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 MRS ANSON CHAN, J.P.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

THE HONOURABLE DONALD TSANG YAM-KUEN, J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY

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

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 KWONG KI-CHI, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING
MISS DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY

MR LAM WOON-KWONG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

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

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

MISS YVONNE CHOI YING-PIK, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

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

MR RAY CHAN YUM-MOU, 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.
Air Pollution Control (Vehicle Design Standards) (Emission) (Amendment) Regulation 1999	121/99
Film Censorship (Amendment) Ordinance 1999 (9 of 1999) (Commencement) Notice 1999	122/99

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 supplementaries, 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.

After I have called upon a Member to ask a main question, other Members who wish to ask supplementary questions to this question please indicate their wish by pressing the "Request-to-Speak" buttons in front of their seats.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First question.

Competitive Environment of Broadband Conveyance Services Market

1. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding the competitive environment of the broadband conveyance services (BCS) market in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the current number of BCS providers; whether it has assessed if there is any anti-competitive behaviour such as predatory pricing in the market; and the measures it will take to ensure fair competition in the market;

(b) whether it will re-examine its policy of non-intervention towards Type II BCS interconnection, and consider introducing legislative measures to require Fixed Telecommunication Network Services (FTNS) licensees to permit, on a non-discriminatory basis, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to share their voice lines in providing BCS; and

(c) of the measures it will take to ensure equal access to the cable TV network of the Hong Kong Cable Television Limited HKCTV by ISPs affiliated to the company and other ISPs in providing BCS?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President,

(a) There are at present four BCS providers. These are the four FTNS licensees, namely, Hong Kong Telephone Company Limited (HKTC), Hutchison Communications Limited, New T&T Hong Kong Limited and New World Telephone Limited.

There is no evidence of anti-competitive practices by the four FTNS licensees in the BCS market. However, the Telecommunications Authority (TA) has recently received a complaint from the Hong Kong Internet Service Providers Association about anti-competitive pricing of the broadband Internet access service provided by Hong Kong Telecom IMS Limited (HKIMS) using HKTC's BCS. The TA is investigating this complaint and will publish his findings when the investigation is completed within the next couple of months.

The FTNS licences issued under the Telecommunication Ordinance include conditions safeguarding fair competition in the market. If a licensee is found to be in breach of the licence conditions, the TA may issue a direction to the licensee requiring it to stop the breach. If the licensee continues to breach the licence conditions, the TA may impose a financial penalty, or suspend or revoke the licence.

In the Telecommunication (Amendment) Bill 1999, which I introduced into this Council on 12 May 1999, we propose to incorporate the competition safeguards currently included in the licences into the primary legislation and seek to increase substantially the maximum level of penalty which may be imposed for breaches of a licence condition, a direction made by the TA or a provision of the Telecommunication Ordinance.

(b) It is the TA's policy to encourage commercial negotiations for interconnection terms, both for narrowband and broadband services. Should such negotiations fail, the TA has powers under the Telecommunication Ordinance to intervene. However, in a policy statement issued in July 1997, the TA has clarified that he will not consider making a determination on Type II interconnection (that is, interconnection to the customer access network of another network operator) for certain types of infrastructure for BCS within three years of introduction of the services. The infrastructure concerned includes optical fibres and copper cables newly installed for broadband services. The reason for making that statement is that the TA recognizes that investment in a broadband network is a risky investment because of the uncertainty in future demand. To entertain requests for Type II interconnection from its competitors immediately after an operator has decided to invest substantial sums in the new broadband infrastructure would mean that the operator which installs the infrastructure is bearing the full risks, with its competitors seeking interconnection only when customer demand exists. This does not appear to the TA to be an equitable arrangement and would seriously undermine the commercial incentive for the operator to take the commercial risk of making an investment in the infrastructure for the broadband services.

To take account of recent developments in the BCS market, the TA intends to review his policy regarding interconnection of broadband networks. He is aiming to issue a consultation paper within the next couple of months to invite comments from the industry and interested parties in the community on the issues relating to the interconnection of broadband networks, including Type II interconnection.

(c) The Government has recently announced its policy that, subject to satisfactory commitments from HKCTV on network rollout and the return of the frequencies temporarily allocated for use by the company's Microwave Multipoint Distribution System, the Government will issue a FTNS licence to HKCTV for the provision of telecommunication services using cable modem technology. This licence, like other FTNS licences, will include interconnection requirements to enable other network operators and service providers to access their customers through the broadband network of HKCTV. The principles for such broadband interconnection will be covered in the consultation exercise to which I refer in part (b) of my reply.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, it has been mentioned in part (b) of the main reply that a review will be carried out within the next couple of months. In the 1998 review of telecommunications, the scope of review was first defined by the Government before public comments were invited. Would the Government adopt the same approach this time? As the Government intends to issue non-wireline-based FTNS licences, will the scope of review cover the possible impact arising from this area?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, we are now considering to include the following items in the review: the technical feasibility in respect of opening up the networks for interconnection; links between users; whether it is necessary to regulate the technical standards so as to facilitate interconnection; whether it is necessary to modify the TA's policy statement on broadband interconnection made in 1997; the pricing criteria; whether it is necessary to regulate the dominant market players; and the issue concerning universal services. We hope that these items will be covered in the consultation paper published within the next couple of months. We will, as always, allow a consultation period of two to three months for the industry and interested parties to express their views once the paper is published. After collecting the views, we will decide whether a second round of consultation is needed before the formulation of our policy.

