above, we do not see the need to change our established policy on new taxi licensing at this stage.

Comprehensive Policy on Primary Health Care Services

20. MR MICHAEL HO (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council whether it has formulated a comprehensive policy on primary health care services; if so, of,

(a) the documents setting out the policy;

(b) the areas covered by the policy, as well as the targets and service items, the public, private sector organizations or departments responsible for providing the services, the service items to be implemented and the timetable for implementation in each area; and

(c) the ways to co-ordinate the various services provided by different public and private sector organizations and departments?

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

(a) The Working Party on Primary Health Care, appointed by the Government, submitted a report to the Government in late 1990, putting forward recommendations on how to improve the provision of primary health care services. Following a period of public consultation, the recommendations made in the report were adopted and implemented by the Government.

(b) The World Health Organization has the following definition on primary health care: "Primary health care is essential health care made universally accessible to individuals and families in the community by means acceptable to them, through their full participation and at a cost that the community and country can afford."

In brief, primary health care services include:

- Disease Prevention

- Health Promotion

- Curative Care

- Rehabilitation

Primary health care puts great emphasis on disease prevention and health promotion, and also on provision of quality services and continuous care, maintenance of good physical condition, and involvement of individuals and the community.

The departments concerned set their own targets to implement the programmes relating to the above services. As for the Department of Health, some of its programme items and targets are as follows:

	Programme Item	Target
(i)	Rate of new born babies attending maternal and child health centres	higher than 90%
(ii)	Coverage rate of immunization programme for school children	higher than 95%
(iii)	Investigating reports of outbreaks of communicable diseases within 24 hours	100%

(c) Different countries and communities have different programmes for primary health care services. Despite the diversity, their services include, at least, the following: provision of potable water, basic hygiene facilities, maternal and child health services (including family planning), immunization to combat major communicable diseases, prevention and control of local endemic diseases, education on the prevention and control of existing health problems, and proper treatment on common diseases and injuries.

This wide range of primary health care services, such as provision of potable water and basic hygiene facilities, are provided by various relevant government departments in Hong Kong. Apart from the Department of Health, health services, including health promotion, disease prevention, curative care and rehabilitation, are also provided by the Hospital Authority, subvented organizations and private medical and health institutions.

The Government co-ordinates the delivery of such services through the Health and Welfare Bureau, the Department of Health and the Hospital Authority.

BILLS

First Reading of Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: First Reading.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 18) BILL 1998

CLERK (in Cantonese): Adaptation of Laws (No. 18) Bill.

Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

Second Reading of Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Second Reading.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 18) BILL 1998

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the second reading of the Adaptation of Laws (No. 18) Bill 1998. The purpose of this Bill is to adapt 13 Ordinances related to churches and temples as well as their subsidiary legislation to bring them into conformity with the Basic Law and with Hong Kong's status as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.

Although there are provisions in the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance for the interpretation of terminologies which are in contravention of the Basic Law or inconsistent with Hong Kong's status as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, it is still unacceptable to keep such terminologies in the laws of Hong Kong. Therefore, this Bill must be enacted to amend the relevant words and expressions. Most of the proposed amendments are terminological changes. All references to "the rights of Her Majesty, Her Heirs or Successors" in the saving provisions shall be amended to references to "the rights of the Central People's Government or the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Basic Law or other laws" pursuant to item 10 of Annex 3 to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Treatment of the Laws Previously in Force in Hong Kong in accordance with Article 160 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The decision has since been incorporated in section 21 of Schedule 8 to the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

Other amendments include changes to section 2 of the Dominican Missions Ordinance, Chapter 1018; the London Missionary Society Incorporation Ordinance, Chapter 1033; and the Missions Etrangeres Incorporation Ordinance, Chapter 1036. As the missions involved in the above Ordinances had all been incorporated, the provision relating to the requirement of placing satisfactory proof in the hands of the Governor before the incorporation have become spent. Accordingly, it is proposed these provisions be deleted.

Subject to Article 12 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the proposed adaptations when passed into law shall take effect retrospectively, as from the date of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Since the Bill sets out clearly the detailed adaptation amendments to a number of Ordinances, there will be no further need to make cross reference to the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance. I beg Members' support for this Bill. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Adaptation of Laws (No. 18) Bill 1998 be read the Second time.

In accordance with Rule 54(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We will resume the Second Reading debate on the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998.

Under Rule 21(4) of the Rules of Procedure, I have permitted Dr Raymond HO, Chairman of the Bills Committee on Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998, to address the Council on the Committee's Report.

LIFTS AND ESCALATORS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 30 September 1998

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, with your leave, I would like to present to this Council, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Bills Committee on Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998, the report on the deliberations of the Committee.

The Committee welcomes the amendment of the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) Ordinance (the Ordinance) by the Government to enhance the statutory control on the safety of lifts and escalators. The first and foremost concern of the Committee is the Bill's proposal to upgrade the minimum qualifications for registration as a lift or escalator engineer. Under the existing provision, a person can apply for inclusion in the register of lift or escalator engineers if he has a higher diploma or higher certificate in engineering of the relevant field and has at least three years' relevant working experience plus two years' apprenticeship; for those who have not the stipulated academic qualifications but have 10 years' practical experience in lift or escalator works are also eligible to apply. The Bill proposes to repeal the provision allowing a person who only has the relevant working experience to apply for registration as a lift or escalator engineer. The Committee agrees that given the rapid advance in engineering technology, it will be difficult for a person without the stipulated academic qualifications to master the complicated computer programmes and intricate electronic systems of lifts and escalators. Committee members understand that the proposed repeal will not affect those who are already on the registers of lift or escalator engineers, as the registration is valid for life and not subject to renewal. As for apprentices in the trade, the Administration has assured members that the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services (DEM) will continue to exercise his discretion to register a person who is not academically qualified if he is of the opinion that such a person can carry out the required functions and duties of a registered lift or escalator engineer. To further allay the concern of the Lift and Escalator Contractors Association, the Committee supports the Government's proposal that a grace period be provided so that the proposed repeal of the provision allowing the registration of persons who possess only the working experience will take effect one year after the enactment of the Bill.

Committee members unanimously consider it necessary to enhance the independence and impartiality of the disciplinary boards and appeal boards for registered lift or escalator engineers or contractors. The Committee supports the proposals in the Bill to reorganize the composition of the disciplinary boards and appeal boards such that the DEM or a public officer shall not be a member of these boards. The Committee agrees to the suggestion of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers of categorically stipulating the qualifications for appointment as disciplinary board panel and appeal board panel members, and also to include structural engineers as eligible persons for appointment to the appeal board panel. The Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands will move the relevant amendments later at the Committee stage of the Bill.

Madam President, I would like to specifically point out that the Committee agrees that it is necessary to extend the application of the Ordinance to include mechanized vehicle parking systems which are currently not under regulation and also to subject service lifts to stricter examination, maintenance and safety requirements on a par with passenger lifts. But Committee members believe that it is also necessary to allow the operators of existing mechanized vehicle parking systems and owners of service lifts sufficient time to make necessary adjustments in order to comply with the strict requirements stipulated in the Ordinance. The Committee is happy to note that the Administration has agreed to extend the grace period from 90 days as proposed in the Bill to 12 months before the provisions on the stricter maintenance and examination requirements come into effect.

Moreover, the Committee also agrees to the Bill's proposal of expanding the DEM's power to issue codes of practice specifying safety requirements in relation to the design and construction of lifts and escalators. As the codes concern public safety, Committee members support the imposition of criminal sanctions for non-compliance.

Lastly, I would like to thank the Administration on behalf of all members of the Bills Committee for accepting the various proposals of the Committee and agreeing to moving a number of amendments later on to improve the text of the Bill.

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to thank Dr Raymond HO, the Chairman of the Bills Committee, and members of the Committee for their close examination and their valuable advice on the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998.

As I explained in moving the Second Reading of the Bill on 30 September 1998, the Bill proposes a number of amendments aimed at improving the statutory control over the safety of lifts and escalators and associated administrative arrangements under the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) Ordinance. I am pleased that the Bills Committee has supported us in amending the existing legislation to improve the safety of lifts and escalators.

The Bills Committee has put forward a number of constructive views and suggestions which the Administration is pleased to adopt. These include:

(a) requiring that representative of the respective engineering disciplines shall be "registered professional engineers" under the Engineers Registration Ordinance before they can be appointed to the disciplinary board panel;

(b) including structural engineers as eligible candidates for appointment to the appeal board panel; and

(c) extending the grace period to 12 months upon the commencement of the Bill to allow the owners of mechanized vehicle parking systems and service lifts to comply with the safety requirements imposed under the Bill.

I shall move amendments to the Bill at the Committee stage to take on board these suggestions and also some textual amendments to improve the clarity of the provisions.

The Bills Committee has also expressed concern about our proposal to upgrade the minimum qualifications for registration as a lift or escalator engineer, which may affect the serving apprentices in the industry who have working experience but do not possess the necessary academic qualifications. The proposed legislation will not affect the persons already on the registers of lift or escalator engineers. With regard to future registration, I can assure Members that the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services will consider registering applicants with adequate relevant experience but lower academic qualifications as lift or escalator engineers under the existing section 5(2B) of the Ordinance. To further allay the concern, we agree to defer the commencement of the relevant provision by one year.

I urge Members to vote in support of the passage of the Bill.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage

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

LIFTS AND ESCALATORS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998.

CLERK (in Cantonese):Clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 to 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36 and 38.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese):Clauses 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 28, 29, 33 and 37.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that clauses 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 28, 29, 33 and 37 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to Members. The amendments are mainly drafting and technical in nature and are supported by the Bills Committee.

Clause 7 has been amended to introduce the requirement of being a "registered professional engineer" in order to be eligible for appointment as an engineering representative to the disciplinary board panels. Clause 17 has been amended to impose the same requirement for appointment to the appeal board panel, and to include structural engineers as eligible candidates for appointment. Clause 33 has been amended to reflect the present limit of jurisdiction of the District Court. Clause 37 has been amended to effect the extension of the grace period of 12 months upon the commencement of the Bill before safety requirements concerning mechanized vehicle parking systems and service lifts under the Bill apply. Clauses 2, 6, 11, 14, 28 and 29 have been amended to improve the wording and drafting of the Bill.

Madam Chairman, I beg to move.

Proposed amendments

Clause 2 (see Annex II)

Clause 6 (see Annex II)

Clause 7 (see Annex II)

Clause 11 (see Annex II)

Clause 14 (see Annex II)

Clause 17 (see Annex II)

Clause 28 (see Annex II)

Clause 29 (see Annex II)

Clause 33 (see Annex II)

Clause 37 (see Annex II)

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the amendments passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese):Clauses 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 28, 29, 33 and 37 as amended.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese):I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese):	New clause 2A	Application.
	New clause 31A	Prohibition of carrying out of lift works or escalator works by unauthorized persons.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that the new clauses, as set out in the paper circularized to Members, be read the Second time.

Clause 2A makes it clear that our policy intent is to extend the application of the Ordinance to cover all types of mechanized vehicle parking systems, other than those which do not pass through any floor and the height of travel of which does not exceed 3.5 m. Clause 31A amends the Ordinance to include the building services engineering discipline as one of the accepted disciplines in the definitions of the "competent lift worker" and the "competent escalator worker". These two new clauses are supported by the Bills Committee. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clauses 2A and 31A be read the Second time. Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): New clauses 2A and 31A.

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS (in Cantonese): Madam Chairman, I move that new clauses 2A and 31A be added to the Bill.

Proposed additions

Clause 2A (see Annex II)

Clause 31A (see Annex II)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That new clauses 2A and 31A be added to the Bill.

I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now resumes.

Council then resumed.

Third Reading of Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.

LIFTS AND ESCALATORS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

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

Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998

has passed through Committee with amendments. I move that the Bill be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998 be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Lifts and Escalators (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 1998.

MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motion. Proposed resolution under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

Since the Secretary for Education and Manpower is not in the Chamber now, I suspend the meeting for 10 minutes and hope that he will make it back in time.

4.30 pm

Meeting suspended.

4.40 pm

Council then resumed.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE FACTORIES AND INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKINGS ORDINANCE AND INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, before I begin my speech as scheduled on the Agenda, I would like to apologize to you and Honourable Members for having such a congenial conversation with someone outside that I forgot to come in on time. Once again, I would like to apologize to the President and Members.

I move the motion under my name as set out on the Agenda.

The Commissioner for Labour made the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Confined Spaces) Regulation on 15 September 1998 under section 7 of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance to replace the existing Regulation. The new Regulation seeks to address the difficulties in respect of the enforcement of the existing Regulation and provide better protection for persons working in confined spaces.

The new Regulation will give a clearer definition to confined spaces and at the same time require the proprietors or contractors to take additional safety measures as follows:

(a) to appoint competent persons to conduct risk assessments;

(b) to prove that all necessary precautions have been taken;

(c) to ensure that all workers entering or working in confined spaces are certified workers;

(d) to ensure that all workers entering or working in confined spaces wear an approved breathing apparatus or a suitable safety harness connected to a lifeline when necessary, and provide workers with such equipment;

(e) to formulate proper contingency procedures;

(f) to provide all workers involved in confined space work with the necessary information, instructions and training.

To allow ample time for the relevant trades to make appropriate preparations and workers to receive training, the Government suggests granting a grace period of 12 months after the new Regulation is passed by the Legislative Council. The Labour Department will issue a code of practice to all proprietors, contractors and competent persons concerning work in confined spaces.

Under the new Regulation, a competent person must be either a registered safety officer or holder of a certificate proving his capability of assessing and managing the risks of working in confined spaces, and a certified worker must hold a certificate authorizing him to work in confined spaces. It takes three to four days to train a competent person and only two days to train a certified worker. So the additional cost incurred by the new Regulation is very low.

We already explained the Regulation briefly to the Panel on Manpower of the Legislative Council on 24 September 1998. After the scrutiny by the Subcommittee on regulations relating to occupational safety and health chaired by Mr Andrew CHENG, the Government has agreed to make a number of amendments to the new Regulation which has been set out in detail in the Legislative Council resolution which this motion proposes for passing.

The proposed amendments include:

(a) Adopting a new definition for "confined space" and adding the definition for "specified risk" in section 2. These amendments will give a clearer definition to a confined space, eliminating the difficulties encountered during the enforcement of the existing Regulation.

(b) Adding a new provision to section 5(4), allowing a competent person to, when necessary, recommend continuous monitoring of potential hazards in a confined space.

(c) Amending section 14, allowing a proprietor or contractor to offer a reasonable excuse when he is faced with charges for breaching provisions liable to punishment by imprisonment, and adjusting the fine levels to reflect the seriousness of the nature of offences.

The Subcommittee has already indicated that it will endorse the new Regulation subject to these amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr Andrew CHENG, the Chairman, and other members of the Subcommittee for their efforts in amending and improving the provisions.

In the course of the scrutiny of the Regulation, members of the Subcommittee have requested the Government to draw up a provision to allow workers to refuse work that will pose serious threats to their safety or health. After consulting the provisions of our neighbouring countries, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia, the Government finds that the United Kingdom and our neighbouring countries, including Japan, Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea, do not have such a law which allows workers to refuse work on the ground of hazards to their personal safety and health. However, such provisions are found in some provinces of Canada and Australia.

Those countries that have drawn up laws stipulating that workers may refuse work on account of safety or health have usually also established a mechanism through which a third party may adjudicate on site when such a problem arises. Take Ontario in Canada and Australia as examples. The former has established a health and safety committee while the latter has established a representative for safety and health matters. With such a mechanism, workers have a proper channel to deal with their concern when problems about certain work that may be hazardous to their safety and health arise so that the respective work do not have to be held up.

We agree in principle that workers may refuse work when they are faced with situations that may pose serious threats to their safety and health. However, at the same time we have to consider how to clearly define what such situations are and a mechanism whereby when a third party is to be called to make the adjudication on site.

Later on, the Government will table the motion on the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation and recommend it for passage by the Legislative Council. The new Regulation will provide a legal framework for the safety committee and other mechanisms under the safety management system. When formulating the code of practice under the new safety management Regulation, we will propose the criteria for determining the objective situations under which workers' safety and health may be subject to serious hazards, and set up a mechanism to deal with workers' refusal to work. We will certainly widely consult the employers and trade union representatives on the specific arrangements and details of the relevant code of practice. Our goal is to, under the premise of protecting the safety and health of workers, avoid any unnecessary labour disputes and strike a balance between the interests of employer and employee.

Lastly, I urge Members to pass this Regulation to enhance the protection of workers' safety when working in confined spaces.

Madam President, I beg to move.

The Secretary for Education and Manpower moved the following motion:
"That the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Confined Spaces) Regulation, made by the Commissioner for Labour on 15 September 1998, be approved, subject to the following amendments:
(a) in section 2 -
(i) by deleting the definition of "confined space" and substituting -
""confined space" (密閉空間) means any place in which, by virtue of its enclosed nature, there arises a reasonably foreseeable specified risk, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes any chamber, tank, vat, pit, well, sewer, tunnel, pipe, flue, boiler, pressure receiver, hatch, caisson, shaft or silo in which such risk arises;";
(ii) by adding -
""specified risk" (指明危險) means a risk of -
(a) serious injury to any person at work arising from a fire or explosion;
(b) the loss of consciousness of any person at work arising from an increase in body temperature;
(c) the loss of consciousness or asphyxiation of any person at work arising from gas, fume, vapour or the lack of oxygen;
(d) the drowning of any person at work arising from an increase in the level of liquid; or
(e) the asphyxiation of any person at work arising from a free flowing solid or the inability to reach a respirable environment due to entrapment by a free flowing solid.";
(b) in section 4(2), by deleting "competent persons" and substituting "persons certifying them to be competent to prepare risk assessment reports";
(c) in section 5 -
(i) in subsection (2)(a)(iii) -
(A) in sub-subparagraph (B), by deleting "and" at the end;
(B) in sub-subparagraph (C), by deleting "mud or water" and substituting "free flowing solid or liquid";
(C) by adding -
"(D) a fire or explosion in the confined space, and
(E) loss of consciousness of a certified worker arising from an increase in body temperature;";
(ii) by renumbering subsections (4) and (5) as subsections (5) and (6) respectively;
(iii) by adding -
"(4) For the purposes of subsection (2), where a competent person, in evaluating the extent of the risks in a confined space, is of the opinion that there is a substantial likelihood of a change in the environment leading to an increased risk from one of the hazards referred to in subsection (2)(a) during the course of the work in such confined space, he shall recommend the use of such monitoring equipment as he considers appropriate in the circumstances and shall specify the manner of its use.";
(d) in section 7(f)(ii), by deleting "mud or water" and substituting "free flowing solid or liquid";
(e) in section 14 -
(i) by deleting subsection (1) and substituting -
"(1) A proprietor or contractor who -
(a) contravenes section 7, 8, 9, 10(2) or (3) or 11(1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable, on conviction -
(i) where the offence was committed without reasonable excuse, to a fine at level 6 and to imprisonment for 6 months; and
(ii) in any other case, to a fine at level 6;
(b) contravenes section 5(1) or (5), 6(1) or 10(1) commits an offence and is liable, on conviction -
(i) where the offence was committed without reasonable excuse, to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months; and
(ii) in any other case, to a fine of $200,000;
(c) contravenes section 6(2) commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine at level 5.";
(ii) in subsection (2) -
(A) in paragraph (a), by deleting "5(4)" and substituting "5(6)";
(B) by deleting paragraph (ii) and substituting -
"(ii) paragraph (b), to a fine of $200,000;
(iii) paragraph (c), to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for 12 months."."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Education and Manpower, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on regulations relating to occupational safety and health, I rise to speak on the motion moved by the Secretary for Education and Manpower on the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Confined Spaces) Regulation (new Regulation).

The Subcommittee has examined in detail the text of the new Regulation made by the Commissioner for Labour on 15 September 1998 to replace the existing Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Confined Spaces) Regulation. On specific provisions of the new Regulation, members of the Subcommittee pointed out that the proposed definition of "confined space" might give rise to ambiguity in enforcement of the new Regulation. Having considered members' concerns, the Administration has proposed to adopt a new definition for "confined space". It has also proposed a new definition for "specified risk". These are accepted by the Subcommittee.

Madam President, as regards continuous monitoring of risk during the course of work, the Administration has agreed to add a provision to the effect that where a competent person, in assessing the risks in a confined space, is of the opinion that there is a substantial likelihood of a change in the working conditions leading to an increased risk during the course of the work in such confined space, he shall recommend the use of such monitoring equipment as he considers appropriate.

Another concern of the Subcommittee is on offences under section 14. Members consider that for offences which are of a more serious nature and are punishable by imprisonment, a proprietor or contractor should be given an opportunity to show "reasonable excuse" or "reasonable cause" before imposing the penalty on him. Where offences are of a less serious nature, a fine would be imposed and a strict liability approach would be adopted. After detailed discussions, the Administration has agreed to members' suggestions and to amend section 14(1) accordingly.

Given the offence as stipulated in section 14(2)(b) for failure by a competent person in his assessment report to deal with all matters specified in section 5(2) is of a less serious nature than the offence as stipulated in section 14(2)(c) for making a risk assessment report by a competent person which is to his knowledge false as to a material particular, members consider that the penalty for the two offences should be set at different levels. On this, the Administration has agreed to remove the imprisonment term from the penalty in respect of section 14(2)(b).

While supporting its legislative intent to provide better protection for workers operating in confined spaces, the Subcommittee is concerned that the new Regulation only applies to industrial undertakings. Members requested the Administration to incorporate the new Regulation into the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance (OSHO). The Administration explained that it was its long-term objective to incorporate safety and health regulations, including those made under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (FIUO), into the OSHO. The Administration considers that regulations which are only applicable to industrial undertakings should more appropriately be made under the FIUO while that Ordinance is still in force. The Administration has undertaken to inform the Panel on Manpower the timetable to incorporate the regulations made under the FIUO into the OSHO in due course.

Madam President, I wish to point out to Members that the new Regulation is not binding on the Government, a point which was the subject of much discussion in the Subcommittee. Despite the Administration's explanations on the rationale for its exemption from the new Regulation, members of the Subcommittee remain of the view that the new Regulation should be binding on the Government.

Madam President, members are also concerned that at present, there is no provision as regards the right of workers to refuse work on the ground of hazard to their safety and health. Members have pointed out that section 10 of the Employment Ordinance is inadequate in this regard since most of the workers concerned may not want to terminate their contracts of employment but merely want to refuse to perform a particular type of dangerous work. According to the information provided by the Administration, where such provisions are found in some provinces in Canada and Australia, there exists a mechanism for adjudication by a third party on site to resolve issues relating to work hazards. Members requested the Administration to incorporate similar provisions and mechanism for dealing with work hazard issues into occupational safety and health related regulations and the OSHO.

The Administration considers such a right of workers and a mechanism for resolution by a third party on issues relating to work hazards acceptable in principle. After lengthy discussions, the Administration, upon members' request, has promised to add to the code of practice for the Safety Management Regulation to be made in early 1999 a provision on the right of workers to refuse work on the ground of hazard to safety or health and a mechanism for dealing with issues relating to work hazards. The trade concerned will be consulted on the aforesaid code of practice which will be submitted to the Legislative Council.

The Administration has taken on board many of the suggestions made by the Subcommittee. The amendments proposed by the Secretary for Education and Manpower have the support of the Subcommittee.

Madam President, I have presented the above in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee. Now I would like to make a few remarks on behalf of the Democratic Party on some of the main points discussed regarding the Regulation. First, the Secretary has also mentioned the Government's view that despite provisions are found in some provinces in Canada and Australia to protect the workers' right to refuse work, under our existing system, this seems unfeasible in Hong Kong. However, we feel that it all depends on the determination of the Government. Given that the Government has already set a timetable for reviewing the regulations on safety management that are currently being dealt with and the OSHO in future to ensure a safe working environment for workers, we hope that the Government will continue moving in this big direction. If workers are faced with hazards, they will have the law instead of some code of practice to depend upon for the protection of their rights. Although the Government has repeatedly stressed that the code of practice also has statutory power, we still believe that it will have even more statutory power to specify in the OSHO that workers have the right to refuse work.

All along, colleagues of the Subcommittee have praised the officials of the Education and Manpower Bureau for accepting many of the suggestions and amendments put forward by us so readily. We hope that that the Education and Manpower Bureau will keep up with this "readiness" of accepting good advice in dealing with employees' rights in future. For instance, as regards the "right to collective bargaining" put forth by the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan, the Honourable LAU Chin-shek and the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung, and also the request to make the guidelines on wage reduction and retrenchment into law, we hope that the Government will listen to more of the people's views. Concerning the Regulation under discussion now, the Government has listened to our opinions and taken on board many of our proposed amendments.

Madam President, in respect of the regulation on confined spaces discussed today, its influence is insignificant for the number of workers to be benefited by the OSHO is not particularly big, yet the spirit represented by it, which is the right to refuse work, is nonetheless significant. Besides, it also has a bearing on how the Government is to handle the other eight regulations on occupational safety to be tabled to this Council later on. I hope that the Government will continue to be open to good advice to address the workers' plight. Thank you, Madam President.

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

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, when the Secretary was absent from this Chamber earlier, some Member queried if his absence had anything to do with my motion later today as it concerns the issue of strike. But the Secretary later explained that he was too absorbed in conversation with someone, which immediately cleared the Member's puzzle.

Back to this Bill, Madam President, most industrial accidents, especially those involving casualties, have happened in confined spaces and those who died or sustained injuries had either inhaled toxic gases, or were buried in sand and mud or submerged in liquid in confined spaces. Last summer, several workers fainted as a result of high heat in a confined space. Workers working in confined spaces are open to numerous hazards. As this is a grave matter of life and death, industrial safety regulations on confined spaces should have been amended long ago to provide better and more effective protection to workers' safety.

The current amendments proposed by the Government seek to expand the definition of a confined space and the scope of protection, covering many more workers. At the same time, the Regulation also provides that workers must take on courses of training on the safety and health of working in a confined space before they can actually work in a confined environment. We think that this is necessary as such requirements can protect the workers' occupational safety and health. Some workers may think that it is too much trouble to go through the training but I hope that these workers, particularly those who are engaged in the above work, understand that the purpose of the training and medical check-up is to protect their safety. Given the fact that the Government has been attaching due importance to industrial safety, such a move can protect the safety of the workers themselves and at the same time set their families at ease.

In addition, the new Regulation also provides that contractors must station a person outside the confined space to maintain communication with workers inside. This is also an important safety measure and I welcome this amendment. Nevertheless, given that the person stationed outside is not required to have received training, I am worried that he may not be sufficiently competent to handle an emergency. The Administration may consider moving an amendment in this regard to prepare for any eventualities. This is then in compliance with the concept of safety. At the Subcommittee meetings, the Administration mentioned that it would introduce a new regulation, requiring those engaged in hazardous work to undergo pre-vocational training and medical check-up before employment and also regular check-ups during employment. I hope to see the Administration table this new regulation to this Council very soon. Moreover, concerning the point that it is not mandatory for those working in confined spaces to receive regular medical check-ups, I hope that the Administration will reconsider this and amend the relevant regulation. I hope that the regulations relating to occupational safety and health will be implemented soon to accord to workers the best protection possible.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the motion on behalf of the Federation of Trade Unions and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong. Thank you, Madam President.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Madam President, I speak in support of the resolution moved by the Secretary for Education and Manpower. In supporting it, I support the spirit of the resolution itself and, of course, the amendments that are moved along with it.

I would now like to bring up three points which I want the Government to consider in detail and, perhaps, implement without delay for the long-term good of occupational safety and health.

The first point I would like to bring up is that there really is a need for a very quick tidying-up of all the regulations concerning occupational safety and health, and to incorporate them properly into the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance. Currently, although these regulations are present, they are scattered through both the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance and the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance. The result is that there could be a lot of loopholes and, perhaps, even abuses.

The second point I would like to make is that I hope that the Government can be more flexible in allowing the rights of employees to refuse to perform in dangerous environment or participate in dangerous work. Whilst section 10 of the Employment Ordinance gives a worker the right to terminate his working contract without notice if he feels that his personal safety is endangered by the work itself, this should never be the way forward. After all, most workers concerned may not want to terminate their contracts, but merely want to refuse to perform a particular type of dangerous work. Their attitude towards what kind of work is dangerous is sometimes a very personal one. Certain workers may, by their psychological make-up or constitution, feel uneasy, for example, working at a height or in a confined space and so on. I do personally feel that the system used in Canada and Australia where there is a mechanism for adjudication by a third party on site to resolve issues relating to work hazards could really be considered. And I support what the Honourable Andrew CHENG said that it is actually the Government's determination that concerns.

Finally, the medical profession always insists that prevention is better than cure. In this aspect, we do feel that it is essential that new regulations should be introduced in making medical check-ups mandatory for certain trades and occupations before and during employment. This is something that the medical profession has been pushing for in the last 10 years. We are only seeing the beginning of this movement, and we do hope that the whole issue or the whole direction can be completed as early as possible. Again, I have to stress that this is basically to improve occupational safety and health.

Another point about this issue is that we do hope that the safety regulations concerned are properly implemented both by the employers and the employees. We do see a lot of regulations being put forward, but when we look at the working environment, we notice that a lot of these regulations are not properly implemented. Take for example the deafness and pneumoconiosis issues. The regulations concerned are not properly implemented, and I do hope that this could really be done properly both through implementing the law itself and through proper education.

Finally, in relation to working in confined spaces, we do feel that the working environment in a confined space can change during the span of work. It should, therefore, be clearly stated that continuous monitoring by proper equipment is required in order to safeguard the workers. Furthermore, the assessment or the evaluation of the working conditions in a confined space can be very complicated, because it involves knowledge in chemistry, physiology, toxicology and engineering. Besides, those people who are determined, the so-called "competent persons", should really be competent and be offered proper training so that they can actually be able to realize the kinds of danger ahead and take proper precautions.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the resolution and I do hope that the Government will take this on board as a long-term measure for occupational safety and hazards. Thank you.

MR RONALD ARCULLI: Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the resolution. I also want to offer very briefly some observations from my constituency, particularly those in the construction industry, on the Government's policy and the Government's thinking on what have been happening over the last five years.

I do not think anyone of us in this Chamber would doubt that in terms of safety, the obligation is not only on the employers, but also on the employees. The obligation is on the employers to provide all the necessary equipment and training, and on the employees to embrace the training as well as to properly utilize the safety equipment. Madam President, it is only when the employers and the employees ─ both sectors ─ embrace all the safety elements that we will be able to bring our safety record to a much better level.

My colleagues have also mentioned today the aspect of implementation, but I have noticed that not a single one has actually mentioned enforcement. Do you know why? Because all of us in this Chamber know that the enforcement is uneven, and that the burden is also uneven. The Government takes it as a matter of policy to make absolute responsibility and liability on the part of employers, so long as you do that. Unless the employees are very conscious for themselves and indeed for their families as well that the safety measure is not for the protection of the employers but for their own protection, for the protection of their health, their life and limb, they will not fully implement it. Thus, education is one thing, but sometimes enforcement and even-handed enforcement could go a long way towards promoting it. Hence, whilst we have this wonderful resolution today on confined spaces, again putting quite a burden on the employers which they will accept simply because they are responsible in the industry, I hope that the Government will pay more than lip service in terms of enforcement and in terms of encouraging employees to actually embrace all the safety training that they have been profited.

On the second point, some of my colleagues mentioned the right of the employees to refuse undertaking hazardous or dangerous work. Madam President, as we all know, some work, by its very nature, is dangerous. It can be rendered relatively safe if safety measures are introduced, if safety measures are observed and if safety equipment are used, and used properly. Thus, we are back again to the same issue of not just training, but also utilization of safety equipment and all safety measures. Some of my colleagues also mentioned today that they wanted to introduce the right of an employee to refuse undertaking hazardous or dangerous work. I think as a simple concept, no one can dispute that. But in its day-to-day implementation, I myself confess that I have grave reservations as to who is going to judge, or who is able to judge when one employee says, "This is dangerous and, therefore, I do not want to undertake it." If he has not been given proper training, I can perfectly understand that. But if he has, does it mean that that particular job cannot be done safely? Of course not. Now, it may well be that fire-fighting in terms of that is inherently dangerous. However, can a member of the fire brigade turn around at a fire and say "I am terribly sorry, boss, I am leaving as there is not enough water" or "as this is dangerous"? Hence, before we do that, I think we must really satisfy ourselves that there is no option, no real option left before we even think about introducing such a concept into our labour laws.

Madam President, I hope that all of us in this Council, including myself, particularly my colleagues who are leaders in their respective unions, encourage the employees on safety training, can actually make them go for refresher courses year in year out to make them know that not only is making the workplace safe a part of the employers' responsibility, but that the methodology and everything carried out by employees would not endanger either themselves or their colleagues. Thank you very much.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I support the resolution on behalf of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions and the Frontier. Throughout the course of discussion by the Subcommittee, I believe the Government is well aware that many Members are dissatisfied with the Government's exemption from the Regulation. I do not wish to see such an exemption appears in every future situation like this, as this just cannot be justified. Although the Government has indicated that civil servants failing to comply with safety regulations will face internal disciplinary action, our purpose is not to punish the civil servants. Rather, I think, the Government as an employer should be duty bound to observe these safety regulations and subject to these punishments just as the private sector does. Therefore, I very much hope that all these regulations, with more of which to be submitted to this Council by the Government later on, will not give exemption to the Government again.

On the other hand, I very much agree with Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung's point each time we discuss these regulations, we would have to ask why the Government does not incorporate these regulations into the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance but as part of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Confined Spaces) Ordinance. Every time we would ask the Government this same question: When can it draw up some clear regulations that will cover all employees under one protection umbrella rather than having us study the case every time and later find that the relevant regulation is only applicable to the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Confined Spaces) Ordinance but not across the board? I hope that all regulations, or safety legislation, of Hong Kong will be applicable to all trades and we will have obviated the need to discuss them every time. I hope that clear legislation will be introduced so that all employees can be protected under one big umbrella.

In addition, I have all along made it clear to the Subcommittee employees' wish to be given the right to refuse to undertake hazardous work. The Honourable Ronald ARCULLI has said just now that he has grave reservations as to who is, or who would act as the third party to effect adjudication which may in turn affect day-to-day progress of work. In fact, if we refer to the experience of other countries, we will know that this can be resolved readily. Moreover, the Government has also promised to draw up some codes of practice in the regulation on safety management which I presume we will discuss in due course. Indeed the safety representative of the workers should have the right to adjudicate. In other words, in case a worker complains about the hazard of a certain job which he is afraid to carry out, it should be examined by a trained industrial safety representative as to whether his claim can be substantiated that the job is indeed too hazardous. He can even immediately request a site inspection by the Factory Inspector or those officers who are now called Safety Officers. This, I believe, is also feasible. Therefore, I very much hope that more discussions will be held about the right of the workers in this regard.

Lastly, I would like to respond to Mr Ronald ARCULLI's remark that the Administration should have an eye not only on the liability of employers to observe the law but also those of employees as well in enforcement; and law enforcers should apply a fair hand, treating both parties equally. But I think that there is a major difference between employers and employees. Employers have total control over the process, timing and methods of the entire undertaking. Even if it is not the main contractor that has the principal control, it is the subcontractor then. Some say that too many subcontractors are involved in this system and we always suggest that the number of subcontractors in the construction business be cut down. Hence, the problem still lies with control and the control of the entire working environment is always in the hands of the employer. Many accidents, especially the fatal ones, are caused by the working environment. I say this not because we think that workers do not have to observe safety regulations but I have to make it clear that the two parties are in different positions. Owing to their different positions, there should be different ways to deal with them. We have to put it clearly here that we hope all employees will observe the safety regulations not only for their own sake but also for their colleagues, as their actions will also cause harm to others, and they should receive training as well. We have reached a complete consensus in this respect, only that we have to point it out that on account of the different positions of employers and employees, there may be difference in the ways to deal with them. Thank you, Madam President.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese):Madam President, I believe that employers, employees and the Government wish to achieve industrial safety as far as possible. The issue of industrial safety under discussion is not restricted to industrial safety but probably also safety at construction sites or in respect of work in confined space or cleaning oil tanks and so on.

I certainly agree that employers must try their best to provide suitable equipment to allow workers to carry out the relevant work in a safe environment. However, if workers working in industries or construction sites do not observe safety regulations fully, it will not be safe enough. Therefore, it is very important for employees to play their part. Many Members have just talked about retraining but I think that the Government should be concerned about another issue, that is, many construction site workers have only simple skills and are not professionally trained in such work as scaffolding. For sure, I know that this Regulation is not related to such work but work in confined space. However, under many circumstances, workers who have not received formal training will work as construction site workers so long as it pays. They may not be willing to put on safety belts, steel helmets and caps provided by their employers and the way in which they put these on may not be right or they may not be using them correctly. In my opinion, the Government should lay stress on training for workers in this respect. Instead of retraining workers, it should start with the training of workers.

Dr LEONG Che-hung has asked if a worker can refuse to work if he considers certain work procedures unsafe. I find this issue rather complicated. There are people who really have acrophobia. It will not be acceptable to give equal pay to a worker who has acrophobia and another worker who does not have acrophobia. Uniform wages are given to construction site workers now. If workers can choose the work they would like to do, some types of work may not be welcomed by all workers. But a worker may refuse to work not because he has acrophobia but just because he does not want to climb up dozens of stairs and he is only willing to work on the second or third floor. He will then say that he has acrophobia and declines to work. Who is going to adjudicate under these circumstances?

In my view, the Government and the industries fail to set a criterion for defining safety. It will cause great difficulties if workers can refuse work on such grounds. Rather the Government should legislate to prohibit any work that is unsafe. For instance, hand-dug caisson has been prohibited now. But prohibited work is another matter. As workers should not carry out unsafe work at all, work that can still be carried out must be safe. Therefore, we cannot allow employees to refuse carrying out relatively unsafe procedures of safe work. If so, who should employers employ for such work? If certain work procedures are not completed, it may not be possible for subsequent work procedures to be carried out. Should the construction of the whole building be suspended? I hope that the Government can balance the interests of the whole industry, employers and employees after listening to Members' views. Nevertheless, we definitely support that safety comes first. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Education and Manpower, do you wish to reply?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am grateful to those Members who spoke just now. I wish to make a brief response first. First, the protection of the safety and health of workers will be at the top of the legislative agenda of the Government and the Education and Manpower Bureau this year. So Members can rest assured and there will definitely be a lot of motions and bills submitted to Members for their deliberation this year. In fact, issues such as safety management and working at height are expected to be submitted in the next one or two months to the Legislative Council for deliberation.

On the protection of the safety and health of workers, the three parties of the Government, employers and employees are all responsible. The Government is of course charged with the responsibility of drawing up legislation and ensure that it is sound. It has the responsibility of enforcing it as well. I have just listened to the views of Mr Ronald ARCULLI in that there are actually provisions in the law which state that if employees fail to comply with certain safety regulations, they would be breaching the law. I also agree to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's point that under such circumstances, it is inevitable that the liability for which the employer is held would be much greater than that of the employee. But we shall look at the circumstances of the cases and in the course of enforcement, we would do our best to achieve a balance. The employer's responsibility is to provide a safe and healthy workplace and that is very important. For the employees, apart from their need to comply with the safety regulations, we also hope to introduce compulsory safety training to certain trades, for example in a forthcoming bill, workers on construction sites and in the container industry would be required to receive mandatory training in safety within a certain period of time. Hopefully this will serve to enhance the safety culture in the industries involved.

A number of Members said earlier that if workers thought their safety or health might be endangered, they should be entitled to refuse to undertake the work required of them. This is really a delicate issue which must be handled with care. I have made it clear in my opening speech that in other countries, some have legislation on that issue, while some do not. Countries which do not have such legislation include Britain, Singapore and Japan. These countries are no less mindful of the safety of the workers. For those countries which have legislation on that, there are mechanisms which ensure a speedy resolution of disputes in that area.

I have also made it clear in my opening speech that we agree to that view in principle and we shall study into how provisions can be introduced to the code of practice under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Safety Management) Regulation soon to be submitted by the Government. We also pointed out that extreme caution should be exercised in drafting the respective provisions. I also mentioned that the direction we would take was to avoid any subjective views as much as we could and to set up some objective criteria and some more concrete arrangements and details.

I do not have this kind of very detailed provisions at hand, but I think the relevant subcommittees and panels of the Legislative Council, representatives from employers and employees, and Honourable Members from all walks of life, will certainly look carefully into these issues which demand our careful examination.

Lastly, on the issue of the Government's exemption from the regulation, the physical check-ups of workers, and the relationship between the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance and the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance and so on, I am very pleased to discuss them with Honourable Members on other appropriate occasions in future. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Education and Manpower as set out in the appendix of the Agenda be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese):Members' motions. Two motions with no legal effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debates. The movers of the motions will each have up to 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies, and another five minutes to speak on the amendment. The mover of an amendment will have up to 10 minutes to speak. Other Members will each have up to seven minutes for their speeches.

Members will please note that the trial on the electronic queuing system for speaking will be extended to debates on motions without legal effect from this meeting onwards. Members who wish to speak in a debate on a motion need, in addition to raising their hands, indicate the wish by pressing the "Request-to-speak" buttons.

First motion: Right and freedom of Hong Kong residents to strike.

RIGHT AND FREEDOM OF HONG KONG RESIDENTS TO STRIKE

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese):Madam President, I move the motion which has been printed on the Agenda.

When I proposed this motion, some friends and media workers asked me whether it is a suitable time for proposing a motion on the right to strike. There are two schools of views. One of them considers that it is the right time, for instance, the staff of a large-scale airline are now having negotiations with their employer concerning the interests of staff, working hours and salaries and benefits. Although the employees have entered into negotiation with their employer, the problem has still not be solved and they are still discussing about whether industrial action will be taken. For sure, they have decided so far that industrial action will not be taken. The other school considers that as Hong Kong is in an economic slump and many people are unemployed, people worry that proposing a motion on the right to strike will intensify conflicts between employer and employee and even give rise to social unrest, and we should first discuss unemployment and employment problems further.

Madam President, I fully agree that we should pay more attention to the unemployment and employment problems and lead Hong Kong out of the abyss so that our economy will revive earlier and more job opportunities can be created. Not long ago, the Government announced that the latest unemployment rate was 5.8% and 200 000 people were unemployed. As a Member representing the labour sector, I am naturally concerned about the upsurge in the unemployment rate, and I particularly fear that the unemployment situation will further worsen at the end of the Chinese New Year and after the Spring Festival. However, I do not agree that a motion debate will be so strong as to intensify labour conflicts, or even give rise to social unrest. Besides, my motion only urges the Government to amend the Employment Ordinance to give effect to the right and freedom of Hong Kong residents to strike as conferred by the Basic Law. Such an amendment is extremely minor. Frankly speaking, if the Secretary for Education and Manpower had not given a poor answer to the oral question I asked two months ago concerning workers' right and freedom to strike, I would have considered proposing this motion later, say by the end of this year or early 2000.

Madam President, you may recall that six Members including me asked supplementary questions at that time and many Members raised their hands but they could not ask questions as there was insufficient time. The most important point is that the Secretary failed to answer Members' questions then.

I propose the motion today to let Honourable colleagues express their views on the right to strike in this Chamber.

Moreover, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the President for being so understanding and reminding Members time and again during the said question time that they could follow up the relevant issue in Panels or through other channels and ask the Government to amend the Employment Ordinance in line with the implementation of the Basic Law.

Madam President, according to Article 27 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents shall have the right and freedom to strike. From 1 July 1997 onwards, the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should not violate or contravene the spirit of the Basic Law. However, section 9(a)(i) of the Employment Ordinance obviously contravenes Article 27 of the Basic Law, for this very same section provides that if an employee "wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order", his employer can dismiss him immediately. If an employer dismisses an employee by virtue of section 9, he does not need to give the dismissed employee notice or payment in lieu of notice. Nor does he need to pay him pro rata year-end bonus, severance pay or long service payment.

Thus looking at it from the perspective of existing laws, going on strike violates the employment contract as an employee has refused to serve the employer, and the employer can then dismiss the employee on strike immediately under by virtue of section 9. The employee on strike loses his job immediately and even fails to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled. If the right to strike cannot be protected, employees will not enjoy the right to strike conferred by the Basic Law.

Although there is no legislation in Hong Kong prohibiting strike, according to section 9(a)(i) of the Employment Ordinance, an employer can dismiss an employee on strike for the reason that he "wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order", and he can also avoid paying the employee year-end bonus, severance pay or long service payment. Originally, these rights of employees were protected under the Employment Ordinance. If an employee loses these rights because of a strike, his interests are obviously jeopardized by section 9(a)(i).

The said scenario is obviously in violation of Article 27 of the Basic Law, therefore, I suggest that the Government should expeditiously amend the said section to give effect to the right and freedom of Hong Kong residents to strike as specified in Article 27 of the Basic Law.

Madam President, originally, section 9 of the Employment Ordinance and Article 27 of the Basic Law were evidently contradictory but the Government has been evasive and reluctant to recognize this fact. When I asked a question on giving effect to the right to strike conferred by the Basic Law on 25 November last year, Mr Joseph WONG, the Secretary for Education and Manpower, answered Members' questions in the same manner.

According to the Secretary, there is no legislation in Hong Kong prohibiting or restricting employees' right to strike and some employees did go on strike in the past. But my question is whether an employee on strike has wilfully disobeyed a lawful and reasonable order as specified in section 9(a)(i) of the Employment Ordinance. What is the right to strike? Mr WONG has not addressed the thrust of the question after all and he is only repeating the provision of section 9 of the Employment Ordinance and stressing that section 9 has not specified that an employer can dismiss an employee for the reason that he has taken part in a strike or taken industrial action. The core of the question is what is the definition of the right to strike. Now that the Basic Law, the so-called mini-constitution of Hong Kong, has conferred on Hong Kong residents the right to strike, is it necessary for this right to be embodied accordingly in the existing legislation? Under what circumstances can employees go on strike? How can we ensure by legislation that Hong Kong residents can exercise the right to strike? Madam President, the right to strike was laid down in the Basic Law thanks to the strong fight by more than 160 trade union bodies during the course of drafting. Can the Secretary deal with the issue lightly by merely explaining section 9 of the Employment Ordinance repeatedly, neglecting the views of the labour sector? I hope that Mr WONG can answer these questions in his reply later.