MR HOWARD YOUNG: Madam President, in his reply, the Secretary said that there was no evidence of anti-competitive practices. However, I note that when the Honourable SIN Chung-kai asked the question he had mentioned such things as predatory pricing. I believe that anti-competitive behaviour also includes, apart from predatory pricing, adopting measures such as forming cartels or fixing prices so that they go up or down in the manner which those few companies have been accused of recently. Can the Secretary confirm that when he said that there was no evidence of anti-competitive behaviour, the other types of measures that I mentioned were also included?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING: Madam President, I can confirm that.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, as consumers, we are dissatisfied with the situation that both the broadband and narrowband Internet markets are being monopolized by Hongkong Telecom (HKT). Recently, its market share has expanded to more than 50% as a result of its acquisition of Starnet with the Government's approval. My supplementary question is: Under such circumstances, are consumers being compelled to reluctantly accept a monopolized market, and low-quality but highly priced services? How would the Government deal with this problem?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, market share is only one of the considerations. So, we cannot accuse a certain company of anti-competitive practices simply because of its market share.

MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Madam President, fair competition is a pivotal factor in the development of information technology. Compared with the coverage and capacity of many neighbouring countries or big companies, the capacity of broadband networks in Hong Kong is on the low side. Now the Secretary is telling us that the Government has to go through consultation and administrative procedures before policies on anti-trust or fair competition can be formulated. Why is it that the Cyberport project is conducted so efficiently while the Government is so sluggish in introducing competition?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, I wonder if Mr LEE has any evidence to show that the coverage of broadband networks in Hong Kong is low. As far as the broadband networks of the four FTNS operators are concerned, they have access almost to all commercial buildings. As regards residential premises, 75% of them are under the coverage of HKTC. Compared with many advanced places in the world, the coverage in Hong Kong can be regarded as high.

MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): My question is about the capacity of broadband networks.

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the utilization rate is determined by the market.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, how many complaints about the broadband network service market were received by the TA in the past? What were these complaints and what was the Government's response?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the TA has received one complaint so far and it is on the subject I mentioned in the main reply.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (b) of the main reply, it is said that Type II interconnection for BCS within the first three years of introduction of the services will not be considered as it is not equitable to investors. Can the Secretary tell us the arrangement after the first three years?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, we are not saying that there will not be any Type II interconnection. Rather, we are saying that the TA will not make a determination on such. In other words, the operators can make such commercial arrangement at the present stage. But it is up to them to decide whether or not to make such arrangement. However, as I have said in the main reply, issues to be covered in the consultation paper to be published within the next couple of months will include a review as to whether the statement made by the TA in 1997 should be modified.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (b) of his main reply, the Secretary said that should negotiations between operators fail, the TA has powers under the Telecommunication Ordinance to intervene. Has the TA ever tried to impose any intervention in the past? On what basis was intervention imposed?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, as I have said in part (b) of the main reply, the TA has clarified in a policy statement issued in July 1997 that he will not consider making a determination on Type II interconnection for BCS.

MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary mentioned in part (b) of the main reply that no determination on Type II interconnection would be made within three years. Of course, the Secretary has already explained this point. But I would like to ask whether the three-year period is calculated on basis of the investment characteristics of the industry. Is it because all or half of the capital outlay of such investments can generally be recovered within three years that the standard has been set at three years?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the principal consideration is the substantial sums invested. To our understanding, HKIMS has made an investment of about $10 billion in local rollout, mainly on broadband networks, over the past three or four years. In view of the substantial investment involved, it is necessary that the overall arrangement is made in such a way that they have confidence in the investment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last supplementary question.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government mentioned in part (c) of the main reply that the HKCTV must return the microwave frequencies. Is it true that it will be issued with a FTNS licence on condition it has consented to the return of the frequencies? And failing an agreement, will the company still be issued with the licence as previously determined?

SECRETARY FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BROADCASTING (in Cantonese): Madam President, the return of the Microwave Multipoint Distribution System frequencies is one of the conditions for the issue of licence to HKCTV.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.