I do not want to drag on. I have proposed this motion simply because the Government has overlooked the fact that the Employment Ordinance has violated the Basic Law. The Basic Law has conferred on Hong Kong residents the right to strike long ago and we are only asking the Government to amend the provision of the Employment Ordinance that contravenes Article 27 of the Basic Law, and explicitly stipulate in the Employment Ordinance that Hong Kong residents really have the right and freedom to strike in order to give effect to the relevant provision of the Basic Law.

To give effect to the relevant provision of the Basic Law, I ask Honourable colleagues to support my motion. With these remarks, I beg to move. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr CHAN Wing-chan moved the following motion:

"That, whereas Article 27 of the Basic Law provides that Hong Kong residents shall have the right and freedom to strike, employers may, by virtue of section 9 of the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57), dismiss their employees who go on strike or take industrial action without notice or payment in lieu of notice; that section is clearly in contravention of Article 27 of the Basic Law, this Council urges the Government to expeditiously amend the Employment Ordinance to give effect to the right and freedom of Hong Kong residents to strike, as conferred by the Basic Law."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese):I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHAN Wing-chan, as set out on the Agenda, be passed.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung will move an amendment to this motion, as printed on the Agenda. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the motion and the amendment will now be debated together in a joint debate.

I now call upon Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung to speak and to move his amendment.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese):Madam President, this is the coldest winter indeed for wage earners in Hong Kong as the unemployment rate has risen to 5.8% and they are threatened by wage reduction, increased working hours, and cuts in benefits and bonus. Under such circumstances, the number of labour dispute has naturally increased. Therefore, we must consider how employers and employees can settle their disputes fairly.

To settle disputes fairly, one important condition is that the status of the negotiating parties should be equal so that a party can fully respect the conditions offered by the other. If one of the parties is put in a disadvantageous position, the so-called negotiation is totally unfair to the disadvantaged party. This is similar to the case of the Nanjing Treaty signed by the Qing Dynasty Government years ago when Hong Kong was ceded as the status of the parties signing the Treaty was unequal and the suppressed party was surely not convinced.

How can the two parties get equal chips in labour negotiation? The status of the parties should be reasonable and equitable. As employers hold the power to pay out salaries and benefits, formulate work systems and even effect dismissal, they certainly have abundant capital for negotiation while employees can only serve their employers. If employees cannot go on strike or take industrial actions, they will have no chips for negotiation and they can only meekly accept whatever terms their employers offer. Therefore, giving employees the right to strike will not intensify labour conflicts, but on the contrary, as the parties enjoy equal status, it will be easier for them to work out a reasonable and fair proposal acceptable to both.

In recent years, there have only been a few strikes mobilized by Hong Kong people. The best example was the China Motor Bus drivers' strike in the early 1990s. They went on a strike to fight for more reasonable retirement protection. Although the incident caused the public inconveniences, most of them did not complain but supported those drivers instead. Under this circumstance, their employer gave in and improved the China Motor Bus's retirement protection system.

It is indisputable that strike is the fundamental right of employees. It is not only stated in Article 27 of the Basic Law but also in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights applicable to Hong Kong under Article 39 of the Basic Law. It is also stated in a paper of the International Labour Organization that employees can go on strike for an improvement in their working environment and conditions but also for protesting against some social or economic policies affecting the organizations or industries they belong to. On the whole, it is international consensus that the right to strike is a basic human right, and a weapon powerless ordinary people can use against strong power.

However, the right to strike is not protected under Hong Kong laws at all. Although section 9 of the Employment Ordinance has not specified if a worker going on strike is the same as "disobeys order", we can interpret the intent of the entire Ordinance reading together with section 31C(1) and 31H. As stated in section 31H, if an employer has notified an employee of the termination of an employment contract, and the employer goes on strike before the expiration of the notice period, the employer still has to give the employee payment in lieu of notice and severance pay while section 31C(1) is not applicable. In other words, section 31C(1) will be applicable to strike under other circumstances, in such cases, an employer can dismiss the employee on strike without giving him any compensation. It is evident that the spirit of the Employment Ordinance allows an employer to dismiss an employee on strike without giving him any compensation. Therefore, we must amend this Ordinance which violates basic human right and the Basic Law to safeguard the workers' right to strike.

Why do I have to amend Mr CHAN Wing-chan's original motion today? It is mainly because despite Mr CHAN Wing-chan's proposal that the Employment Ordinance be amended, the core of the question remains whether amending the Employment Ordinance will be sufficient to safeguard the employees' right to strike. In my view, merely amending the existing provision without introducing a comprehensive law on the right to strike will not be sufficient to protect employees. For instance, can the problem be solved by retaining section 9(a)(i) and adding the words "with the exception of strike" to it? If so, how should we define "strike"? We must give strike a clear definition.

There is no definition of "strike" in the existing Employment Ordinance. But in the Interpretation section of another ordinance, the Trade Unions Ordinance, "strike" is defined as "the cessation of work by a body of persons employed acting in combination, or a concerted refusal, or a refusal under a common understanding, of any number of persons employed, to continue to work for an employer in consequence of a dispute, done as a means of compelling their employer or the employer of any other person or body of persons, or any person or body of persons employed, to accept or not to accept terms or conditions of or affecting employment". Of course, this definition may not be applicable to the Employment Ordinance, and even if it is applicable, it will surely make Members present who are employers worried. It seems that employees who are somewhat dissatisfied and refuse to work will be deemed as going on a strike. However, such a vague definition similarly gives employees no protection. Besides, this definition does not include a strike mobilized to fight for an improvement in social and economic policies as I have just mentioned. Therefore, we must formulate a comprehensive law on the right to strike which will first and foremost give "strike" a strict definition.

In many European and American countries in which labour relations are built on a relatively equal status, a comprehensive law strictly specifies how lawful strike can be mobilized. For instance, it is specified that a strike must be approved at a meeting of a trade union, or supported by the votes cast by a certain proportion of employees in an organization or industry. Besides, a comprehensive law on the right to strike should also comprise the following elements:

First, explicitly stipulating that an employer cannot dismiss or otherwise punish an employee who mobilized, organized, participated in a strike or other industrial action or act as picket during a strike on the ground that he has disobeyed an order for work.

Second, the law should specify the procedures of negotiation and bargaining between an employer and his employees during a strike, and as this surely involves the right to collective bargaining, the law must confer the right to collective bargaining power on a trade union and specify the circumstances under which employees are considered as having agreed to put an end to their strike.

Another very important element of the law is that if an employer has really violated the law, the dismissed striking employee can ask for special compensation. In accordance with the existing Employment Ordinance, even if an amendment is made on the basis of the original motion, the protection given to an employee on strike will only be payment in lieu of notice and other pecuniary compensation as proposed by Mr CHAN Wing-chan. But I believe that Mr CHAN, who has taken part in trade union activities for so many years, will certainly understand that pecuniary compensation is not the most important for workers who took part in trade union activities but the right to reinstatement so that they can continue to fight for other employees' interests in their capacity as employees. For this reason, a comprehensive law on the right to strike certainly has to protect employees on strike so that they can enjoy the right to reinstatement after they have been unfairly dismissed.

A simple amendment to the Employment Ordinance can hardly address the above issues and the Government must separately formulate a comprehensive law on the right to strike. European and American countries have done so in different ways. Some countries enact a separate law on the right to strike while some others incorporate it into the Trade Unions Ordinance or Unfair Labour Practice. In any case, we cannot give the right to strike full protection by merely doing some patchwork with the existing Employment Ordinance.

When I mentioned the principles concerning the right to strike in the early part of my speech, I also talked about the protection for the right to collective bargaining and for participation in trade union activities. These rights and the right to strike are actually closely linked and they cannot be separated. It is a pity that there is no law on the right to collective bargaining in Hong Kong and the existing Trade Unions Ordinance gives trade union activities inadequate protection. It is most unfortunate that the Government's response to the two private Members' Bills introduced by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan for protecting employees' rights in these aspects has stated that the bills have contravened Article 74 of the Basic Law for an extremely far-fetched reason. I hope that you, Madam President, will give a brilliant ruling later and allow the introduction of the two bills for passage in this Council so as to give workers more protection.

Madam President, I so submit.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung moved the following amendment:

"To add "there is no law in Hong Kong to expressly safeguard this provision and" after "the right and freedom to strike,"; to add "introduce a comprehensive law on the right to strike so as to protect Hong Kong residents from being dismissed for going on strike, and to" after "this Council urges the Government to expeditiously"; to delete "to give effect to the right and freedom of Hong Kong residents to strike, as conferred by the Basic Law" and substitute with "by repealing the provisions which are in contravention of the Basic Law and strengthening the protection for employees participating in trade union activities"."

THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese):I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung be made to Mr CHAN Wing-chan's motion.

Will Members who wish to speak please raise their hands and press the "Request-to-speak" button.

DR LUI MING-WAH (in Cantonese):Mr Deputy, Article 27 of the Basic Law specifies that Hong Kong residents shall have the right and freedom to strike and I agree that a responsible employer should respect such right enjoyed by his employees.

While an employee exercises his right to strike as conferred by the Basic Law, he should respect and fulfil his duties as specified in the employment contract executed with his employer. When employees take industrial actions, their employer will incur losses. For instance, the employer has to compensate his clients for suspended production and delay in delivery caused by the strike and the goodwill of his company will be impaired. Therefore, it is stated in section 9 of the Employment Ordinance that "an employer may terminate a contract of employment without notice or payment in lieu if an employee, in relation to his employment, wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order, or is habitually neglectful in his duties" to protect the due interests of employers.

To concurrently protect the rights of an employer and an employee, a practical method is for an employee to negotiate with his employer over the mode and time of action before taking an industrial action. After having thoroughly considered the possible impacts of the action on production and business operation, the employer can allow the employee to take industrial action. This can ensure that an employee can exercise his right to strike as conferred by the Basic Law and minimize the impact of industrial actions on industrial and business activities. Similarly, the Basic Law has conferred the freedom of procession on Hong Kong residents but as procession and demonstration may cause a traffic standstill and disturb other people and deprive people not taking part in the procession of their due rights, the date, time and route of procession and demonstration shall be approved by the police in advance to minimize the disturbance it may cause.

Mr Deputy, under the premise of ensuring that Hong Kong residents enjoy the right to strike, to reduce the industrial and business losses that may be caused by the industrial actions of employees and their possible impacts on the local business environment, I urge that while the Government formulates a law on the right to strike, it has to work out provisions to specify that employees must negotiate with their employees and obtain their consent before taking industrial actions. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR LEE KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I speak in support of Mr CHAN Wing-chan's motion and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment today for three main reasons. Firstly, the rights to organize trade unions, strike and collective bargaining should be enjoyed by labour as they are stated in the International Labour Conventions and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Therefore, workers should be able to exercise these rights at any time. Secondly, we all know that during the consultation period on the Basic Law, the draft Basic Law only included the freedom but not the right to strike. Thanks to the protracted fight launched by 167 trade unions for this right and after thorough debates and negotiations made within the Drafting Committee for the Basic Law, the right and freedom to strike were finally incorporated into the draft Basic Law and its finalized version promulgated in April 1990. Evidently, in the course of the drafting of the Basic Law, the right to strike embodied in the Basic Law was only after thorough discussions and extensive consultations as well as negotiations among employers, employees and the parties concerned.

In fact, the right to strike is one of the goals that every trade union has long been fighting to attain. Take the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions to which I belong as an example. Before the drafting and after the promulgation of the Basic Law, we have proposed time and again to the Government that the law has to be amended to establish the right to strike. So long as the right to strike is already set out in our constitution, we should not overlook it.

At the time of the colonial era before the reunification, the Basic Law was promulgated in 1990 and the Labour Department published a paper No. LAB 34/93 in 1993 stating that the right to strike might not be protected. I can read out extracts of the paper. It is stated in paragraph 15 that to protect striking employees, it is proposed that the employee's entitlement to severance payment and long service payment should be retained if he is summarily dismissed for refusal to work during the strike period. It is also stated in paragraph 12 that however, the freedom to strike is not tantamount to a positive and unequivocal "right to strike". This document submitted by the Labour Department to the Labour Advisory Board explicitly stated that the freedom to strike was not equal to the right to strike and it proved that there was no right to strike at all at that time. This paper covers the suggestions made in the review document on the strike by the Cathay Pacific Airways cabin crew in 1993. It suggested that the law should be amended so that an employee on strike would not lose his entitled severance pay, long service payment, payment in lieu and year-end bonus after having taken part in a strike. But why are these not realized until now? It is because the Labour Department stated at that time that an employee should give his employer seven days' advance written notice before taking strike action, otherwise, his strike action was unlawful. But the trade union found that a seven-day notice period was too long. Take the China Motor Bus drivers' strike as an example, the problem was solved in three days' time. Given the state of labour relations in Hong Kong, a seven-day notice period was impractical, therefore, the trade unions asked for a discussion over the seven-day notice period. However, the Labour Department then recalled the whole document and it has not brought up the matter again ever since.

The Labour Department stated very explicitly in the above paper that the freedom to strike was not the same as the right to strike. It also stated very clearly that an employee on strike might be immediately dismissed and lose the long service payment, severance payment and other labour benefits to which he is entitled. Accordingly, it proposed that the law should be amended. I would like to ask the Government why it is now saying that the right to strike has been embodied in the Employment Ordinance. Does the Government regard the published paper as waste or is it lying? Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by Mr CHAN Wing-chan and the amendment proposed to it by the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung.

Whenever we hear about the word "strike", we would usually associate it with some negative events or even some radical activities conducted by a large crowd of angry workers. More often than not, employers would argue that these so-called radical industrial actions will impact on economic activities and cause inconvenience to members of the public. Under the existing economic situation in Hong Kong, employees have all along been unable to bargain with their employers on an equal footing. For example, in the disguised wage-cutting exercise conducted by the Hongkong Telecom earlier on, employees who had refused to accept the proposal put forward by the company were laid off. As regards the recent labour dispute of the Cathay Pacific Airline, the case has dragged on for more than a month but the management still sticks to its proposal despite the many concessions and counter-proposals made by the employees; what is more, employees who refused to sign and return the agreement letters would all be treated as having chosen the option of a wage freeze.

Mr Deputy, the existing laws really cannot offer us any satisfaction, since they have not provided workers with the right to strike as mentioned in the Basic Law, nor have they provided for the protection of the spirit of strike. In addition, there is no legislation in Hong Kong to expressly confer on employees the right to strike.

I have once consulted a legal advisor about the total number of amendments made to the Employment Ordinance over the past eight to 10 years. I was informed by the legal advisors that while they did not have any precise figure in this connection, they could still tell from their existing records the Ordinance should have been amended for more than 40 times over the last seven to eight years between the late '80s and the early '90s. After all those amendments, the original principle of safeguarding the interests of the employees has all vanished. For instance, under section 9 or section 32K employers may without notice dismiss their employees for a number of reasons and one of them being the misconduct of the employee concerned. In this connection, an employer may dismiss a employee without notice or payment in lieu if the employee "misconducts himself such conduct being inconsistent with the due and faithful discharge of his duties". In section 32K, we can also notice that "the conduct of the employee" is one of the valid reasons for dismissal or variation of the terms of the contract of employment by the employer. If we study these provisions carefully enough, we could see that the "conduct" or "misconduct" of an employee could be used by the employer as an excuse for dismissal, and the reason would be all the more valid if the employees concerned went on strike.

Trade union representatives of a company may be dismissed by reason of being trade unionists, and there have in fact been several such cases before. However, according to the Labour Department, this is very difficult to prove because the employers will never admit that the employees are dismissed on the grounds of their participation in trade unions or strikes, their disobedience, or their fight for certain benefits. The employers would certainly use "the conduct of the employee" or "the misconduct of the employee" which we have referred to earlier on as the pretext for dismissal.

Just now Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung referred to section 31H. In this connection, I really cannot understand why should there be such a special provision to empower the employer to dismiss "without notice" an employee who has been given notice on termination of his employment contract and takes part in a strike before the expiry of that notice. This is exactly the crux of the question as to whether we agree to the provision to empower the employer to "terminate without notice" any contract of employment. Although it has been specified in the Ordinance that section 31C does not apply to termination of contract under such circumstances, which is related to general exclusion from right to severance payment by reason of dismissal, we still consider the protection far from sufficient.

We hold that since the freedom to strike has been provided for under the Basic Law, we should debate and discuss the imperfect provisions under the Employment Ordinance or even enact a perfect piece of legislation on strike to safeguard the right to strike to which employees are entitled. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the economy of Hong Kong further deteriorated towards the end of last year. Since then, cases of wage reduction, allowance reduction, as well as variations of the terms of the contract of employment take place almost everyday. In order to keep their jobs in the midst of an economic downturn, many employees could not but suffer in silence the unreasonable exploitation by their merciless employers. Last year should be regarded fairly as the worst year for wage earners in Hong Kong; nevertheless, they have all along remained rational. According to the figures provided by the Labour Department, the total number of strikes as at the end of October last year is eight only. As a matter of fact, employees in Hong Kong have all along been able to exercise self-restraint and remain patient, they will not take industrial actions arbitrarily. Moreover, the rate of strike in Hong Kong has all along been among the lowest internationally.

In the event of labour disputes, more often than not employees will only use strike as their last resort. This is true in Hong Kong as well as in any other places of the world because going on strike is detrimental to not only the employers but also the employees themselves. During the strike, workers could not receive any wages from their employers; and even if they have succeeded in getting the rights they strive for, they will be "dealt with afterwards" by their employers. For instance, the Mass Transit Railway (MTR) Corporation dismissed more than 200 staff members after the MTR staff strike in 1984. Despite the many efforts made by the trade union, the MTR only agreed to re-employed most of the dismissed employees but not those 13 trade union officials. From this we could see very clearly that wage earners have to worry about their livelihood; indeed, who would like to act against the boss? Workers will not go on strike unless things have become absolutely intolerable.

Last year, the Federation of Trade Unions handled a case of strike relating to the employees of the Yu Fat Company. In this case, we received in September last year complaints lodged by 20 salesmen and saleswomen against the Yu Fat Company. At the beginning of last year, the Company reduced without notice the wage levels and commission rates of its employees, and the employees simply tried to grin and bear it; then towards the middle of the year, the company again cut their allowances without notice or consultation, once again the employees suffered it silently. However, by September, the Company abolished the double pay and claimed that from 1998 onwards the double pay would be replaced by bonus, the granting of which would be at the discretion of the Company. The employees could no longer remain silent then.

Bearing in mind the meagre wages of the employees, the reductions in wage, commissions and allowances had already caused their income to shrink significantly; without the double pay, they might not make it through the Lunar New Year. While the payment of double pay has been provided for in their employment contracts, the Employment Ordinance has also stipulated that the payment of double pay shall not be withheld. Hence no company is allowed to change the double pay system as it wishes. The Company was so insatiable that it just kept on oppressing the employees, in the end, some of the salesmen and saleswomen could not bear it any more; and it was by then that they sought help from the trade union for the first time. So we can see how highly tolerant the workers are.

The proposal to abolish double pay was withdrawn later when the Company had learnt that some of its salesmen and saleswomen were seeking help from the trade union. At first everybody considered it a gesture of understanding made by the Company, but in reality the Company had already started recruiting new employees to substitute for more than 20 existing staff members whom it then dismissed with one month's notice.

The Company had all along adopted an extremely bad attitude in dealing with this particular labour dispute. During the period between September and November, both the employees and the trade union made many attempts to conduct direct dialogue with the management, but the employer simply ignored their request and deprived the employees of any chance to make representations. More than two months had lapsed and the employees could not but requested a non-managing director to inform the Company that they would be staging a sit-in at the office if the management still refused to negotiate with them face to face. However, the Company still chose to neglect their calls even at this stage, and as a result, the employees went to the office and staged a sit-in during office hours.

The Yu Fat incident tells us that employees will not take any industrial action unless it is really the last resort; as such, those who do not agree to our strive for the implementation of the workers' right to strike conferred by the Basic Law are indeed borrowing trouble. Wage earners will never go on strike rashly.

By the same token, strike does not take place frequently even in countries where the right to strike is given protection, since no employees would wish to spoil the relationship they have with their employers. Last year, a major strike movement was staged by the employees of United Parcel Service (UPS), the largest express delivery service provider in the United States. However, this did not happen overnight.

UPS is the world's largest express delivery service provider, yet despite the handsome profit it makes every year, the company has been cutting the employees' pay on the pretext of part-time employment and contracting system. In this connection, its full-time employees earn some US$10 more compared to their part-time colleagues. UPS has started employing most of its staff on a part-time basis since 1993, by now, part-time employees have amounted to 66% of the company's workforce. Apart from that, UPS has also put all full-time employees under a contracting system. As is now generally known, employment on a part-time basis or under a contracting system does not offer any career prospect or employment protection; for this reason, the employees could not but resort to pessimistic ways of protest such as switching or quitting jobs and so on to counter the exploitation by their employer.

The incident could trace back to as early as 1993 when the trade union first expressed their discontent to the employer; however, it was not until 1997 that the trade union voted on the need for strike or otherwise. There was a lapse of several years between the change of the employment system and the actual strike staged by the discontented workers. The entire process of the strike was both peaceful and rational, not only other trade unions but also more than half of the Americans had lent the workers their support. From this we could see that employees will not go on strike rashly on the one hand, and that the public will judge whether the strike is reasonable and fair to the employer concerned on the other.

For this reason, there is in fact nothing to worry about should the right to strike be conferred on employees; besides, the Basic Law has already conferred on us the right to strike ......

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Time is up, Mr CHAN.

MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese): With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the motion. Thank you.

MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, after listening to the speeches made by several of my Honourable colleagues, I feel it all the more necessary for us to discuss the issue of strike to make it clear that "the right to strike" includes not only "the freedom to strike" but also the protection for workers against any unreasonable obstruction in the course of a strike or any persecution afterwards. To workers going on strike, the most likely persecution is dismissal by their employers. Therefore, if we are to give effect to the protection of the right to strike, it is most imperative that laws are put in place to protect workers against being dismissed or punished in other ways by their employers. At present, there is no legislation in Hong Kong to provide for such kind of protection.

I do not consider it genuine protection for the right to strike if an employer may dismiss any employees going on strike so long as he is willing to provide severance payments. It has been set out under the Human Rights Convention: "All men are entitled to the right to live and nobody shall take away the life of others arbitrarily", and the right to live shall not be confiscated or traded for money.

As a matter of fact, workers do not go on strike to get dismissed or receive severance payment, for all they have in mind is to negotiate with their employers for reasonable employment and then go back to work again. In my opinion, we should not see strike from a negative point of view, since going on strike is but one of the labour-management negotiation strategies which the labour will use as a last resort in labour disputes. So, it is obvious that strike will not create but rather help to resolve disputes. I am sure things will turn out fine if employers could sincerely discuss with their employees and pull together to resolve the problems.

The broad principles of the original motion moved by the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) today and the amendment proposed to it by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung are in line with each other, since they all aim at enhancing the protection for the workers' right to strike. Nevertheless, I should also like to point out that the labour sector must unite as one to strive for our rights. If the Government is still unwilling to enact laws in this connection, we should then take the initiative and introduce a private Member's Bill. I hope that the FTU could introduce a private Member's Bill on this subject expeditiously, and I will certainly lend it my full support regardless of whether it is a strike bill or a bill to amend the Employment Ordinance. Should there be any need of help in relation to the drafting of the private Member's Bill, I am sure other Honourable Members representing the labour sector will also be pleased to lend a helping hand.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support both the original motion and the amendment.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, this is a very important issue; I did not expect my turn to speak to arrive so soon. I have intended to speak at a later time, perhaps no more Honourable Members wish to speak now.

Mr Deputy, I should like the Government to explain to the community and Members of this Council the definition of the right to strike and that of the freedom to strike. What indeed is the difference between the right and the freedom to strike? I am afraid the government legal advisors would have a very busy time.

All along there is in Hong Kong only the freedom to strike, not the right to strike. It was the case before the reunification, and it is still so after the reunification. This is because the Employment Ordinance has not been amended correspondingly after the reunification. Just now Mr CHAN Wing-chan has on behalf of the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) explained how the provisions under the Employment Ordinance are in contravention of Article 27 of the Basic Law, I do not wish to repeat his points here; however, I should like to refer to the views of the academia.

On 24 September last year, Mr CHIU Chi-kwong, Course Co-ordinator of the School of Business, Open University, published in the Economic Daily an article entitled "There is no legislation to safeguard the right to strike". According to Mr CHIU, there is no legislation in Hong Kong to ban strike action and hence employees do have the freedom to strike; however, in common law, strike action is a breach of the contract of employment, thus an employee's refusal to work for his employer may be considered gross negligence or even unilateral breach of contract. In this connection, if an employer seeks to terminate the relevant employee's contract of employment by virtue section 9 of the Employment Ordinance, the employee will lose even those rights protected under the Employment Ordinance; besides, if the employer is mean enough, he may even require the employee to pay the payment in lieu of notice.

He also mentioned that an employee's act to organize a strike or his participation in it may even constitute a criminal offence. This is by no means alarmist talk. According to common law, persons who participate together in an unlawful activity, regardless of whether it is a criminal offence or a non-criminal offence, will be "guilty of a conspiracy"; and going on strike would probably be a breach of the civil law. However, section 48 of the Trade Unions Ordinance has set out that if the strike is staged in furtherance of a trade dispute, then the participants in the strike could enjoy "immunity against criminal liabilities". In regard to the Yu Fat case referred to by the Honourable CHAN Kwok-keung just now, the employer had called in the police to intervene. I was also there at that time. The police prevented the salespersons from staging the strike on the grounds that so doing would obstruct business operation. From this we can see that even the law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong are unclear about the right of Hong Kong residents to strike or the rights and interests of employees in this connection. Nevertheless, they should not be blamed for this; all we could blame is the legislation which has not be amended in the light of the Basic Law. I should like to stress that the strike was conducted in a peaceful manner, but if legal advisors well versed in the laws of Hong Kong were not at the scene then, the strike would most probably have developed into a confrontation between the police and the employees on strike. I should like to remind both the Government and Honourable colleagues of this Council, in particular those from the industrial and commercial sector, that it is a positive thing to have the right to strike or to legislate for it, and that will not give rise to any tension between the labour and the capital as referred to by many Members.

Mr Deputy, the problem here is how we should define strike. Our Government should really examine this issue. What are "pure" trade disputes? Will workers on strike be fully protected by the "immunity against criminal liabilities"? These are questions which must be clarified today. I wish to quote from an old book entitled Industrial Relations & Law in Hong Kong written quite some time ago by Joe ENGLAND, an expert on labour issues who have worked for the Labour Department before. This book has given a very detailed explanation of the freedom to strike. Page 340 reads: Although the people of Hong Kong do have the freedom to strike, such freedom is subject to stringent limitation by the law; besides, it is practically not protected by the civil law. I believe the Secretary for Education and Manpower should have read this book before; if not, I am ready to lend him mine. This is a very important book.

It has been 20 years since the book was written. Despite the fact that the Basic Law has provided for the right to strike, the relevant laws have still remained unchanged over the past 20 years. How then could the Government claim that our labour-related laws do not have any problem? The Government is being completely subjective and unrealistic in its claim. Let us go back to the provisions under the Employment Ordinance. Just now Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung referred to sections 31X, 31H and 31C. What do these provisions say? Under these provisions, it would mean trouble to an employee who has been given notice by his employer to terminate his contract of employment if he takes part in a strike before the expiry of that notice. How could the Government turn a blind eye to such provisions?

Mr Deputy, having criticized on the Government, I should like to appeal to my colleagues in this Council. As referred to many colleagues just now, the right to strike is one of the three major rights that workers have, and yet it is also a means which they do not wish to resort to. After staging their general strike in the '50s, some tram workers were deported while others "simply disappeared forever". We have also experienced the general harbour strike as well as a number of other strikes, all of which were full of blood and tears. However, why are there still so many people going along this path? Why did I participated in the Yu Fat strike incident in 1998? Why do so many young workers still choose to tread the path of strike? As pointed out by Mr CHAN Kwok-keung, workers will not resort to strike unless the suppression has become intolerable. Why should the Government not address and resolve these problems in a positive manner? If the Government were willing to take up the responsibility to resolve the matter, the Yu Fat strike incident would not have happened. Although the problems could be easily resolved through negotiation, the Government has chosen to turn a blind eye to the Yu Fat employees!

I have handled yet another large scale labour dispute yesterday. In this dispute, the employer had refused to negotiate with the trade union at first but eventually agreed to our suggestions. In regard to this case, I feel that both the employer and the employees have adopted a positive attitude in dealing with the matter and joined hands in a peaceful manner to resolve an issue which has been found unfair by one side. Why does the Government not encourage others to resolve problems in this way?

We have suffered those days without any freedom to strike before we finally got that freedom; then in the '80s when the consultation work for the drafting of the Basic Law was in progress, the matter was discussed extensively across the community and views were also collected from different sectors; and at long last, the Basic Law incorporated in it the right to strike. Many changes have taken place through all these years, why did the Government not introduce a series of amendment to the relevant laws in the light of the changes?

The FTU has formulated a plan in regard to the strive for the right to strike. As a first step, Mr CHAN Wing-chan has raised a question during the question time of this Council to test the response of the Government. Then, in view of the poor response by the Government, we proposed the motion under debate today. If later on today the Government still stubbornly refuses to amend the legislation, the FTU will submit a private Member's Bill with a view to remedying the deficiencies which we have identified in the existing laws.

Mr Deputy, Honourable colleagues, we are not being over-sensitive in discussing this issue today, since our sole purpose is to give full effect to the spirit of the Basic Law. We hope that Honourable colleagues will lend their support to the original motion moved by Mr CHAN Wing-chan.

Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, it is set out under Article 27 of the Basic Law that " Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join unions, and to strike." This is the exact wording of the Article. Apparently this is not something proposed by Mr CHAN Wing-chan, for he just quoted part of the provisions from the Basic Law. Certainly, as pointed out by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Article 39 of the Basic Law has also referred to the application of international labour conventions in Hong Kong and made clear specifications in this respect. Nevertheless, the Basic Law has also made mention of many other issues. In Chapter I, Article 5 has also made reference to the capitalist system and I quote: The socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years.

Mr Deputy, section 9 of the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) has set out four major circumstances under which an employer may terminate without notice the contract of employment of an employee. In this connection, if an employer may dismiss without notice an employee who wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order or who is guilty of fraud or dishonesty, there are still two other cases in which an employer may invoke the provision to dismiss his employees, but none of such circumstances involve an employee going on strike or taking industrial action. The Ordinance has never mentioned that an employee going on strike may be laid off by the employer afterwards.

Let us now look at the information provided by the Labour Department. Over the past four years, none of the cases handled by the Labour Department has involved the invoking of section 9 of Chapter 57 by an employer to dismiss or lay off his employees who have participated in a strike or industrial action. As a matter of fact, no such case has ever happened before. But then we are to make a decision in this connection; I just could not help but ask: Is it really necessary?

With regard to the motion moved by Mr CHAN Wing-chan, it has also been set out clearly under Article 8 of the Basic Law that "the laws previously in force in Hong Kong, (I am not going to read out every word in between) shall be maintained except for any that contravene this Law". In this connection, the National People's Congress (NPC) has endorsed the provision and revoked 16 pieces of legislation that contravene the Basic Law, but the Employment Ordinance is not included among the 16 pieces of legislation which the NPC has considered in contravention of the Basic Law. I could understand it very well if it were other Honourable colleagues who found the Employment Ordinance in contravention of the Basic Law; however, I do have doubts about the question raised by Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB), since there are DAB Members in the Preparatory Committee and in the NPC. Why did they not raise the matter at the NPC? Why did they not include also Chapter 57 when the Preparatory Committee revoked those 16 pieces of legislation in contravention of the Basic Law? Why did they not consider Chapter 57 in contravention of the Basic Law at that time but do consider so now? I believe other Members from the DAB should provide us with some explanation later on.

Mr Deputy, let me go back to the right and freedom to strike, issues of concern to members of the public at large today. Certainly, we all have the freedom to strike, though Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung considers the definition of strike has yet to be laid down. Nevertheless, the meaning of strike could in fact be defined very easily. It means that the employees refuse to go to work when they have a disagreement with their employees; when their employers have done something; or when the employees themselves wish to do attain certain results. If employees refuse to work, it would not be possible for the employers to make money. As regards the meaning of not going to work on the part of the employees, it would of course include sitting there not doing anything, or even being absent from work; however, the time limit in this respect has yet to be set out. Moreover, the Basic Law has not provided for the rights of workers after they have participated in a strike; besides, it has not set out clearly whether a worker on strike would still get paid despite his refusal to work, or for how long an employee on strike would still get paid. In addition, the Basic Law has yet to specify whether the company, after paying an employee his wages, may still lay him off on grounds other than the employee's participation in trade union activities. In this connection, I have heard the Honourable LAU Chin-shek said very clearly that workers who have gone on strike should not be laid off afterwards. On the other hand, however, we need to strike a balance. With regard to the small and medium enterprises (SMEs), while there might be unscrupulous employees who would stage a strike several months into their job, they still have to make an effort not to dismiss the relevant employees after the disputes have been resolved via negotiation; hence, all employees who have participated in a strike shall never be dismissed. Should that be the case, how could SMEs stay in business? We could not call customers merciless, albeit many people have switched from Hong Kong to Shenzhen to do their shoppings due to the economic downturn, and thereby making it impossible for SMEs to stay in operation. The "merciless employers" are in fact compelled by the merciless customers to do something against the interests of their employees. If the SMEs are not allowed to scale down their operations on the one hand, and not permitted to lay off workers on the other, I do wonder whether relevant policies could really be put into effect.

Mr Deputy, I believe the best protection for workers would be the protection against unemployment. If a worker loses his job, it would just be like multiplying everything by the zero and all his protection would become nil protection, since everything times zero equals to zero. Just now the Honourable Andrew CHENG has furnished me with some views, and I have actually collected some myself. I have not investigated if the Employment Ordinance has been amended for more than 40 times in eight years, but could you guess whether the SMEs could pay less after all those amendments over the past few years? The answer is negative. All these amendments were minor amendments, yet they were each able to bring about better benefits for the employees, which means that the burden on the SMEs would become greater after each amendment. At the present time when Hong Kong is in the midst of a downturning economy, it would be all the more difficult for SMEs to remain in business; as such, we just hope that they could invest more and that their business could stay in better shape. It is also our hope that more foreign investors would invest in Hong Kong, and that the local funds will not relocate elsewhere. On the other hand, however, if we keep on moving motions like the one we are debating today; or if we give emphasis to the disputes between the labour and the capital, including the post-strike rights and freedoms, I am afraid not only international investors but also local investors will be turned away by what we say today. As the financial turmoil has swept through the region, there are a lot of "inexpensive" and "attractive" places for investors to make investments; Hong Kong is but one example. From an investor's point of view, many places in the Southeast Asia are both "inexpensive" and "attractive"; and one of the "attractions" they offer is the fact that the employees there enjoy comparatively less benefits, since more labour benefits would mean higher cost for the employers. In the circumstances, I believe we should all unite together as one to resolve our labour dispute in a manner as low key as possible. Should the need arise for certain firms to resort to layoffs or wage cuts, both the employers and the employees should resolve their problems through negotiations as far as practicable. Indeed, the last thing we should do now is to propose motions like the one today, and all the more not in such a high profile.

Since time is running short, Mr Deputy, with these remarks, I oppose the original motion and the amendment.

MR KENNETH TING (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, just now Members from the Liberal Party have clearly explained the reasons why we believe the Employment Ordinance is not in contravention of the Basic Law and I do not wish to repeat them here. I would only like to analyse, from the point of view of the industrial and commercial sector, the possible impact a strike bill might have on Hong Kong.

Mr Deputy, while an environment conducive to business operation and cordial labour relations are the cornerstones of a successful Hong Kong, our business environment has nevertheless become far less favourable than before in recent years and our competitiveness has also dropped significantly. A couple of days ago I read in the newspaper an interview with the Chief Executive of Motorola, Mr TAM Chung-ching, and no sooner had I finished reading than thoughts just welled up in my mind. Mr TAM pointed out in the interview that he had intended to build a Citicom Harbour Center in Hong Kong, with a view to nurturing a force of development like that of Silicon Valley, California, but then Singapore invited him to set up plants there. Apart from land resources, manpower, training, as well as research and development funds, the Singaporean Government also offered him a variety of tax concessions. In addition, for each and every staff member Motorola sent to Europe for training, the Singaporean Government would pay half of the cost required; in other words, Mr TAM could afford to send 50% more of his staff members to Europe to receive training. On the contrary, Hong Kong has offered nil support. That was what happened in 1990. The Singaporean Government has since then been offering various kinds of concessions to attract foreign investment, but so far Hong Kong is still sticking to its "active non-intervention" policy. As we fall, others will rise; bearing that in mind, how could we attract foreign investment if the local business environment is unable to persuade even our own manufacturers to stay?

So the business environment in Hong Kong is nothing to write home about, yet we are fortunate enough to have maintained cordial labour relations. In the past, the labour and their employers have been co-operating with each other in the light of mutual understanding and accommodation to make concerted efforts to overcome the hard times. As referred to by the Honourable James TIEN just now and reflected in the records kept by the Labour Department, so far there has not been any case in which an employer has invoked labour-related ordinances to dismiss employees who go on strike. During the period between 1994 and 1998, the average number of working days lost due to labour disputes was 0.5 or half a working day per 1 000 workers a year. From an investment point of view, this is undoubtedly a very satisfactory figure. Regardless of whether we are the employers or the employees, we should all treasure the cordial labour relations we have in Hong Kong. However, unfortunately, Honourable Members representing the labour sector have made a proposal to amend the labour-related laws, thereby intensifying the conflicts between the labour and the employers. The industrial sector considers this a suicidal measure, as it would serve to destroy the cordial labour relations we have in Hong Kong, which is the only favourable factor conducive to business operation. As a matter of fact, the majority of employees in Hong Kong are aware of the right to strike conferred by the Basic Law. The question lies in whether they will exercise such right and whether they will exercise it indiscriminately. In the past, there were few cases of industrial action in Hong Kong. It was mainly because employees in Hong Kong knew it very well that going on strike could not resolve labour disputes effectively, and that strike would bring adverse effects to the industries and businesses in Hong Kong. The industrial and commercial sectors have all along been pleased to know that our employees could understand these crucial points.

In the face of a downturning economy, it is understandable that the number of labour disputes would be on the increase. Nevertheless, to turn the disputes into indiscriminate industrial actions will only further ruin the business environment in Hong Kong, thereby causing investment to drop and job openings to contract further. In the end, it would be the general workforce who suffers.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I express on behalf of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries and the Liberal Party our opposition to the original motion and the amendment.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, today's debate is on an essential part of workers' basic rights, that is, the right and freedom to strike. I wonder if Members have ever thought that in many countries, the right to strike is written into their constitutions and the right to strike has also been provided for in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Have Members ever thought why the right to strike is now considered part of basic human rights by the world? In my opinion, there are three reasons for that. The first is taken from the perspective of human rights. Someone would feel that the right to strike is equal to the freedom of speech because without the right to strike, men may be subject to forced labour or may even become slaves. Therefore, people at that time already felt that they should have the right to strike in order to balance out and it should be considered as part of our basic human rights.

The second reason concerns why the right to strike has been written in the constitution. This is meant to take the right to strike as part of the concept of democracy. What are the places that do not allow the right to strike? Totalitarian countries certainly do not allow the right to strike. The right to strike is not tolerated in totalitarian countries, so the right is in itself an essential component of a democratic community. Hence the second major reason is democracy, and it explains why we must have this right to strike. Taking a broad view of the world, we will see that going on strike is also a very important tool to bring down a totalitarian government, and so it is also part of the course of fighting for democracy. Nevertheless, what we are discussing today is of course not the two major reasons mentioned above.

Today I want to talk about the third reason why we need the right to strike. The third reason is to balance the relationship between the employer and the employee. Talking about the relationship between the employer and the employee, we have to first of all make it clear whether we agree that there is inequality in their relationship. In the entire development of capitalism, a generally recognized fact is that the relationship between the employer and the employee is not equal at all and the two have unequal footings. The law of the jungle is the name of the game in the market where the strong dominates the weak. The employer has control over the appointment of staff and the capital, and so structurally has more power in the market. Therefore, only through collective power can the labour acquire an equal footing in its negotiation with the employer. Therefore, the first question that I would like to ask is whether Honourable colleagues recognize the inequality in the relationship between the employer and the employee. If colleagues agree to this point, they will then understand why we always advocate the three rights of the labour, that is, the rights of association, of bargaining and of going on strike. The relationship between the two is now like a balance and because all the powers and rights are now laid on the employer's side, these three rights are the weights to be laid on the employee's, in order to strike a better balance between the two. Nevertheless, what is the situation in Hong Kong? It is true that legally the employees have the right to organize trade unions, but how many of those who participated in the organization have been harassed, transferred, demoted or sacked by the employers? These have all happened. Why? It is because the right to organize trade unions has yet to be truly vested in the workers in Hong Kong and the Government still owes me the right its reinstatement. That is to say, the workers' right of association has yet to receive full protection and they are still discriminated against for organizing trade unions.

The second is the right to collective bargaining. Similarly, workers are not given this right. The Honourable James TIEN said just now that both sides should make their utmost efforts to negotiate until the problem is resolved satisfactorily. I also hope that they can negotiate until the problem is solved satisfactorily but can things be negotiated? We can look back on the recent incidents. When the Hong Kong Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) notified its staff in writing about turning the double pay into bonus, had it talked it over with the trade union or the staff? When Asia Television Limited (ATV) notified its staff about the employment arrangements, it had never talked with the staff beforehand. Of course, the reason might be that its staff had not organized a trade union, which I agree. From that it shows how important the right of association is. Every case is the same. The staff are only notified by letter and then oppressed. These have all happened as a result of the inequality between the employer and employee. The TVB case was such and the ATV case was no exception. What comes next is the case of Paramount Publishing Group Limited. I wish to appeal here to the employer of Paramount to talk with its employees how they can resolve the current problem. These should all be resolved through negotiation.

However, even if negotiation is possible, there remains another problem. In the course of negotiation, if one of the parties involved holds the absolute advantage, then the party on the weaker side is not really in a position to bargain and in the end it will have no choice but accept what is notified. There is after all no equality between them as the weak party has no power. In the current Cathay Pacific incident, the extreme difference between the dominant and the weak is very obvious. The trade union has already made a concession and promised to satisfy the demand of the employer to work for 76 hours in 1999 in return for the employer not changing the contract terms. Nevertheless, as of today, even after the trade union has made the concession, the case cannot be resolved satisfactorily yet. Even though it is considered that negotiation had been held, from what I last heard, the trade union still found itself lacking the power to negotiate with the employer on an equal footing. Why? It is because they still worried that the employer would settle accounts with the striking staff, repeating what happened in the 1993 incident where the whole incident lasted for 17 days exactly because the employer settled accounts with the employees who had gone on strike.

From this we can see that without the right to strike, the bargaining right is in itself only a right of no real strength. Only when the employees possess all the three rights can they and the employer have a more balanced footing. Mr James TIEN has said that there should not be any conflicts between the employer and the employee and some say that we are fanning the conflicts. But I hope that Members will bear in mind that conflicts have long existed and we have never fanned them. The conflicts are resulted from the employers' proposal to reduce the salaries. This is where the conflicts lie. Who is fanning them? It is the employer who fans them in proposing pay cuts. We are only trying to mediate in the hope that the two sides can settle their conflicts through negotiation. But if one side of the negotiation has no bargaining power, no reconciliation can be made, nor a balance struck. Therefore, I hope that Members will understand that we are not fanning the conflicts whatsoever; rather we only hope to help them reconcile. In the entire course of negotiation, the Government is however playing the role of an onlooker or even siding with the bully. If the Government does not even want to give the three rights to the workers, is it trying to force the workers back onto the street? This is the last question I wish to ask Secretary Joseph WONG ......

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, your time is up.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, Hong Kong residents have all along been enjoying the freedom to strike, there is not any ban or limitation on the employees' freedom to strike in the laws of Hong Kong. The labour relations in Hong Kong used to be more cordial in the past; however, with the financial turmoil sweeping through Asia and the bursting of the previously formed bubble economy, Hong Kong has found itself in the midst of an economic recession, hence labour disputes or strike will be bound to take place or even increase. In the circumstances, employers, employees as well as the Government should promptly attach due importance to such a trend and seek to properly resolve the issue through negotiations. Therefore, the motion moved by Mr CHAN Wing-chan to draw our attention to the right and freedom to strike does have a positive meaning.

Nevertheless, since going on strike is used as a last resort in labour disputes, not only the right and freedom of employees should be safeguarded but the reasonable interests of employers must also be taken into consideration in the event of a strike. The problem of strike encompasses many issues. For this reason, before enacting or repealing any laws in this connection, careful and thorough deliberations must be made, taking account of the reasonable rights and interests of employers, employees and the public. Mr Deputy, at its 24th session held in February 1997 the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress passed the Decision on Treatment of the Laws Previously in Force in Hong Kong in accordance with Article 160 of the Basic Law, at that time the Employment Ordinance was not considered in contravention of the Basic Law. On the other hand, as stipulated in Article 160 of the Basic Law, "if any laws are later discovered to be in contravention of this Law, they shall be amended or cease to have force in accordance with the procedure as prescribed by this Law". According to section 9 of the Employment Ordinance, an employer may terminate a contract of employment without notice if an employee, in relation to his employment, wilfully disobey a lawful and reasonable order; misconduct himself; is guilty of fraud, deception or dishonesty; is habitually neglectful in his duties; or on any ground on which he would be entitled to terminate the contract without notice at common law.

After carefully reviewing the Ordinance, we conclude that no part of it contains any provision which enables employers to dismiss without notice their employees who go on strike or take industrial action immediately and which will enable employers to do so without making payment in lieu of notice, and payment of pro rata year-end bonus, severance pay, or long service payment. Therefore, section 9 of the Employment Ordinance indeed has not contravened Article 27 of the Basic Law. Government officials have stated that while there is no legislation in Hong Kong to ban or limit the right of employees to go on strike, there is neither any provision in section 9 of the Employment Ordinance under which employers may dismiss their employees who go on strike or take industrial action. According to the explanations given by government officials, the provisions under the Employment Ordinance are fully in line with that of the Basic Law. In spite of the arguments put forward, the explanation given by the Government is still not convincing enough. In this connection, a number of Honourable colleagues consider the Government has confused the definition of freedom with that of right, since the government explanation regards the Hong Kong residents, who have only the freedom to strike, as having both the freedom and the right to strike. In my opinion, since it is a question of rights, we must consider the need to strike a balance between the reasonable rights of all parties concerned; in other words, employees, employers, and even members of the public affected by the strikes or industrial actions should be given reasonable protection before the law.

In the midst of the present economic downturn, both the employers and the employees should unite as one and co-operate with each other to resolve the problems by seeking common ground and reserving differences in the light of the principle of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation. In order to facilitate the expeditious revival of the local economy, the people of Hong Kong should make concerted efforts in a positive manner.

Hong Kong has survived various difficult times over the past decades, for the good tradition of maintaining harmonious labour relations will always enable us to build a better future. I am sure the employers and their employees will eventually resolve their conflicts in a reasonable manner. We will certainly ride out the storm together.

I so submit, Mr Deputy. THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am a member of the Labour Advisory Board (LAB). Having listened to the remarks of Honourable colleagues, we should now know very clearly that there is indeed no need for us to continue our argument on whether or not there is the freedom and right to strike in Hong Kong, because all is already stipulated very clearly in the Basic Law. The only problem is that while the Basic Law does contain very definite provisions on this, there remains this question, as raised by the Honourable CHAN Wing-chan a moment ago: Is section 9 of the Employment Ordinance (Cap. 57) in breach of the Basic Law? Mr James TIEN, the Honourable Kenneth TING and other Honourable colleagues have already explained very clearly that the Ordinance is not in breach of the Basic Law.

I am a bit puzzled because as an employer myself, I do not think that I can invoke section 9 of the Employment Ordinance as a justification for taking any actions against workers on strike. I am not the only employer who thinks so, because employers in general all view that the provisions of the Ordinance are already clear enough; the Liberal Party has also discussed this issue, and we all conclude that employers cannot dismiss any employees by invoking the Ordinance. So, I am really a bit puzzled, and I cannot help wondering why employees themselves should think that employers can invoke the Ordinance as a justification for dismissing them. Honestly speaking, I do not want to say so much on this topic lest that some employers may be misled to think that they can really invoke the Ordinance to dismiss their employees; should this happen, the opposite result will be achieved. The point is that employers cannot do this, and if the Ordinance is really in breach of the Basic Law, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Preparatory Committee would already have declared the Ordinance null and void. But they have not done so, and this is sufficient proof that the Ordinance is not in breach of the Basic Law. As pointed out by some Members a moment ago, many Members are themselves either NPC Deputies or members of the Preparatory Committee. I do not think that they would allow themselves to commit such a grave error.

So much about the legal interpretations of the Ordinance. In reality, we have never come across any case of such a nature, and the LAB knows fully well that over the years, in particularly during the several years immediately before the handover and the first 18 months after the reunification, no employers have ever invoked the Ordinance and dismissed any employees on strike without giving them any compensation and severance payments. But should employees go on strike at all? Frankly speaking, a strike is really very much like a two-edged sword. Strikes can of course force employers to yield sometimes. But, very much unfortunately, strikes may also render employers unable to solve the problems concerned; when this happens, employers may have to close down their business and all their employees will have to be dismissed. Strikes may well result in unemployment, a problem which has recently become our major concern. Very often, when employers choose to close down their business, strikes themselves are not the main cause; rather, the downright impossibility of continuing their business is their major consideration. We certainly do not want this to happen, nor do we want foreigners to have the impression that the hitherto comparatively favourable business environment in Hong Kong is being damaged. At this very time when strikes are still relatively rare in Hong Kong, if we encourage people to go on strike, if we encourage them to fight for their rights and interests by resorting to this means, our business environment will certainly be affected. We really do not want this to happen.

Many examples can actually show us that collective bargaining and strikes may well lead to the closure of a large corporation, and, as shown by the recent industrial dispute of a large scale airline, when this does happen, as many as 6 000 people will be forced to join the unemployment ranks immediately. We do not want this happen to Hong Kong, nor do we want foreigners to have the impression that Hong Kong is now going along this very path. Quite the contrary, we want to tell foreigners that employees and employers in Hong Kong are all very rational, and they will try to reach agreements through various different negotiation channels as far as possible. The problem of unequal bargaining power in fact always exists. Currently, employees are no doubt in a weaker position, and employers are having the upper hand. But not too long ago, when employers were facing an acute shortage of manpower, there was also the problem of unequal bargaining power, only that what we had was a reversed version of the current situation, with employees occupying a stronger position than employers. Should we at that time say that we should enact laws forbidding employers to increase wages, or laws restricting the rates of wage increases? Should we really say something like this? But we never made such a demand. So, I hope that Honourable colleagues representing the interests of workers can get to understand the viewpoints of employers. I hope they can realize that what is needed most badly now is not anything which is likely to increase the antagonisms among us. Rather, as a matter of urgency, we must consider how best to bring forth a better investment environment in Hong Kong, to forge better labour relations. That way, we will be able to sustain our efforts of consolidating our economy, thereby creating more job opportunities. This is the only thing which matters. Therefore, our labour sector colleagues in this Council should not worry too much about losing the freedom and right to strike, nor should they fear that section 9 of the Employment Ordinance will undermine such a freedom and right. Do we really need a special law on the right to strike as proposed by Mr LEUNG in his amendment? All along, strikes have been rare in Hong Kong, and ours has been a place with good and satisfactory labour relations. Do we really need to enact a law on the right to strike? I hope Members can think about the matter very seriously. For the reasons I have explained, I will not support the amendment and the original motion.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Wing-chan, you may now speak on Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung's amendment. You have up to five minutes to speak.

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I shall give only a short reply to the amendment of Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung. Before I put forward this motion, when I was still working on its wording, I also thought about the need or otherwise to draw up a law on the right to strike. As a matter of fact, such a law will probably make things easier for the Government. The situation will certainly become more satisfactory once a law is drawn up to specify clearly the right to strike enjoyed by Hong Kong residents, the circumstances under which strikes are allowed or not allowed and the protection for workers going on strike. And, if the Government can enact such a law as proposed in the amendment, I agree that my motion will be improved still further.

However, my experience and long years of observation tell me that our government officials are extremely inflexible in the ways they handle things, and, all along, they have tried to evade the issue under discussion. So, I believe that it will be very difficult for us to make the Government draw up a satisfactory law on the right to strike. Even if this is at all possible, the time will only come in the very remote future. Madam President, therefore, the aim of my motion is in fact very simple. To put it simply, my demand is very modest: I only ask the Government to amend the existing Employment Ordinance as soon as possible, so as to incorporate into our statue books the right and freedom to strike conferred on Hong Kong residents by the Basic Law. I believe that this can easily be done, provided that the Government can handle my request with a proper attitude and perspective.

A moment ago, I compared this motion to my expectations about my children. My first hope is that they can enter secondary school. This should be the first step. After that, I hope that they can further their studies and have a bright future. By making such a comparison, I mean to say that we should first introduce appropriate amendments to the Employment Ordinance, so as to bring it in line with the relevant Basic Law provisions. A doctorate for their children (to be obtained after first getting a master's degree, of course) is in fact the dream of many, especially Honourable Members representing the labour sector. But one must do a lot of hard work before one can obtain a doctorate or master's degree, and there must government officials who are sensible enough. That is why when I delivered my principal speech, I pointed out that a satisfactory law on the right to strike would be a matter in the very remote future.

At this juncture, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, I wish to state more clearly that the three Honourable Members belonging to the Federation of Trade Unions will all support the amendment. As for the voting decisions of Honourable Members, I have no intention of influencing them in any way. But no matter what their decisions may be, I still hope that they can appreciate my support and concern for the Basic Law. And, let me just tell them that we need only to amend the Employment Ordinance very slightly, and we will be able to keep in line with and implement the Basic Law. Madam President, I hereby call upon Honourable Members to support my motion. If they do not support it, we may end up having absolutely nothing at all. Thank you, Madam President.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government does not support Mr CHAN Wing-chan's motion calling for an expeditious amendment of the Employment Ordinance. Neither do we agree to the amendment proposed by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung.

Article 27 of the Basic Law specifies that the people of Hong Kong shall have the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike. Currently, there is no legislation in Hong Kong which outlaws strikes. All employees have the right and freedom to join trade unions and to strike. May I mention in passing that in recent years, the Government has increased the protection for members of trade unions. The Trade Unions Ordinance, for example, stipulates that registered trade unions are exempted from being prosecuted in civil proceedings for their acts undertaken to intensify labour disputes. The Trade Unions Ordinance which was amended by the Government in 1997 sought to extend the application of the above-mentioned exemption to individual employees, members of registered trade unions and employers involved in labour disputes.

In addition, sections 31H, 31X and 32H of the Employment Ordinance also stipulate that should an employee who has been given notice by his employer to terminate his contract of employment take part in a strike before the expiry of that notice, his right to severance payment, long service payment or other remedies under employment protection shall not be affected.

The legal advice that we have obtained is: the existing laws of Hong Kong, including the existing provisions of the Employment Ordinance, are in conformity with Article 27. In fact, in the 24th meeting of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress held on 23 February 1997, a decision was made on Article 160 of the Basic Law in the handling of the laws previously enforced in Hong Kong upon deliberations on the recommendation made by the Preparatory Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. At that time, the Employment Ordinance was not named as an ordinance in contravention of the Basic Law.

The Employment Ordinance is a very important piece of legislation. It provides for the benefits and rights of the employees. Sections 6 to 10 of Part II of the Ordinance provide for the circumstances under which a contract of employment is terminated.

Under sections 6 and 7, either party to a contract of employment may at any time terminate the contract by giving the other party proper notice or payment in lieu. Only under the following circumstances specified in section 9 may the employer terminate a contract of employment without notice or payment in lieu, if an employee, in relation to his employment:

- wilfully disobeys a lawful and reasonable order;

- misconducts himself;

- is guilty of fraud and dishonesty; or

- is habitually neglectful in his duties.

The Government has also made it clear in information papers such as A Concise Guide to the Employment Ordinance that summary dismissal is a serious disciplinary measure and only to be used when the employee has committed serious faults or has not improved despite repeated warnings.

Section 9 of the Employment Ordinance does not provide that an employer may dismiss his employee when the latter takes part in a strike or in an industrial action and to do so without giving notice or payment in lieu. Whether the employer may invoke section 9 and dismiss an employee without notice or payment in lieu shall depend on the facts and circumstances of individual cases. The onus is on the employer to prove that the dismissal of the employee is made legally according to provisions of section 9. Should disputes arise between both parties as to whether the employer may dismiss the employee by virtue of section 9, the court shall carefully consider the facts and circumstances of the case in question before making a judgement.

The provisions in section 9 are in fact closely related to sections 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the same Ordinance. The objectives of these provisions are to stipulate that should either party wish to terminate the contract of employment, a period of notice or compensation should be given to the other party. Section 10 of the Ordinance provides for reciprocal actions by the employee to terminate contract without notice or payment in lieu. Such circumstances include those where the employee:

- reasonably fears physical danger by violence or disease; or

- is subjected to ill-treatment by the employer.

Therefore, section 9 is not on the question of whether employees have the right to strike. It will not affect the implementation of Article 27 of the Basic Law.

All along employees in Hong Kong have enjoyed the freedom to strike. When necessary, employees will decide to put on a strike in a labour dispute. According to figures from the Labour Department, there are nine cases of strike in 1995, 17 in 1996, seven in 1997 and eight in 1998. In all of these cases, the Labour Department did not receive any complaints that any employee was dismissed by his employer by virtue of section 9 of the Employment Ordinance for putting on a strike or taking industrial actions.

The Labour Department stands ready to offer conciliation service to help both parties resolve a labour dispute whenever employees are on strike or taking industrial action. Should no resolution be reached in respect of any statutory or contractual rights, either party may commit the case to the Labour Tribunal or the Small Claims Tribunal for adjudication.

Moreover, under the Labour Relations Ordinance, if an ordinary conciliation is not effective in resolving a dispute, the Commissioner for Labour may adopt other measures including appointing a special conciliation officer to engage in a special conciliation, or appointing a mediator or a mediation board to mediate the dispute.

Since the passage of the Labour Relations Ordinance in 1975, there were only two cases of labour dispute in which the Commissioner for Labour had appointed a special conciliation officer and all of these cases were later resolved to the satisfaction of both parties as a result of the conciliatory work of the officers. To date, there has been no need for the Government to invoke other provisions in the Ordinance to settle labour disputes.

According to the experience of the Labour Department in handling labour disputes involving strike and industrial action, both parties and trade unions would adopt a pragmatic and calm attitude to iron out the differences. In many cases, a conciliatory agreement can be made through the conciliation of the Labour Department.

In many labour disputes involving strikes handled by the Labour Department, there are numerous examples where both parties reached a conciliation. For example, in some cases, through the conciliatory efforts of the Labour Department, the employer agreed to pay out the compensations for dismissal to the employees to which they were entitled, and on top of that, additional compensations were also given. There are also cases where the employer agreed to put off some proposals not acceptable to the employees. There are also cases where not only a consensus was reached on the terms and conditions of employment after the strike was over, but that discussions were also made on other issues of mutual concern, such as employees' code of conduct and communication mechanisms and so on. From this it can be seen that an overwhelming number of labour disputes involving strikes are solved through consultation and conciliation.

Article 27 of the Basic Law provides that the people of Hong Kong shall enjoy the "right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike". Provisions of the Employment Ordinance do not contravene the stipulations in Article 27. Practical experience in the past has shown that disputes involving strike or industrial action by the employees were all resolved through the conciliatory efforts of the Labour Department. In the past few years, the Labour Department did not receive any employee complaints against dismissals by employers by virtue of section 9 of the Employment Ordinance on the grounds of going on strike or taking industrial action.

Therefore, the Government thinks that there is no urgent need at the present moment to amend the Employment Ordinance or to introduce a separate piece of legislation on strike.

Harmonious labour relations are the cornerstone of Hong Kong's prosperity. The present economic downturn has already given rise to quite many labour disputes. We are well aware that there may be times when the trade unions and the employees have to fight for their rights or to take certain actions to defend them. But we hope that both parties can maintain a cordial dialogue and avoid taking any radical moves which may affect social harmony. In such times of adversity, both employers and employees should join hands and tide over this difficult period together, for any move which intensifies the confrontation of both parties will only lead to negative impacts. This will further erode the confidence of the people of Hong Kong and affect the pace of economic recovery. I earnestly hope that those Honourable Members representing the labour sector will seriously consider the overall economic and social benefits of Hong Kong apart from expressing their concern for the rights and benefits of the labour sector.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung be made to Mr CHAN Wing-chan's motion. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I declare that voting shall stop, are there any queries? Voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Michael HO, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Miss Margaret NG, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok-keung, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr WONG Yung-kan and Mr LAW Chi-kwong voted for the amendment.

Mr Kenneth TING, Mr James TIEN, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Dr LUI Ming-wah, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr HUI Cheung-ching, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr FUNG Chi-kin and Dr TANG Siu-tong voted against the amendment.

Mr Bernard CHAN abstained.

Geographical Constituencies and Election Committee:

Miss Cyd HO, Mr Albert HO, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Martin LEE, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Miss Christine LOH, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Jasper TSANG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the amendment.

Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu and Mr Ambrose LAU voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mrs Rita FAN, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, 24 were present, 20 were in favour of the amendment and three against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, she therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Wing-chan, you may now reply and you have up to five minutes and one second out of your original 15 minutes.

MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I wish to thank all the 12 Honourable Members who have spoken in this debate on my motion. Most of these Members support my motion on amending the Employment Ordinance, so as to bring it into line with the rights conferred on Hong Kong residents by the Basic Law.

Mr James TIEN wondered why I had sought to move this motion to question the compliance of the Employment Ordinance with the Basic Law. He wondered why I had not raised such a question during the scrutiny of the Preparatory Committee. Well, the answer is that I was not fortunate enough to be appointed a member of the Preparatory Committee. Differences in legal viewpoints are not uncommon. For example, section 31(H) of the existing Employment Ordinance is obviously in breach of the Basic Law. Although I do not have much time now, I still have to read aloud the following provision of the Ordinance: "Special provision as to termination of contract in case of strike: Where an employee, who has been given notice by his employer to terminate his contract of employment, takes part in a strike before the expiry of that notice in such circumstances that the employer is entitled by reason of his taking part in the strike to treat the contract as terminable without notice, and the employer for that reason terminates the contract as mentioned ......, that subsection shall not apply to that termination of contract." Because of such a reason, an employer can always invoke section 9 and terminate an employee's employment contract without giving any prior notice or payment in lieu of notice. This provision shows that the Ordinance does state expressly that employees going on strike can be summarily dismissed. Members have raised many viewpoints in addition to those relating to section 9. So, I would not repeat all these views now.

I agree with Mr Ambrose LAU that the Preparatory Committee did make a decision that contradictions among existing laws should be rectified by introducing appropriate amendments. When I spoke at the beginning of the motion debate, I said that the Secretary's reply to Members' questions had been very unsatisfactory. And, I must say, the further reply of the Secretary a moment ago still failed to show any improvements, however slight. I am thus very disappointed because quite a number of points have not been clarified. For example, what is the definition of the right to strike? Is there a need to reflect in our ordinances the rights of Hong Kong residents under the Basic Law? The Secretary has failed completely to answer all these questions. With respect to the right to strike enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under the Basic Law, the Secretary even comments that such a right does not actually contravene the Basic Law. But under section 31(H) which I read aloud just now, it is very clear that workers going on strike may be liable to summary dismissal. So, how can it be argued that the Employment Ordinance does not contravene the Basic Law? The Secretary's reply is full of contradictions and is thus hardly convincing. Another point is that when the Secretary answered the questions from Honourable Members, he said that in case an employer invokes section 9, or in case there are any disputes, the court will make a ruling on the basis of the facts of the case, taking into account section 9 of the Employment Ordinance and Article 27 of the Basic Law. Now this really puzzles me, because the logic of the Secretary will baffle even the most intelligent judge! On the one hand, an employer can summarily dismiss his employees by virtue of section 31(H) of the Employment Ordinance, but on the other, Hong Kong residents are supposed to enjoy the right and freedom to strike under the Basic Law. A judge has to make his rulings on the basis of the law, but in a case like this, which law should he base? Is this not going to baffle even the most intelligent judge?

Madam President, time is running out; if not, I will certainly discuss the matter in still greater depths. If we are to effect uniformity with the Basic Law, we must amend the Employment Ordinance, so as to give Hong Kong residents proper legal protection when they go on strike. At least, we must specify that section 9 does not apply to workers going on strike. This will clarify the situation, in addition to being a simple and straightforward solution. I hope Members will support the very minor amendment proposed in my motion, so as to make sure that the Employment Ordinance can comply with the Basic Law. If Members can do so, they will do immense good to the community. But if they do not do so, they will probably encounter problems when they vote on this matter in the future. If Members object to the minor amendment proposed in my motion today, and if the Government eventually realizes the contradiction I have mentioned, Members will find it very hard to defend their objection. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHAN Wing-chan, as set out on the Agenda, be passed. Will those in favour of the motion please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Wing-chan rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Wing-chan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I declare that voting shall stop, are there any queries? Voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Michael HO, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Miss Margaret NG, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kwok-keung, Mr Bernard CHAN, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr WONG Yung-kan and Mr LAW Chi-kwong voted for the motion.

Mr Kenneth TING, Mr James TIEN, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Dr LUI Ming-wah, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr HUI Cheung-ching, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr FUNG Chi-kin and Dr TANG Siu-tong voted against the motion.

Geographical Constituencies and Election Committee:

Miss Cyd HO, Mr Albert HO, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Martin LEE, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Miss Christine LOH, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Andrew WONG, Mr Jasper TSANG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung voted for the motion.

Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu and Mr Ambrose LAU voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT, Mrs Rita FAN, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 12 were in favour of the motion and 16 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, 24 were present, 20 were in favour of the motion and three against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, she therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion: Comprehensive Review of the Target Oriented Curriculum.

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE TARGET ORIENTED CURRICULUM

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the motion which has been printed on the Agenda.

Madam President, the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC) is by far one of the most controversial education policies in the 1990s. Four years have elapsed since it was first implemented in 1995, but the arguments surrounding it have never ceased. Instead, it appears that these arguments are increasing on the day.

The problems with the TOC and the criticisms of the education sector against it can be summarized as follows:

First, the TOC is unrealistic. Under the TOC, teachers are required to keep an absolutely accurate record of the differences in abilities among their students. Following this, teachers are further required to select teaching strategies according to individual students' potentials. All this is impossible given the constraints imposed by the existing school system and available resources. Teachers are required to design different teaching contents and materials for each and every student, and they must also select different teaching strategies for individual students. But since the average class size now is as big as 35 students, and since a teacher must now teach as many as 30 periods a week, teachers all find it very difficult to achieve the "lofty ideal" of the TOC despite their intention of doing so. Some teachers once told me that the TOC was in fact very much like a "utopia". According to the findings of a survey conducted by the Federation of Education Workers in December 1998, 75% of the teacher-respondents view that the ideal of the TOC has failed to be materialized in our classrooms. This shows that there is a big gap between the ideal of the TOC and the realistic circumstances in our primary schools. As a result, the whole concept of the TOC does seem to be a bit too "theoretical".

Second, the TOC is not compatible with the examination system. The biggest difference between the TOC and the conventional teaching method is that the former has adopted the system of Target Oriented Assessment (TOA). With TOA, the old principle of norm-referenced assessment is discarded in favour of a new principle called criterion-referenced assessment. Under the principle of criterion-referenced assessment, comparison and ranking among students are discouraged, and the emphasis is placed on the self-comparison of a student, on whether or not he is able to achieve added value, to achieve the targets set specifically for him. Teachers no longer give any scores to indicate the performance of students; instead, indicators like "not yet able", "partially able" and "generally able" are used. This is precisely what makes the TOC incompatible with the existing examination system. The allocation of Secondary One places and the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination are both based on the principle of norm-referenced assessment, which emphasizes comparison, competition and examination results. The TOC and the current examination system are actually conceptually different. Therefore, the compatibility of the TOC with the allocation of Secondary One places is really a problem which has yet to be solved.

In particular, many education workers very much question the educational concept of "self-comparison" under the TOC, saying that the value judgements and learning attitudes of students will be adversely affected, and that this very concept actually runs counter to the development of quality education. The main problem is that in addition to having to face comparison and competition in public examinations, students will also have to face these very same problems when they leave school and work in society in the future. With its emphasis on "self-comparison", the TOC will probably produce the following negative result: students will become extremely insular in their vision, believing that progress observed under the principle of self-comparison is all that matters. And, I must add that the educational concept of "self-comparison" is out of keeping with the values cherished in the Oriental culture; our culture places emphasis on "emulation" and "industry". Therefore, the selection of different teaching strategies according to individual students' potentials should in fact aim to ensure that most students are able to achieve the targets set despite their differences in ability. Without comparison and competition, what will become of our community? Should we allocate jobs and school places by drawing lots? Obviously, our society does not accept such a practice.

Third, the effectiveness of the TOC is all together questionable. Teachers have to spend a lot of time and efforts on writing up numerous detailed assessment reports. So, even if they are able to "diagnose" very accurately the ability differences among their students, they will not have sufficient time to suit different strategies to the potentials of individual students. In a way, teaching is no longer teaching per se, but has become onerous clerical work. That is why some teachers criticize that the TOC is extremely onerous and is putting the cart before the horse; some others complain that all the related work is largely meaningless and unable to yield the desired results; and, yet some others even remark that ever since the implementation of the TOC, the academic standards of students have not really improved, but have declined instead. In the case of Mathematics, for example, since situational teaching is emphasized, Mathematics classes are often turned into language lessons, with teachers having to spend a lot of time on dealing with the related linguistic contexts which are quite beyond the grasp of their students. As a result, the amount of time which is actually spent on the teaching of Mathematics itself has been reduced.

Fourth, the TOC is practised in name only. Many schools say that they have been "forced" to participate in the TOC scheme. The Government now offers a whole range of "material incentives" to "compel" schools to implement the TOC. Some examples of these material incentives include priority in getting graduate teaching posts and various subsidies. In 1998-99, for example, primary schools implementing the TOC are each offered a recurrent subsidy of roughly $9,300 and a non-recurrent subsidy of about $31,000 (assuming that there are 16 classes). In order to secure more resources, and in order to secure graduate teacher posts as quickly as possible, some primary school headmasters have chosen to participate in the TOC scheme, though somewhat reluctantly. What is more, the Education Department (ED) also resorts to "coercion", emphasizing that the TOC will be linked up with the allocation system of Secondary One places. The Department even says that the assessment test will cover the contents of the TOC, and that, therefore, if schools do not implement the TOC, their students will be unable to cope with the assessment test for Secondary One places allocation. The ED's policy of "carrot and stick" and "coercion" has thus succeeded in making more and more schools join the TOC ranks.

If the participating schools really implement the "genuine" TOC, one should not of course criticize them. But the point is that many do not. Many schools claim that they are implementing the TOC, but in reality, they still adhere to the conventional teaching methods because they wish to maintain a good school place allocation record. These schools are in fact crying up wine and selling vinegar; in these schools, the TOC really exists in name only. But the officials of the ED simply turn a blind eye to these chaotic situations, and they are satisfied so long as the label of TOC is brandished; they even claim, on the mere basis of figures, that all are running smoothly with the implementation of the TOC. The then Director of Education once remarked that for as long as schools upheld the principle of selecting teaching strategies according to the individual students' potentials, schools themselves could decide whether or not to label themselves as TOC schools, and that the ED was prepared to allow schools to label themselves as such.

Madam President, the unrealistic TOC, which is now being implemented in name only and without any proper control, has created enormous confusion in the education sector and also led to a waste of resources. For the implementation of the TOC, the Government has made a non-recurrent grant of $278 million, meant to provide additional resources to participating schools. And, in 1997, it also allocated $123 million for the purpose of preparing the self-learning assessment kits of the TOC. In addition, it has also allocated $36 million for the purpose of assessing the progress of the TOC. Admittedly, the TOC has produced some positive effects on improving the quality of teaching. For example, students have become more positive and active in their learning and the team spirit and professionalism among teachers have also been enhanced. But the huge resources injected have achieved nothing more than increasing students' interest in learning, and we simply cannot fully confirm the real effectiveness of the whole scheme. So, is the TOC scheme really worth implementing? And, what about cost effectiveness? Should we really spend our valuable resources on such a scheme? When the TOC scheme was first implemented, why did the Government not conduct any control experiments to study the real effectiveness of the TOC? And, why does it not do this now?

In order to avoid yet bigger confusion, in order to make the best use of public money, and in order to discharge our responsibility towards our students and the community, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) maintains that the Government should review the TOC as expeditiously as possible, so as to set down its future course of development. If the Government does not do this, and if the Government allows the present confusion to continue, the TOC, now the acronym for "Target Oriented Curriculum", may well become the abbreviation for "Total Outcome Corroded" or "Total Out of Control". And, let me add that it is indeed the right time for a comprehensive review because the TOC has been implemented for nearly four years already.

Madam President, I now wish to explain why I have proposed to suspend the extension of the TOC to Primary Five this September. First, the TOC is not compatible with the allocation system of Secondary One places. The existing allocation system is based on students' performance in three examinations in their Primary Five and Primary Six schooling and on their performance in the aptitude test. So, the extension of the TOC to Primary Five will produce a direct bearing on the allocation of Secondary One places. Therefore, a suspension of the implementation of the TOC in Primary Five classes is indeed a matter of grave urgency. "Suspension" does not mean negation, for the TOC can continue to be implemented in Primary One to Primary Four and remain unaffected. The only condition is that the extension of the TOC to Primary Five should be suspended for the time being. Second, by "suspension of the TOC for Primary Five classes", we actually mean that the Government should not forcibly implement the TOC in Primary Five classes but should allow schools to make their decisions instead. If a school is willing to extend the TOC to its Primary Five classes, we should of course respect its decision. But the Government simply should not try to "boost" the whole thing by exerting any pressure and setting down any specific targets and missions. Third, the TOC as it is being implemented has created lots of confusion. So, before the findings of any effectiveness review are available, the Government should not hastily extend the TOC to Primary Five classes. Going ahead with the extension to Primary Five classes while a comprehensive review is still in progress is a most irresponsible approach. What is more, it takes time to conduct a comprehensive review. So, before we can really prove the effectiveness of the TOC, and before we can really work out how the TOC can be linked up with the allocation system of Secondary One places, it will be wise, prudent and responsible of us to suspend the implementation of the TOC in Primary Five classes this September. As for the form and schedule of implementing the TOC in Primary Five and other higher levels, or even for the future development of the whole Curriculum, all decisions must be withheld until the results of the comprehensive review are available.

In just a matter of two weeks, I have received the signatures of more than 5 100 teachers from 250 schools, and all these teachers are in support of my motion. Such a response is really very encouraging.

The DAB sincerely hopes that the Government can really look at the whole situation with an objective and impartial attitude in its comprehensive review. It must try to identify the real problems, the merits and the shortcomings. In addition, it must not be afraid of admitting its own mistakes, nor should it set down any pre-conditions for the review. At present, the Government seems to regard the TOC as a secret "illness" of its own and allows nobody to talk about it. If this attitude is not changed, I do not think that it will be at all meaningful to conduct a review.

With these remarks, I urge Honourable colleagues to support my motion.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung moved the following motion:

"That, as there have been doubts about the effectiveness of the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC) since its implementation, this Council urges the Government to suspend the implementation of the TOC in Primary Five classes in September this year and expeditiously conduct a comprehensive review of the TOC to decide the way forward for the Curriculum, so as to truly improve the overall quality of students and promote the development of quality education."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

Members who wish to speak please raise their hands and press the "Request to speak" button.

MRS SOPHIE LEUNG: Madam President, the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC), launched in 1995 and currently implemented in 89% of local primary schools, is a classic example of the unsatisfactory experiments of the Education Department (ED) due to the lack of long-term planning.

The TOC, adopted in selected subjects for Primary One to Primary Four students, is designed with clear objectives ─ to motivate students to be more active and responsive in learning, to enhance teacher's skills in using learner-based strategies, and to gauge students' learning performance with criterion guided assessments. However, a recent survey conducted by the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers shows that some 75% of the respondents believed that the TOC concept has failed to take root in Hong Kong. Another 40% said that the TOC has effectively increased students' abilities in learning. Why then has the programme fallen short of expectation?

Let us refer to the ED's logo depicting a book and a green leaf. In our view, the Liberal Party's view, the TOC is like growing a flower in the field of education in Hong Kong. Given the right soil, water and climate, the flower will grow into full bloom and bear fruit for the benefit of our younger generation. Unfortunately, our education system cannot yet provide the necessary conditions required for the successful development of the TOC.

First, the TOC introduces new textbooks with improved contents featuring explicit objectives of learning, reference reading materials and helpful hints for teachers and students. Whilst some primary school teachers may find the new texts enlightening and useful, others consider them bewildering and far-fetched. With the elaborated contents and numerous worksheets that come with the TOC, most teachers have to spend much more time preparing lessons than ever before. Whether our teachers are well prepared for their jobs would not be a subject that I would discuss here today. But let us not forget that our school teachers have to deal with an average of 35 students in one class, teach more than 30 periods per week and attend to various administrative duties. Furthermore, they have to constantly face up to new challenges such as mother tongue education and information technology. Indeed, the soil in which the TOC has been planted has been largely exhausted.

Second, the TOC learning performance assessment, which measures students' abilities in various activities such as listening, speaking, reading and writing and gives scores of "generally able" (已經掌握), "partially able" (部分掌握), "not yet able" (未能掌握), is aimed at providing the teachers with feedback needed for mapping out students' educational plans. However, without specific guidelines from the ED and subject to the individual's interpretation, teachers often find it difficult to write their assessment reports. Apart from the increased workload, some believe that experienced teachers should know the final score given to each student without going through the complicated assessment exercise. More importantly, having assessed students' performance, follow-up work with the students has to be done in order to make the assessment meaningful. Under the present circumstances and without additional support given to them, teachers are feeling exasperated by the TOC assessments. The TOC flower has not been given enough water needed for its healthy growth. Whether this water should come from the teachers themselves or from the system itself, that again is not a subject for discussion today.

Madam President, the Liberal Party endorses without any reservation the concept of the TOC, which is one big step towards quality education and a bold attempt to emancipate our students from the unintelligent memorizing mode of education or learning. Properly conducted, the TOC enables teachers to relate their teaching to the daily experience of students and to select teaching strategies according to individual student's potential (因材施教). It helps students to become creative and independent in acquiring initiatives, self confidence and higher thinking skills. Is this not what we want for our youths?

Therefore, the Liberal Party fully supports the motion calling for a suspension, mind you, only a suspension, of the TOC for Primary Five classes this September and the launching of a comprehensive review, hopefully a quick one. Given this short period of time, the ED should be able to explore ways of better co-ordinating the school curriculum, teacher/student ratio, examination system and the TOC. Hopefully, it will come up with reform initiatives that, together with adequate support, will help teachers and school management to minimize the workload of our teachers and make teaching more creative. During this transitional period, we urge that the continuation of the TOC in Primary One to Primary Four should be left to the discretion of the primary schools. We further advocate that the review include a study on the most effective means of educating parents and the public on the long-term objectives of quality education, which is the essence of the TOC. An urgent task in hand is for us to build up a healthy atmosphere conducive to the growth and development of the TOC in Hong Kong.

With these words, we support the Honourable YEUNG Yiu-chung's motion.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the implementation of the TOC is a rather controversial issue. When the TOC was under consultation quite a long time ago, I conducted a survey among teachers and received a few thousand objections to the TOC. Although Mr Michael LEUNG, the then Secretary for Education and Manpower, said at a Legislative Council sitting that the TOC would not be launched compulsorily, the TOC was launched in a disguisedly compulsory manner in 1995, and all the primary schools in Hong Kong began the trial scheme for TOC. Several years down the lane, as the concepts of TOC are very vague, and there is a lack of research materials on the subject and preparation and training for teachers, the education sector is engulfed in serious doubt of the effectiveness of the TOC. Actually, these are all well within our expectation. And so it is time to make a thorough review of the TOC, now!

The TOC in fact is no scourge per se, nor does it only have demerits and no merits whatsoever. Compared to traditional modes of teaching, the TOC can no doubt take care of the disparity in learning abilities of students and raise their motivation to learn. It can assess the performance of students which otherwise cannot be effectively gauged by written examination. This concept of selecting and varying teaching strategies to suit individual students' potentials merits commendation. However, this idea is nothing new. Back in the days of Confucius, we had this education principle of selecting the right teaching strategy to suit the student's potential. The report recently published by the Education Department (ED) shows that over 80% of the schools accept the concepts of the TOC. The Education Convergence has found the spirit behind the TOC agreeable. It can thus be seen that there may be some real significance to the concepts embodied in the TOC. But the question is how it should be implemented and how the concepts can be successfully realized.

Madam President, I think that the Government should conduct a comprehensive review of the TOC as expeditiously as possible so that schools can effectively and practically implement it and hence improve teaching and learning. I think this review should take the following aspects into consideration:

1. The existing assessment mechanism of the TOC has many grey areas and teachers are at a loss as to how it should be done and so they just purport to comply with the TOC. Assessments are often made very vaguely and the results are wide of the mark. The Government should complete its study on the assessment methods to be used in the TOC and to improve and simplify the assessment mechanism in an attempt to help teachers solve the various kinds of problems encountered by them.

2. The TOC is at present unable to link up with the secondary school places allocation scheme and the secondary school curricula, leading to worries that those students who received TOC education would find it hard to deal with their studies as they move up to the secondary level. It would also pose problems to students when they have to adjust themselves to the new curricula once they are in secondary school. Therefore, the Government should draw up specific measures addressing the problem of how the TOC should fit in the secondary school places allocation scheme and ensure the students' continuity with their studies when they are in secondary school. This will serve to allay the worries and apprehensions of schools, teachers and students alike. This is because the Certificate of Education Examination is not a self-assessment; it has to bring in the performance of all students into a comparison with their peers. It is an important experience in their lives where the high achievers will win and the low achievers will stand to lose.

3. Presently, the class size in primary schools in general exceeds 40. If a teacher has to take three classes in average, the number of pupils that he or she has to assess will be more than 120. Although the ED says that the number of assessments can be reduced, even if assessments are carried out only two to three times in a school term, the teacher's workload would still be very heavy indeed. In the absence of a comprehensive assessment and sufficient follow-up work, even the best education ideal will lose some of its effectiveness. Therefore, the Government should study into this problem of an excessively high teacher-to-pupil ratio and the crushing workload on teachers. If the TOC is to succeed, class size must be greatly reduced and only in such a proper teaching environment can the benefits of the TOC be brought into full play.

4. The TOC was implemented under a situation where sufficient understanding and preparation was lacking among teachers and it was made to go ahead even against their wishes. As a result, there appeared an embarrassing situation where many teachers were hastily made to teach the TOC before they had made head or tail of it. A lesson should be learned and the problems should be properly addressed. Teachers should be given more comprehensive and in-depth training so that they can apply this concept flexibly and vary their teaching strategies to suit individual students' potentials. A lot of people say the TOC places emphasis on individual assessment in which self-assessment is made to gauge progress towards a definite goal. But in the real world, self-assessment is never enough, and we cannot avoid comparing with others. If we are to compare with others, it is obvious that competition will exist where there will be winners and losers. Survival of the fittest, is after all, the name of the game in life.

Madam President, I so submit.

MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it has been three years passed since the ED started to implement the TOC vigorously. The TOC should basically be a curriculum reform; it should aim to select different teaching strategies according to the potentials of individual students, to solve the problems arising from the different learning abilities of students and to enhance the effectiveness of teaching. But in addition to introducing the TOC as a curriculum reform, the ED has also intended to turn it into a means of assessing the learning abilities of students; students' performance is assessed, ranked and linked up with the assessment test for secondary school entrance. The ED even plans to extend the whole thing to secondary schools, covering the junior secondary school assessment test and the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination (HKCEE). As a result, the TOC has virtually been turned into an examination system, which controls the educational and career prospects of secondary and primary school students.

The TOC lacks all the conditions necessary for its successful implementation. Its implementation is not a professional choice made by schools and teachers up from the bottom of the education system; rather, it is the result of a strong order made by high-ranking officials of the ED. When the TOC was first introduced, the then Director of Education, Mr LAM Woon-kwong, threatened our schools that since the TOC would eventually link up with the allocation system of Secondary One places, schools had better implement it as early as possible. Besides, the ED also arranged some video sessions for parents of kindergarten pupils and encouraged them to send their children to TOC primary schools. As a result, schools were forced to adopt the TOC, because if they did not do so, they would not be able to admit enough Primary One students. So, with the "stick and carrot" policy of the ED, schools were forced to implement the TOC though it was not yet the right time to do so.

Although they also supported the broad directions of the TOC, education bodies at that time were still strongly dissatisfied with the contents of the TOC and the ways in which it was implemented. Their reasons were as follows:

(1) The TOC should not link up with the allocation of Secondary One places, let alone linking up with the junior secondary school assessment and the HKCEE. The reason is that instead of increasing the pressure of examinations and encouraging comparison and competition among students, the TOC should aim to reform the existing curriculum and teaching methods in such a way that students can improve their performance at their own pace.

(2) Since the TOC would affect nearly 1 million secondary and primary school students, a pilot scheme should be conducted before its full-scale implementation, so as to ascertain the causes of success or failure, and, schools should thus be allowed to make their own decisions on a voluntary and gradual basis. That means to say that the implementation of the TOC should be regarded as a professional and school-based choice.

But at that time, the ED obviously refused to accept the views of the education sector and the former Legislative Council, because in the summer of 1996, officials of the ED started to forcefully request our schools to implement the TOC. In the past three years, school complained, teachers became exhausted, parents were puzzled, students were burdened by more school work and the effectiveness of teaching became altogether questionable. By now, the TOC has become a scheme surrounded by controversies, queries and even grievances.

The experience of the past three years shows that the criticisms of the education sector against the TOC three years ago were very justified. It was wrong for the ED to implement the TOC vigorously when there was not any concrete proof of its effectiveness. This is a grave administrative blunder which must be condemned. This administrative blunder shows very clearly that education is a profession which requires not only the right directions and theories but also attention to the realistic circumstances. We should first recap the experience of implementation before asking our schools to take part on a voluntary basis. Moreover, teachers should be given the professional freedom to decide how they are going to teach their students. Coercion should not be applied; otherwise, speed will only kill speed, leading to numerous problems and a quagmire.

Madam President, at the beginning of the 1998 school year, the Professional Teachers' Union (PTU) felt that the problem should not be allowed to drag on any more, because according to the set schedule, the TOC would become a basis of secondary school places allocation in the next one or two years. The PTU has come to the view that when the methods of assessment are still full of defects, and when performance rankings are not yet firmly established, it will be far too dangerous and ambitious to link up the TOC with the allocation of secondary school places. An unfair allocation system will certainly lead to protests from schools and parents, resulting in a situation which is likely to be more chaotic than that created by the implementation of mother tongue education.

For these reasons, the PTU held a six-hour meeting with ED officials in December last year, during which frank discussions on the community's criticisms against the TOC were conducted. Two months later, the ED made the following announcement: The onerous assessment work and unnecessary school work relating to the TOC would be reduced; schools would not have to assess their students by giving them any scores; the TOC would not link up with the allocation of secondary school places unless schools themselves decided otherwise; the TOC would not be extended to secondary schools. These changes were able to satisfy the demands of the PTU for the moment and served to restore the original objective of the TOC: To serve as a school-based curriculum and to reform the existing teaching methods. The TOC, as result, will not form the basis of secondary school places allocation unless schools themselves choose to take account of their students' performance in it.

Madam President, having looked at the above background, we can actually say that with the exception of those parts on TOC teaching objectives and textbooks, most of the issues covered in the motion today, including the call for a review and a suspension of the implementation of the TOC in Primary Five and Primary Six classes, are in fact parts of the tentative consensus reached between the Government and the education sector at the end of last year. And, these issues have thus become the important basis of public consultation, and they will all be implemented at a later time. But whatever is going to happen to the TOC, we must still insist on this: We must adopt teaching methods with diversified objectives, and we must introduce feasible and effective forms of assessment. What is more, following such assessments, we must be able to look after students with different learning abilities; student-oriented teaching methods must be adopted to select different teaching strategies according to the potentials of individual students. Finally, to achieve this end, we must provide sufficient manpower and other resources, and one example is to increase the number of teachers and reduce the average class size. With these goals, it does not matter if we call this TOC or some other names for education, after all, is supposed to serve people, not a system, and certainly not three English letters.

Madam President, I so submit.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the TOC was launched in 1995, some teachers have pointed out that it has added greatly to the administrative work of the schools. In recent years, many new measures have been launched to facilitate reforms in education. These include the School Management Initiative and the School Administrative and Management System which add greatly to the teachers' workload. The introduction of TOC has made the teachers really exhausted.

If the performance of the students can really improve as a result of the efforts made by the teachers, then teachers would be very pleased to use the TOC. But teachers do not find improvement in student performance as a result of TOC, but on the contrary, their performance has been declining. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) and the Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers (HKFEW) conducted a survey recently. It was discovered that about 45% of the TOC teachers pointed out that the TOC could not raise the academic standards of the primary school students. Only an extremely small number (6.4%) of teachers thought that academic standards could be raised by the TOC. Another half of the teachers said they had no comments. The fact is the TOC cannot raise the academic standards of the students.

Many teachers also said that under the TOC, students could not effectively make use of the knowledge they had learned and they would only memorize the lessons, not knowing how to apply the knowledge acquired. The TOC does nothing to make students think flexibly and students are just asked to do exercises repeatedly. As assessment activities play an important role in the entire curriculum, therefore, teachers have to spend a lot of their teaching time to do assessment work, for example, in making students do exercises, practices and tests. It should be a good thing for students to revise the contents of the lessons, but since there are so many forms of assessment and the contents of the lessons are mechanically repeated, there is no way to allow students rethink what they have learned.

The TOC requires the teachers to make a continuous assessment of the performance of the students. Therefore teachers have to spend a lot of time on writing a conclusive report on each student. Such reports are often more complicated than the report cards formerly given to the students, for the TOC reports list out in detail the strengths and weaknesses of the students in their grasp of the knowledge they have gained. The purpose is to let the parents know how their children perform at school, so that they may help their children to learn. However, teachers are very disappointed more often than not to know that the assessment reports are not fully utilized by parents. The findings of the survey conducted jointly by the DAB and the HKFEW show that 85% of the TOC teachers said that parents did not make good use of the detailed assessment reports to help their children to learn. In fact, parents only care about the rankings of their children in class, and they may not have the ability to help their children improve their learning.

There are also a lot of drawbacks in the theoretical foundations of the TOC. Continuous assessment is made throughout the Curriculum and students are given very detailed "diagnoses" of their performance, but "courses of treatment" are not offered. Although it can be said that the teacher can make a diagnosis of the performance of each of his or her students after assessments are made, since the acquisition of knowledge and skills require continuous efforts, it is most important for the teachers to help students whose performance is falling behind his peers. Students who fail to meet the learning targets are either asked to repeat or even promoted involuntarily. On completion of their primary school studies, they will likely be sent to secondary schools of a lower banding. When the differences in knowledge between students get more marked and when the gap between the high and low achievers widens, the motivation and drive to learn will decline. If teaching strategies should be made to suit the needs and differences of individual students, then the TOC is apparently not the best means.

The principle of criterion-referenced assessment used in the TOC is out of keeping with the present education system, for this principle stresses whether or not students have reached the standards set by way of self-comparison. However, the present secondary school places allocation scheme and the public examinations still adopt the principle of norm-referenced assessment, that is, the results of the students are compared for selection purposes. In this way, the performance of the students is compared with that of their classmates and peers. Besides, when the employers hire school leavers, they will very often compare the applicants' performance in school. So it can be seen that comparisons are unavoidable in real life. If we are to stress whether an individual can achieve his target, this may not be in line with the realistic needs of society.

The Government says that the number of schools joining the TOC has kept on increasing, proof that the TOC is welcome by schools. But the fact that so many schools are joining the TOC does not mean that it is welcome. It is only because the Education Department (ED) is forcefully implementing the TOC. In order that the TOC is practised in all primary schools in Hong Kong by 2000, both incentives and threats are being used with regard to policies and resources. For incentives, the ED will give a subsidy to schools using TOC as funds for the purchase of reference materials, furniture and equipment. For threats, the ED said to the schools when it first implemented the TOC that the TOC would be linked up with the aptitude tests. Schools therefore had to implement the TOC reluctantly, considering the fact that the performance of their students would in the end be compared with that of students from other schools. Besides, schools which implement the TOC will be given priority in the allocation of graduate teaching posts.

Nowadays, a school is regarded as a TOC school as long as it claims to be one though in practice it may not entirely meet the requirements of the TOC. This kind of coercive implementation regardless of professional judgement and effectiveness would only serve to relegate the TOC to nothing more than a policy in name.

As it has not been proven that the TOC can increase the overall standard of students in terms both of their standard in knowledge and learning, the DAB urges the Government to suspend implementing the TOC in Primary Five and conduct a review of the TOC.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the motion.

MR HOWARD YOUNG: Madam President, the Liberal Party has already given its views as presented by the Honourable Mrs Sophie LEUNG. She has elaborated on why we feel that both the soil and the water have been exhausted and are lacking, and it is the teachers who provide the soil and are in charge of administering the water. I also understand that signatures from thousands of school teachers and hundreds of schools have been received to express support for this motion and the suspension. I would like to add a third important point.

The Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC) assessments are presently not well accepted or widely accepted by the parents who are still bent on getting the traditional grading for their children's performance. This, perhaps, is unfortunate, and yet understandable, since our current school system is still examination-oriented and the Hong Kong community is prone to favour the elitist system. Herein lies the dilemma ─ the TOC highlights self-evaluation for each student while public examination emphasizes relative evaluation among students, which is much more mutually competitive. Without proper guidance from the Education Department for teachers to tie in the TOC assessments with the Academic Attainment Test, assessment work at school is duplicated, much to the dissatisfaction of many of our teachers and casting negative effects on the students. Adverse social climate is hampering the growth of the TOC.

The irony is that this lofty ideal has come up against the harsh reality of Hong Kong's education system. At present, our schools are still "knowledge factories" for which the curriculum, school systems and examinations are all centred. We still have a long way to go in reaching the goal of producing graduates with a sense of accomplishment, international perspective, broad vision and self evaluation.

Madam President, let there be no mistakes about the Liberal Party's stance, the Liberal Party is in full support of the TOC. However, in our views, the TOC may be one of the means to bridge the gap I just referred to. Regrettably, the bridge built hastily cannot stand up to its task at this present time. Having set up the bridge there, we have to make sure that its foundations are strong, its supports are there and reliable, and then we could proceed at full steam ahead with the TOC after perhaps a slight pause or suspension for evaluation. With these words, Madam President, I support the motion.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, just like many students, parents and workers in the education sector, I fully support the elements of the TOC. Such elements as clear teaching and learning objectives and catering for differences in the learning ability of students must be included in an education policy that benefits students. However, for an education policy to benefit students in the end, the process of policy implementation is also important in addition to the right ideas. Putting an education policy into practice may not be the only criterion for examining its effectiveness but it is the most important criterion. The TOC is now facing the very problem of having very good ideas but being very difficult to implement. Since its implementation in primary schools in 1995, many schools are still somewhat reluctant in implementing the TOC and many teachers keep complaining that they are at a loss as to what to do. Many parents and authorities in the education sector even fail to understand the TOC thoroughly. Students at the core of the curriculum change have no choice but become guinea pigs that attract public attention. People who have the welfare of students at heart will ask: Will students benefit or be sacrificed as a result of the curriculum change?

The TOC is only a teaching framework without specific contents. It mainly requires teachers to orient their teaching activities towards students and understand the differences and needs of individual students through various evaluation activities in order to set different learning objectives for different students and select teaching strategies according to the potentials of individual students. The problem is: How are we going to work out an objective and accurate set of methods for assessment of students, when there are no explicit guidelines from the Education Department (ED)? Putting aside the problem of vague and complicated assessment contents, the number of assessments alone has made teachers confused. Is it more suitable for an assessment to be made for every lesson, once a week or once every few months? According to the ED, schools can do so flexibly. But if teachers only assess students once every few months, what is the difference indeed between the TOC and the teaching method adopted in the past?

The biggest problem with the implementation of the TOC is that teachers often have to spend plenty of time understanding the aptitude of different students, lacking sufficient time to deliver their most important task ─ teaching ─ despite their good intentions. When a teacher drafts an exercise or question, he has to strictly define its objective for assessment purposes. When he marks students' work, he also has to note the strong and weak points and progress of every student. It seems that assessment work can enhance the teacher's understanding of every student and the students' understanding of their own learning abilities, but it also increases teachers' desk work. This is particularly so as some primary schools still practise bisessional schooling and the ratio of teachers to students in each class is still one to some 30 to 40. As a teacher still has to teach a few classes, he will be kept constantly on the run. In other words, teachers can better diagnose students now and they can give them prescriptions directed at their symptoms but they lack the time and resources for brewing the medicine and assisting students in taking the medicine, needless to say asking them to make follow-up appointments. If the Government fails to increase teaching resources quickly such as cutting the teacher-student ratio and relieving teachers of administrative duties not related to teaching, I am afraid that the TOC will be reduced to a curriculum that makes things worse as a result of insufficient coupling efforts, despite the Government's many good intentions.

The ED might have realized that the TOC has increased teachers' workload and the evaluation methods were too complicated, therefore, it agreed to make efforts to improve it. In mid-December last year, the ED issued questionnaires to all secondary and primary schools in Hong Kong to collect views on the direction for the development of the TOC. It is most disappointing that the questionnaires so designed are strongly leading and place emphasis on principles only. Therefore, those who answered the questionnaires can hardly choose answers other than those wanted by the Government. Take a question with 100% feedback and agreed by 90% of those who answered the questionnaires as an example. The question is: "Do you agree that teachers can exercise their professional judgment and flexibly combine the teaching strategies under the TOC and their more effective teaching skills to make teaching more effective?" The answer could not be more conspicuous. How much enlightening has the ED been benefited insofar as the improvement of the implementation of the TOC is concerned, other than the majority agreement to the said question?

Furthermore, the questionnaire survey of the ED is targeted at school principals but not teachers. I am afraid that many teachers will doubt if the ED is really willing to understand the specific problems with the TOC. The ED may not agree to the doubts and criticisms of workers in the education sector, but they are after all front-line workers who can best realize the merits and demerits of the TOC in practical implementation. The ED must listen to the teachers' views.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the motion.

DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to support the motion moved by Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung.

Madam President, a few years ago Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong and I debated for a long time with Mr Dominic WONG and Mr LAM Woon-kwong respectively on the TOC. At that time, we were in support of the principle behind the TOC because we supported the principle of designing a specific learning target for each student and tailor-make an assessment for that student, and individual differences should be addressed and assistance given as required. But we were afraid that it would be very hard to put it into practice. The main reasons are: First, the assessment methods may be very fragmentary and cumbersome and teachers would find it hard to do so. Second, there are structural problems to the TOC. The TOC is not about comparisons among students but the student has to compare his own progresses. As the present system divides students into five bands, obviously, these bands are results of comparisons between students. So I really do not know how this structural problem can be solved. Third, even if differences between students are found, under the present system and due to constraints in the curriculum, teacher-to-pupil ratio, class size and school facilities and so on, it is difficult to address the needs of individual students. Therefore, although the TOC is a good idea, it would be quite problematic to put it into practice and devise measures to match it. At that time, we suggested to the Government to try out the scheme in a few schools first, then make a study of it and if it was proven to be effective, then it could be launched on a territory-wide scale. But the Government thought that if the idea was considered to be a good one, then why not launch it as soon as possible so that results could be obtained sooner.

When I look back at the views Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong and I held at that time, they were actually quite sensible. I have learned the lesson that even if some principle is a good one, if it is not launched at the right time, more often than not the desired targets will not be met. I think the Government should learn a good lesson from this issue, for despite the good intention behind the TOC ─ many teachers in the colleges of education would agree to this ─ but when it comes to assessment and implementation, they would certainly have many opinions.

We shall certainly support Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung's motion. However, I do feel there is some kind of time-lag in this because the Government made some changes in many aspects last year for which it can explain in detail later. In the last meeting of the Panel on Education, the Government said that the schools were given a free hand in administering the assessments. This in effect is putting an end to the TOC which exists only in name. This also indicates that the TOC will not be introduced in secondary schools. So we are in support of Mr YEUNG's motion whatever. If its focus is on an expression of discontent to the TOC, then I believe it has done its job. I so submit in support of the motion.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, from 1990 when the Target Oriented Curriculum called "TOC" in short, was proposed to 1995 when it was implemented and even up till today, its has all along been subject to disputes, challenges and rejection. Some schools have been forced to take part in the scheme and do something about it half-heartedly. It can be said that it has become the number one problem for the teaching profession in Hong Kong. Today, discussions surrounding the TOC are no longer restricted to curriculum and the upgrading of teaching quality. Rather, we are debating whether the Education Department (ED) is implementing a wrong policy. If it is wrong, why did the ED fail to accept, face or amend it? Should the Government learn a lesson from the failure in implementing the TOC?

I have two documents in hand, and perhaps Honourable Members have read them already. One of them concerns the findings of a questionnaire survey on the TOC conducted by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) last year. The other one is a report on the development and effectiveness of the TOC, which was presented to the Legislative Council Panel on Education the day before yesterday. Comparing the two documents, we can see that the findings of the surveys are totally different, with the DAB's survey indicating that the effectiveness of the implementation of the TOC in Hong Kong was far from satisfactory. I have personally come into contact with some teachers and headmasters and exchanged views with them. According to my findings, I personally share the DAB's findings and assessment as I find them more objective and in line with the actual circumstances. As there have been doubts about the effectiveness of the TOC, it is indeed worrying if the Government refuses to review it and continue with its implementation. As for today's motion debate, my interpretation of the "suspension" proposal made by Mr YEUNG in his motion is that he was not proposing a broad-brush approach. What he was referring to is not to force individual schools which consider the TOC very effective to stop as well. On the basis of this understanding, schools which opt to continue with the implementation of TOC will be allowed to do so. In great support of Mr YEUNG's motion, I would also like to urge the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the TOC policy-wise. In my opinion, the first thing the ED must do at the moment is to alter its attitude. It must face the problems arising from the implementation of TOC squarely. Moreover, it must not evade the problems, try to cover up its mistakes and, what is more, refuse to rectify its mistakes though it is aware of them. The problems pertaining to the TOC are not the same as the avian flu. Perhaps the consequences of these problems are more terrible than the avian flu. As the saying goes, it takes ten years to grow a tree and a hundred years to bring up a generation of good men. Education problems are extensive in scope and will affect our overall situation and our future as well. Therefore, we must not act rashly and blindly. As Mrs LAW has only taken up the new post of the Director of ED for a short while, she should be free from the burden of "putting established policies into practice". I hope she can listen to the views expressed by the teaching profession, particularly front-line educators, handle the TOC problems properly and prevent the TOC from continuing to deplete and erode the flagging energy of those people working in the local teaching profession.

Madam President, while I was trying to gather more information about the effectiveness of the TOC from among the teaching profession, many headmasters indicated to me that the TOC was not a completely useless mode of curriculum. The TOC is in fact a new mode of curriculum which has been implemented by European countries and the United States for many years. Some of my colleagues have already mentioned that the Education Commission's motive of introducing this set of novelties from the West in 1990 should be good. This is because the TOC seems to run in parallel with Confucius's philosophy of "selecting teaching strategies according to the potentials of individual students". The objective of the ED in implementing the TOC should be to upgrade the quality of our education, but why does the local teaching profession consider an education ideal borrowed from the West out of a good motive a "complete failure"? I think this is the most crucial question that warrants review. The most fundamental lesson we should learn is that we should not ignore the realities of the Hong Kong community by copying foreign experiences blindly. This reminds me of what the veteran educator, Mr YAN Fu, said in talking about education: "Never heard of asking an ox to function as a horse". Mr YAN Fu was aware that it was not possible for an ox to function as a horse. Perhaps we can make reference to the TOC practised in European countries and the United States. But how can we carry out a successful transplant if we fail to effect essential reforms and changes to the local education system and, that is, failing to put supporting services in place? A number of Members have mentioned earlier that education in Hong Kong is still "examination-oriented" at the moment and the burden on the local teachers is just too heavy. Each week, primary school teachers may have to attend 32 to 36 periods and there is also the bisessional primary schooling system, which is evident to all. How can teachers find sufficient time to prepare teaching material in light of the learning ability of different students? Furthermore, the proportion of working parents in Hong Kong is far higher than those in Europe and the United States. How can we implement the TOC by solely relying on the efforts of the teachers as parents seldom assist their children by making use of the detailed assessment reports? In addition, we still have the problem concerning the allocation of Secondary One places. In short, the Government has failed to take account of the local situation in implementing the TOC on the one hand, and analyse and examine the real situation and suit the policy to the Hong Kong situation on the other. Instead, it has only blindly introduced the TOC from the West into the education system in Hong Kong. In that case, how can we avoid failure?

Madam President, insofar as I can recall, there have been numerous examples of blindly copying western experiences but getting poor results after wasting money and time with our administration. One example is the "activity approach" implemented by the ED at the end of the '70s. We can really not afford to "cling conservatively to the old system". But neither can we afford to "cling conservatively to the western system". The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region should be well qualified to learn from advanced experiences of the world by accommodating and integrating foreign culture and setting an example for the rest of China. In the long run, just as a headmaster has told me, the TOC mode should not be completely negated. Instead, we should allow some schools that possess the necessary conditions to carry out experiments on it in a creative manner. In short, the controversial TOC must be reviewed and mistakes rectified. This is for the sake of upgrading the quality of education in Hong Kong as well as for the well-being of our next generation and ourselves.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung's motion.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the TOC under discussion today is similar to the issue pertaining to the weight of schoolbags we discussed a month ago. What are the similarities between the two issues? As I am not a primary school teacher, I do not have an in-depth understanding in this area. I am only trying to express some of my views after listening to the experience of some parents and students.

As far as the TOC is concerned, I can actually use "a sheer waste of energy and money as well as a waste of effort" to reflect the views and feelings conveyed to me.

To start with, concerning a waste of energy, just as many Honourable colleagues have mentioned, the TOC has generated a lot of pressure and heavy workload for teachers, students and even parents. For the sake of making assessment, teachers have to mark examination papers constantly in order to assess the students. Theoretically speaking, teachers should be responsible to help their students to rectify their mistakes during the assessment. But can they really manage to do that? Just now, a Member pointed out that it was basically impossible for the teachers to do so in the light of the manpower, material and resources available at the moment. The teachers are unable to achieve the desired results in spite of the fact that they are constantly making assessments. At the same time, it takes the students a lot of time to do the assessment and, as a result of which, they are unable to complete the regular curriculum. What should we do then? Teachers can only rush through the set curriculum when the school term is nearing its end or prior to examinations by finishing the textbooks perfunctorily. On the contrary, students are not taught what they really need to learn. The guiding role will then be taken up by parents if they can manage to help guide their children. Or if the parents can afford it, they will send their children to tutorial classes. If these are not possible, the students will have no alternative but to accept the reality. Thus the TOC is only wasting people's energy, without achieving the desired objectives. Apart from increasing the pressure on parents, it even imposes greater pressures on students. And this might undermine the learning desire of students. In my opinion, the TOC is completely out of touch with our actual needs and our realistic circumstances.

I hope the Secretary can understand that in many Hong Kong families, particularly families of the grassroots, both parents are required to go out to work and their working hours are usually very long. Even if they do not need to take a rest after returning home, they will need to do the household chores. After finishing the chores, how can they find so much time and energy to help their children to do revision and shoulder up other teaching tasks? Apparently, the TOC is perfect as far as its notion is concerned, just as many Honourable colleagues have said just now. However, the actual consequences brought about by the TOC are extremely serious and it has failed to improve students' academic achievement.

Furthermore, I have raised another issue in the last meeting held by the Legislative Council Panel on Education. As the questions under the TOC's scope of assessment are different from those normally adopted in Hong Kong, many teachers might find that they do not have the experience or time to set the questions. As a result, they will have to rely on the exercises published by publishers on the market. However, the Education Department (ED) has failed both in supervising the publication of these exercises and issuing guidelines to publishers. The publishers can only compile the exercises according to their own ideas. As a result, the exercises vary in terms of both contents and quality or they may appear to be incomplete, making it difficult for teachers and students to cope with. This is, of course, not a good phenomenon. As the questions and exercises differ greatly in terms of scope, it will not be easy for teachers to set questions themselves unless they can find more time. A few days ago, I talked to the Director of Education about this issue and she said teachers actually had the responsibility to do so by giving full play to their professionalism. I agree that teachers should do so but in putting the new system into practice, can teachers be given more time or more working time? Otherwise, how can they cope with the new system?

As regards "a waste of money", I once thought of illustrating it by way of citing on example in a meeting of the Panel on Education. Now I am going to share it with Members. Insofar as a particular school is concerned, a Primary One student under the TOC will need to pay $876.9 for his textbooks, whereas a Primary Five student outside the TOC will only need to pay $654.7 for his textbooks. In other words, the TOC does aggravate the students' financial burden in this area. But we have to bear in mind that this is for one school term only. The additional burden arising out of two school terms will be even greater. In fact, can some families afford this additional burden? Some parents told me that they had to make up for the expenses on textbooks for the allowance they were granted was less than the expenses. Under the current economic depression, if parents have more than one child or have several children, they will definitely find the expenses on textbooks a burden. Is it satisfactory then? Although it always requires money for pursuit of studies, but is it going to produce the most effective result? Even if finance is not a problem, is it going to produce the most effective result? The point is we do not see that there is any actual effectiveness. As the TOC is a sheer waste of "energy" and "money", what actual significance does it have?

I think it is a good thing that Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung has moved this motion although it may be a bit late. But I hope the relevant department or bureau can make a timely turn by re-considering how to make improvements before practical implementation. This is at least better than implementing the scheme in a forceful manner. I deeply share a remark made by Dr YEUNG Sum just now. Some teachers told me that they could only follow what the Department forced them to do but they were only perfunctorily handing in their "homework". What actually happened was entirely different and it could be said that they were running in just the opposite direction. What is the meaning of it all things turn out this way? If we really want our next generation to have good education and development, we must stop caring too much about face-saving. Instead, we must face the reality and admit our shortcomings as well as make improvement.

Thank you, Madam President.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, many Members who have spoken today are educators. I am not an educator. I only intend to speak on the basis of the fact that I am the parent of two children.

The TOC is of course a novelty. I have looked up reference in old information in considering this policy and found that the mode implemented by the Government at the moment is similar to that of information technology education. The Government started its study in 1992-93 and identified 20 so-called pilot schools for carrying out teaching practice in 1993-94. Upon the conclusion of the practice and review, the scheme was extended to other schools. The problem is that throughout the seven to eight years from 1992 till now, the two largest teachers' associations in Hong Kong have consistently raised objections to this scheme. However, the objections were raised against the problems arising out of the implementation of the scheme, rather than any serious defects with the scheme itself. For example, teachers should have originally found no difficulty in supervising a TOC class for there are only 20 students in each class. But the crux of the problem lies in the fact that teachers might need to make extra efforts in putting more new concepts into practice, such as filling in various kinds of forms. Such extra work will divert their attention during the teaching process. Therefore, should the crux of the problem lie in the TOC itself or other problems pertaining to our education system? It is only two days ago that we discussed about the number of students in each class and what we were talking about was 30-odd or 40 students. This is also most disappointing. We are now urging the Government to either stop implementing the TOC or suspend its implementation in Primary Five or Primary Six classes. I hope this will not be taken as a precedent. It is definitely not my wish to see that we will have to ask the Government to stop implementing information technology education four or five years later. In spite of the fact that information technology education has only started recently, some teachers have expressed that their workload has increased. The same problem may therefore appear again.

The Education Department (ED) should formulate a comprehensive strategy for managing a change. To start with, the ED should make teachers accept the change by convincing them that the whole system is an ideal system. Where is the crux of the problem at the moment? In order to lay a good foundation for basic education and to implement full-day schooling for primary schools by 2007, we have to reduce the number of students in each class at the same time. But it turned out that the Government has chosen to do things the other way round by increasing rather than reducing the number of students. This point has in fact been debated among us for a number of times.

I put forward a notion in a meeting held on Monday. I want to repeat it here for the Director of Education was not present at that time. As many students need to take school buses in order to reach their schools located in Kowloon Tong, I think the Government can consider following the proposal of reclaiming a piece of land in the Tolo Harbour for the purpose of building a Disneyland by carrying out reclamation somewhere in Hong Kong to form a site of considerable size for the construction of 10 schools or even build a swimming pool and a sports-ground along with the schools. We do have the resources to put this proposal into practice. With the 10 schools built on the same site, the Government can then tell parents that although the site is a bit remote, the schools located there run classes of 30 students only, whereas other schools may have 35 students in each class. In doing so, we can greatly shorten the time taken for achieving the goal of providing full-day schooling for primary schools. At the same time, the number of students in each class can also be reduced. With a reduced class size, schools will find it easier to persuade teachers to put in more new thinking on top of what they need to do originally, such as the TOC.

I think the most important task we must do now is to solve the two problems just mentioned. First, to implement full-day schooling for primary schools as early as possible; second, to reduce the number of students for each class as early as possible. These are the two most crucial problems for primary education. Actually, the Government is not reluctant to spend money. In fact, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa has undertaken to allocate $5 billion to solve the various problems pertaining to education immediately after he took office. But the problem we have is there is simply no land available for the construction of schools. We might need to identify other sites as many places in the urban areas might not be suitable for school construction. Can we consider the reclaimed land located in West Kowloon? Many factories located there might have been left vacant. We can also consider other similar places to carry out a complete redevelopment. The Government should give more thinking in this area in order to provide a sufficient number of schools and primary school places, full-day schooling places and reduce the size of primary classes as early as possible. Only in so doing can we solve some of the problems pertaining to the design of new curriculum. This is even applicable to information technology education too.

Madam President, in discussing some of the economic problems, I wonder if we are all aware that Hong Kong is completely lack of effective resources which can enable us to enhance our economic power or competitive edge. We have been repeatedly discussing one of the resources ─ manpower. How can we make use of our manpower to maintain our competitive edge? Basic education from the primary level up can serve as a very important start. I find that parents in Hong Kong are actually very disappointed with our existing education system. They are extremely worried that their children are receiving poor education. Madam President, the Government must make up its mind to build enough schools for our children as early as possible.

Thank you, Madam President.

MR JASPER TSANG (in Cantonese): Madam President, judging from the attitudes adopted by those Honourable colleagues who spoke just now, I believe this motion is going to be passed. This motion asks the Government to suspend the implementation of the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC). I want to clarify what sort of suspension is actually proposed. Just now, many of my colleagues said that the TOC embraced many good elements and its direction was correct too. According to a paper presented by the Government to the Legislative Council Panel on Education, the seven elements of the TOC are: setting clear targets for teaching and learning; including knowledge, thinking, skills and attitudes in the learning contents; using daily contexts in teaching and learning to facilitate the application of knowledge; promoting the five fundamental ways of learning, that is, reasoning, communicating, conceptualizing, inquiring and problem solving. We are definitely not proposing to suspend the implementation of these elements! In other words, are we going to ask teachers not to set clear targets for teaching and learning and not to promote reasoning, communicating, conceptualizing, inquiring and so on? I believe we have made no mistake. The crux of the problem is: Are these elements incorporated in the current TOC?

Just now, Dr YEUNG Sum has given the TOC a definition, which I think is the most accurate one. He stated clearly that, as far as the TOC is concerned, the core of the question is a very special set of assessment methods. In other words, teachers are required to assess their students individually before setting learning objectives for each of them so that they can be taught "according to their aptitude". However, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong pointed out that the TOC had, unfortunately, turned the curriculum into examinations. In my opinion, this is actually tantamount to going back to square one. Formerly known as the Targets and Target-Related Assessment (TTRA), the TOC has actually originated from the reformation of an assessment method. It is clearly stated in this paper that the Education Commission Report No. 4 (I wonder if the report was compiled at the time when you, Madam President, were acting as the Chairman of the Education Commission) had an extremely clear-cut objective in putting forward TTRA. At that time, people held the view that tests taken in local schools, under the influence of public examinations, had all become so-called "norm-referenced" examinations, which were meaningless as far as teaching and learning were concerned, and things should not turn out like that. But actually, the situation was not like that. How can we say that examinations taken in schools are "norm-referenced"? A student might fail this time for making 20 mistakes in dictation but he might make five mistakes less and gained a pass next time. He is then making a comparison with himself only. How can we say that he is comparing himself with other students? A student might get 65 scores this time and 68 scores the next. He should be very pleased with this because he has already made some progress. What he has done is absolutely a comparison with himself. This is why I think the "diagnosis" made at that time was flawed. Nevertheless, the notion derived from this foundation is quite good and, that is, internal assessment should help teachers to understand the characteristics of individual students as well as help students to rectify mistakes and make progress.

However, the TTRA was grounded right from the very beginning. Consequently, an unknown "genius" from the Government at that time performed a trick by turning the TTRA into the TOC, a reform of curriculum and teaching methods which proposed all these elements. These elements are actually appropriate for the occasion but I want to point out that they were unrelated to the target-related assessment originally proposed. Should we set clear-cut objectives for teaching and learning even if we make use of old books, old curriculum, teaching guidelines and textbooks adopted by primary schools a decade ago? The answer should be in the positive. Should we promote reasoning, communicating, conceptualizing and inquiring for teaching and learning? I believe no one will raise any objection. Even if we adopt the so-called traditional teaching methods and abandon the so-called TOC, these elements should still be considered as a principle that modern curriculum study must uphold. There is no reason for anyone to object to that. I think the "genius" at that time was talented in the sense that he had turned a scheme ─ TTRA ─ that no one knew how to handle at that time into a curriculum reform by introducing these elements. As a result, the teaching profession has found it impossible to raise any objection because all these elements are proper.

It is unfortunate that when the TOC was implemented, emphasis was put only on its form and label. As a result, all these elements were abandoned. If we ask teachers in schools what the TOC means to them, I wonder how many teachers can state the seven major points. As far as they could see, the TOC only means endless forms that need to be filled in and the so-called assessment. As Dr YEUNG Sum said just now, the Education Department had actually started making changes by saying that it did not matter even if teachers failed to act accordingly as those were not their main duties. I consider this change very positive as the filling of forms or making of personal assessment is not useful at all. Actually, when the scheme was implemented, many people had cast doubt on it. With 35 students in each class, we might end up with progress of 35 different speeds. Even if we make a general classification, each class may still has six or seven different standards. What should we do after making the assessment and classification? Miss CHOY So-yuk has left the Chamber. Just now, she compared education with "brewing medicine" and "taking medicine". Being teachers ourselves, we do not like this comparison very much. Perhaps doctors like it better. In our opinion, teaching students is just like teaching them how to do exercise, to practise Tai Ji or to practise Qi Gong so as to make their bodies grow stronger and stronger, instead of preparing medicine for them. The question is, after testing and classifying the students according to their ability, can teachers really achieve the objective of "selecting teaching strategies according to their potentials" in line with the TOC notion, given the existing designs and resources of schools? As the answer is in the negative, we can only do something to the form only.

I hope this debate will not make government representatives think that they must defend the TOC. Just now, many of my colleagues mentioned the fact that the TOC was not completely useless. The point is we must examine how to "preserve the good and remove the bad elements" before students can really be benefited. Thank you.

MISS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, concerning the intelligent and incisive notion put forward by Mr Jasper TSANG just now, I believe no one would object to the TOC as a teaching method. Nevertheless, in today's meeting, Honourable colleagues from the teaching profession have coincidentally asked for suspension. It is not yet Mr SZETO Wah's turn to speak. I wonder if he will ask for suspension when it comes to his turn to speak. Why has such a good notion failed to gain support from the teaching profession? I believe it is due to two reasons: The first reason is of course there is a shortage of manpower as far as teachers are concerned. Faced with a class of more than 30 students, teachers will find it extremely difficult to selecting teaching strategies in accordance with their individual potentials and design a teaching programme tailor-made for them. The second reason concerns our education system. As a matter of fact, if we cannot separate the issue from the problem pertaining to the allocation of places by means of public examination, for teachers, parents and students will definitely not give their support when it comes to the allocation of places.

Actually, it will be a great fun if a student and a teacher can lay down a set of learning objectives for the purpose of enabling the student to acquire or grasp certain skills. I believe even the teacher can gain a strong sense of satisfaction from it. It will be terrific if the teacher can witness the student progressing from below the acceptable level to catching up with others, from having a poor knowledge to having a good knowledge of certain subjects, and from uninterested to interested in learning. But if a teacher is required to teach each of the 30-odd students in his class this way, he will definitely get bored with it even if this is supposed to be fun. Now an immediate suspension has been advocated for the sake of allocation of places and assessment. This is because the calculation of scores will begin in the second term of Primary Five. Even if the TOC is such a good teaching/assessment method, no one will be interested in it if it cannot guarantee a primary student a place in a school which parents and primary school headmasters regard as a so-called "band one, band two" school and raise the school reputation.

The standard teacher/student ratio in Hong Kong at the moment is 32 students or sometimes more for each class. But after changing into full-day schooling, each class will have to take in at least two more students. As there is no such a system of repetition in schools at the moment, many students may not reach the required standard, with some of them being allowed to progress even without covering all the subjects they need to learn. This may not pose a big problem at the Primary One or Primary Two level. But when it comes to Primary Four or Primary Five, all the disparity will surface. At the same time, both teachers and students will get nervous with preparing for public examinations. But the fact is some students have failed to complete the full curriculum. As a result, their teachers are required to design a curriculum tailor-made for each of them. Should the teachers fail to cater for the needs of such a great number of students, some students will unavoidably be neglected. As a result, their performance will drop. In particular, teachers are now required to learn how to use computer and take up a lot of administrative and clerical work. They cannot find so much time to pay attention to individual students even if they are willing to do so. Under the teaching method of the TOC, many parents in Hong Kong might fail to play their role according to the wish of the Education Department (ED). Parents can be divided into two categories: the first category consists of those who possess the required education level but need to go out to work. They may not have time to assess the progress of their children with the teachers in order to help their children catch up with their learning. The other category consists of those who are basically below the required education level. We have frequently mentioned in this Council that 1.6 million people in Hong Kong are below the Secondary Three level. They do not even know how to land a job. How can we expect they can collaborate with teachers and employ the TOC method to teach their children? This is extremely questionable indeed.

It frequently appears to me that although the Government hopes to implement a good guiding principle such as the TOC, mother tongue teaching and so on, it has eventually adopted an approach smacks of the "will of officialdom", under which implementation is forced to commence even when the supporting services are not up and running. The result is that there will be a lack of support from teachers. The Administration has, on the one hand, failed to gather the teachers' front-line experience and wisdom for perfecting the scheme and, on the other, failed to gain the support of parents. The most unfortunate people are primary students, who will eventually become sacrifices. My child is studying at Primary Five this year. It is fortunate that he does not need to follow the TOC but it is really silly that he is required to do all those Academic Attainment Test exercises. I think my education level is not too low, but in spite of that, I do not know how to do those exercises. I find the ED changing the curriculum frequently and, as a result of which, students, parents and even schools have found it hard to cope with the changes. Today, Members have expressed their great support for this notion as well as putting forward many opinions regarding the detailed implementation and supporting facilities. I hope that the Government can listen to the views expressed by Honourable colleagues from the teaching profession and, after perfecting the whole system, consider a better way of implementation.

Although I agree to the motion proposed by Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung today, there is one point I wish to raise. Just now, some Honourable colleagues mentioned the point that the Oriental culture emphasizes competition for we will only "emulate those better than ourselves". This I beg to differ. Why should we teach our children to chase from behind by pretending that an electronic rabbit is running in front of them? Why can we not tell our children that learning is to face oneself and accept that all of us may have some shortcomings in certain aspects? Some children may be good at mathematics, but others may be good at languages. If we always think of "emulating those better than ourselves", what can we do if we fail to do so? Will we then develop a sense of inferiority and lose our interest in learning? I hope Members can teach children to face themselves and surpass themselves constantly, instead of competing with others. After all, I believe many of my Honourable colleagues who are working in tertiary institutions or from the teaching profession are aware that it is very lonely to pursue knowledge and that we should refrain from comparing with others. It is no big deal to come first in a class of 30-odd people. The most important thing is that one is always improving with each passing day.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am very grateful to the many Honourable Members who have given their invaluable advice on the topic of the Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC). Before I respond to the motion, I would like to introduce the concepts behind the introduction of the TOC and its main features.

Any complete school curriculum should embrace four essential components, that is, objectives, contents, teaching methods and assessment. In Hong Kong, the conventional primary school curriculum puts emphasis on the contents. Although contents to be learned by students in the classroom are listed out, there are no clearly defined learning objectives, nor are there learning methods which serve to inspire the thinking of the students. The instruction mode is mainly teacher-centred.

Education should tie in with the changes of the times and it should renew and improve itself constantly. The implementation of the TOC is precisely one such important measure geared towards the renewal and improvement of curriculum development. The aims of the curriculum are to enhance the learning capabilities of the student and promote their intellectual development. The new elements introduced to the curriculum include the following:

- teaching and learning should be done according to clearly defined objectives with emphasis put on the instilling of knowledge, training of skills, and the inculcation of the right attitudes and values;

- the enhancement of training in respect of the five basic skills of reasoning, communication, conceptualizing, investigation and problem-solving, and the training of thinking skills on a higher plane as a way to raise the capabilities of self-learning;

- encouragement should be given to teachers to adopt a student-centred instruction mode; and

- equal emphasis should be placed on the objectives and the process of learning.

These components have been generally accepted by the education sector. In terms of classroom practice, take the subject of Chinese Language as an example, while the focus of teaching used to fall on reading and writing, attention is now paid to the development of the four basic skills of listening, speaking, reading and writing in the students. Another example is the subject of English Language where real-life situations are incorporated into the teaching process, so that students can make use of the grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary they learn from textbooks and use them flexibly in their daily lives. The effects of the TOC are thus obvious.

As a matter of fact, a research report compiled by the University of Hong Kong in 1996 has affirmed the concepts behind the TOC. The research findings show:

- about 70% of teachers think that after the introduction of the TOC, there has been an increase in the students' interest in learning; there has been a likewise growth in teacher-student interaction and interaction among students, so that co-operative learning has increased;

- about 60% of the teachers think that the self-confidence of students and their initiative in learning have been boosted;

- more than 50% of the teachers think the skills of the students have increased; and

- about 60% of the school principals and teachers say that communication between teachers, their autonomy and co-operative culture have increased.

A follow-up study made by the University of Hong Kong in 1998 showed that from the response made by 4 800 teachers, a very similar result was found. Recently, the Education Department (ED) consulted the principals and teachers of all the primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong on the future direction of development for the TOC. Results of the findings show that there is more than 80% support for each of the major components of the TOC.

The TOC was formally launched by the ED since the academic year 1995-96. Currently, the TOC covers the subjects of Chinese, English and Mathematics in Primary Four and it will be extended to Primary Five in the school year 1999-2000 and to Primary Six in 2000-01. As I have said, the introduction of the TOC is to tie in with the changes of the times and as measures to renew and improve the school curriculum. If the implementation of the TOC in September this year in Primary Five is suspended, then it will certainly pose an obstacle to the reform of the primary school curriculum.

From a practical perspective, the suspension of the TOC in Primary Five is also rather difficult. As there are close to 90% of schools practising the TOC currently, and if it is suspended, this will confuse the schools, teachers as well as the students for they will be at a loss as to choosing a substitute. This will mean that the teachers must abandon the TOC teaching methodologies which they are finding increasingly familiar, and students have to receive instruction under the former mode which emphasizes rote learning and is book-centred and teacher-centred. Apparently, this will not do any good both to teaching and learning.

The TOC implemented by the ED also includes the component of target oriented assessment. On the one hand it enables teachers to fully grasp students' progress in learning, so that teaching can be adjusted to suit the needs of students. On the other hand, parents can understand the performance of their children in learning, their progress, strengths and weaknesses, and thereby tie in with education in schools. I am aware that the education sector has a lot to say on target oriented assessment, including heavy workloads in assessment, more work for teachers, and the inability of teachers and parents to make use of the assessment results effectively to improve the learning of students. At the same time, I also understand that schools and parents are worried because the Government has not yet defined the relationship between target oriented assessment and the secondary school places allocation scheme.

The ED has been addressing these problems for a long time and providing school-based training for teachers. Assistance is also given to schools and teachers to compile school-based curriculum and to facilitate schools in sharing their TOC experience with others. Besides, the ED is reshuffling and simplifying the main points in the learning assessment in light of the feedback received. We are now considering other improvement proposals such as:

- simplifying the records and reports of target oriented assessment, including encouraging teachers to use more informal assessment (such as observations) to replace frequent formal assessment; the development of a computer system is almost complete, it will help teachers to record, report and analyse students' learning performance and assessment results so that the workload of the teachers can be reduced;

- distributing leaflets on how to make assessments simpler and make good use of assessment results; briefings will be organized in February to explain to parents and teachers how the assessment results can be used to help students make better progress;

- apart from conducting school visits, teacher training and providing reference materials to schools, we shall also collect research findings and information on the better practical experience of some schools and put them in the web sites or other media and send them to schools so that schools can make use of assessment results effectively while carrying out teaching assessment, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of teaching;

- define clearly the relationship between target oriented assessment and the secondary school places allocation scheme. The initial proposal of the ED is to let schools choose to include not more than 20% of the coursework grades into the three assessment gradings submitted in Primary Five and Primary Six for the purpose of the secondary school places allocation scheme. This practice will give a full reflection of the performance of the students in achieving the various learning objectives. To give the schools the greatest flexibility, schools may also choose not to count the coursework grades.

We have just finished consulting all the schools in the territory on these proposals. Based on the views gathered, we shall come up with some decision shortly on how to further improve on the target oriented assessment.

In conclusion, curriculum development is a never-ending process of reforms. The implementation of the TOC by the ED is to rectify and correct past inadequacies, strengthen the training of high-level thinking, and to incorporate knowledge into real-life situations so that students can rise to the challenges of the 21st century. I wish to stress that the concepts of the TOC have all been universally affirmed by people in the field of education. There remains only the part on assessment which cannot bring its originally intended effects into full play due to various reasons. For this the ED is working hard at modifying the implementation strategies in the hope that the problems will be resolved one by one. Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung in his speech has clarified what he meant by suspension. He hopes that schools will be given the choice to decide whether or not to take part in the TOC and that the target oriented assessment should be delinked from secondary school places allocation. As for the first point, schools may consider different objective standards and settings and take on the TOC at different paces. As for the relationship between target oriented assessment and the secondary school places allocation, what the ED has in mind is to allow the schools to have the greatest flexibility on this issue. They can decide to count coursework grades towards the grades submitted to the ED for the purpose of secondary school places allocation, but the coursework grades so counted may not exceed 20% of the total.

I am very pleased that I do not have to shore up defence for the TOC because many of the Honourable Members who have spoken have affirmed the concepts behind the TOC. And their explanations may be clearer than mine. They have pointed out many of the inadequacies in the details of its implementation, especially on assessment. The ED will surely learn from past experience and refer to the results of the recent consultation among the schools and also the views put forward by Honourable Members in this debate before it will proceed to make a review of the TOC. I expect to see the implementation of the improved proposals before the beginning of the coming school year and I also earnestly hope that it will receive the support of the education sector as well as Honourable Members.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, you may now reply. You have two minutes 34 seconds out of your original time.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am very grateful to the 10-odd Members who spoke in support of my motion. They have put forward a lot of intelligent and incisive opinions, thus making the contents of this motion debate even richer.

However, the response made by the Secretary just now has caused me deep in regrets. This is because he emphasized strongly in his response that the Government would continue to implement the TOC. Although the TOC is good in concept, we consider there is a need to conduct a comprehensive review. The Secretary stated that the Government had issued many questionnaires in connection with the TOC and the majority of the responses were in support of it. But as one Member pointed out earlier, these questionnaires had considerable leading elements. I hope the Education Department can really conduct a review in a comprehensive and serious manner.

Secondly, regarding the remark I made earlier in relation to the difficulties encountered in making assessment, the Secretary simply responded that the assessment could be simplified. And as regards the problems pertaining to secondary school places allocation mentioned by me, he responded that he could simply abolish the measure. This has given people an impression that the Government is only "taking a stop-gap measure". It is precisely due to the short-sightedness of the Government that our education problems are so serious. In moving this motion today, I earnestly hope that the Administration can conduct a comprehensive, in-depth and fair review. This is very important indeed.

For the last point, I am really surprised that someone has questioned whether a suspension of the TOC would hinder the progress of the whole curriculum. Actually, even if we decide to suspend the implementation of the TOC in Primary Five classes this year, schools will still be allowed to decide whether or not to continue implementing the TOC according to their own needs. Actually, they can choose not to continue with the scheme if they consider there is no such a need. Actually, they are entirely free to make their own decisions. How can one say that this will make the schools at a loss as to where to go and what to do? Moreover, it is definitely not the case that we will have no curriculum to rely on if there is no TOC. This is absolutely not the case.

Finally, I would like to thank Members once again for their support. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

NEXT MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 27 January 1999. Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Nine o'clock.

Annex I

Translation written answer by the Secretary for Trade and Industry to Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong's supplementary question to Question 2

If a Hong Kong resident were detained or imprisoned on the Mainland, his relatives and friends can turn to the Immigration Department for assistance. Actual assistance that the Department can provide includes notifying the immediate relatives of the arrest of the Hong Kong resident concerned. Where necessary, Re-entry Permit or other Hong Kong travel documents will be issued immediately to the relatives concerned. The Security Bureau will co-ordinate the actions of the other government departments on a need basis so as to provide all possible assistance to the relatives of the Hong Kong resident detained. The Constitutional Affairs Bureau is responsible for referring the relatives' request for assistance and the inquiries thereafter to the relevant organizations on the Mainland, which include the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office under the State Council and other relevant central and provincial/municipal organizations. The Office of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Beijing can provide information to facilitate people asking for assistance to seek assistance on the Mainland through proper channels.

In fact, in handling requests for assistance regarding the detention of Hong Kong residents in places outside Hong Kong, the Government of the Special Administrative Region will strictly abide by the principle of not interfering with the judicial procedures and statutes of places outside Hong Kong, regardless of whether the incident takes place on the Mainland or in a foreign country.

Annex II

LIFTS AND ESCALATORS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands

Annex II

LIFTS AND ESCALATORS (SAFETY) (AMENDMENT) BILL 1998

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands

Clause

Amendment Proposed

Clause	Amendment Proposed
2	(a) By adding before paragraph (a) -
	"(aa) in the definition of "governor" by adding "overspeed" before "governor";".
	(b) By adding before paragraph (b) -
	"(ba) in the definition of "safety equipment", by adding "overspeed" before "governor" where it twice appears;".
	(c) In paragraph (c) by adding before the definition of "Secretary" -
	""registered professional engineer" (註冊專業工程師) means a person whose name is currently entered in the register established under section 7 of the Engineers Registration Ordinance (Cap. 409);".
New	By adding -
	"2A. Application
	Section 3(1)(a) is amended by adding -
	"(va) a mechanized vehicle parking system -
	(A) which does not pass through any floor; and
	(B) the height of travel of which does not exceed 3.5 m;".".
6	In proposed section 8 -
	(a) in subsection (1), by deleting "("the disciplinary board")";
	(b) by adding -
	"(10) In this section, "the disciplinary board" (紀律審裁委員會) means a board appointed under subsection (1).".
7	(a) By deleting paragraph (b) and substituting -
	"(b) in subsection (1)(a), by repealing everything after "who are" and substituting "registered professional engineers within the discipline of mechanical or building services engineering and are nominated by that Institution for appointment under this paragraph;".
	(b) By adding -
	"(ba) in subsection (1)(b), by repealing everything after "who are" and substituting "registered professional engineers within the discipline of electrical or electronic engineering and are nominated by that Institution for appointment under this paragraph;".
11	In proposed section 11E -
	(a) in subsection (1), by deleting "("the disciplinary board")";
	(b) by adding -
	"(10) In this section, "the disciplinary board" (紀律審裁委員會) means a board appointed under subsection (1).".
14	In proposed section 11J(1)(a)(iii) by deleting "制超".
17	By adding -
	"(aa) in subsection (2)(a), by repealing everything after "persons" and substituting "whose names are included in the list of engineers kept under section 3(2)(b) of the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123);";
	(ab) in subsection (2)(b), by repealing everything after "who are" and substituting "registered professional engineers within the discipline of electrical or electronic engineering; and";
	(ac) in subsection (2)(c), by repealing everything after "who are" and substituting "registered professional engineers within the discipline of mechanical or building services engineering.";".
28	By adding before paragraph (a) -
	"(aa) in subsection (3), by repealing "carries out" and substituting "proposes to carry out";".
29	In proposed section 27I(3) by deleting "carries out" and substituting "proposes to carry out".
New	By adding -
	"31A. Prohibition of carrying out of lift works or escalator works by unauthorized persons
	Section 29A(4) is amended by repealing "mechanical engineering, or electrical or electronic engineering," where it twice appears and substituting "mechanical or electrical or electronic or building services engineering,".
33	By adding -
	"(c) in subsection (3), by repealing "$60,000" and substituting "$120,000".".
37	In proposed section 51 -
	(a) in subsection (5)(b) by deleting "90 days and 12 months respectively" and substituting "12 months";
	(b) in subsection (6) by deleting "90 days" where it twice appears and substituting "12 months".