Application for Admission to Residential Care Homes for the Elderly

2. MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding applications by elderly persons for admission to residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs), will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the respective numbers of private RCHEs with licences or certificates of exemption which are currently participating in the Bought Place Scheme (BPS) or the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme (EBPS), and the respective numbers of places that the Government has bought from the private RCHEs under the two schemes;

(b) the respective occupancy rates of the subvented RCHEs and the private RCHEs participating in the BPS or the EBPS at present, and the respective waiting times for admission to these institutions; and

(c) given that there are differences among the subvented RCHEs and the private RCHEs participating in the BPS or the EBPS in terms of their staffing levels and facilities, of the reasons for its plan to withdraw the elderly's right to select their preferred RCHEs, and whether it has assessed if this will contravene the principle of respecting the elderly as advocated by the Administration?

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

(a) In 1998-99, the Government purchased about 1 900 care places from 59 private RCHEs under the BPS and the EBPS. Forty-two of these RCHEs are licensed. Another four have basically met the licensing requirements and the Social Welfare Department is processing their licence applications. The remaining 13 already have specific plans to carry out improvement works on the premises and they should be able to meet the licensing requirements within this financial year.

(b) In April 1999, the occupancy rate was 96% for subvented RCHEs and 95% for care places purchased from private RCHEs. The average waiting time for admission to subvented RCHEs was 29 months and nine months for care places purchased from private RCHEs.

(c) At present, when applying for admission to RCHEs, an elderly person can express their personal preferences, including applying for a care place in a subvented home or a private RCHE participating in the BPS, the location of the RCHE, the religious background of the operating agency and the diet provided. Waiting time varies significantly depending on the elderly's choices. With more subsided care places coming on-stream in the past six months, the average waiting time has shortened significantly. However, due to their choices, some elderly persons who have been on the waiting list for some time have yet to be admitted. We consider the existing application system too complicated. Some elderly people might not be aware of the implications on the waiting time when making their choices for residential homes. In view of this, we intend to rationalize the options in the application system, and simplify the choices that can be exercised by the applicants, including the choice between subvented RCHE and BPS places.

With the financial assistance provided through the EBPS, the service quality of participating private RCHEs has improved significantly. We understand that elderly people admitted into these homes, and their family members are generally satisfied with the service quality. The Social Welfare Department is conducting detailed briefings and arranging familiarization visits for caseworkers and the elderly so that they can gain first-hand knowledge of the quality of the private RCHEs taking part in the BPS. The Social Welfare Department will implement the rationalized admission system after extensive consultation.

MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in reply to part (c) of my question, the Secretary has not directly answered my question on "the reasons for" and "whether it has" plans to withdraw the elderly's right to select their preferred RCHEs. She only said that the Administration intended to rationalize the options in the application system, and simplify the choices that can be exercised by the applicants. I hope the Secretary can give me a direct answer, unless rationalizing the options means that the elderly's rights to select their preferred RCHEs will be withdrawn.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, under the existing system, we have no intention to take away the right of the elderly in selecting their preferred homes. They can still choose to apply for a place in subvented homes or private homes under the BPS or the EBPS. We have proposed to rationalize the application system because of the differences in the waiting time for admission to RCHEs in different locations or of different religious background. Some elderly persons may prefer the homes of a particular religious background but they may not be aware that the waiting time will be longer due to the fact that there are only very few such care places in certain districts. Therefore, we hope to simply the options and let the elderly persons know that if they want to shorten the waiting time, they may wish to choose other RCHEs.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAW Chi-kwong, has the Secretary answered your supplementary question?

MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Yes, I just want to wait for a second turn.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fine.

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, what is the standard of the private care places bought by the Government? Furthermore, in what way are they different from care places in subvented homes?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, with the introduction of the new BPS known as the EBPS, care places bought by the Government under the EBPS are categorized as "Improved A" and "Improved A2". Such care places are of a higher standard than in the past. Private homes under the EBPS are different from subvented homes in that subvented homes are more spacious and have different staffing level, but the staffing level of private homes of A1 standard is similar to that of subvented homes. We hope to encourage more private homes to upgrade their service to A1 standard, so that we can purchase more high quality places for the elderly.

DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Madam President, will the Administration consider requesting private RCHEs under the BPS and EBPS to obtain licences within a certain period of time, and stop buying places from them if they fail to do so? This can better ensure the quality of the elderly's living environment.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, this is already our general arrangement presently. Private homes under the BPS and EBPS are required to obtain licences within six months. Before they do so, 5% will be deducted from the purchase fee, therefore the private homes have got an incentive to get their licences as quickly as possible.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (b) of her reply, the Secretary mentioned that the average waiting time was 29 months and nine months respectively for admission to subvented homes and private homes. However, in part (c) of her reply, she also said that with more subsidized care places coming on-stream in the past six-months, the average waiting time had shortened significantly. How long is the actual waiting time for admission to subvented RCHEs? And how long is the waiting time for admission to private RCHEs under the BPS?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the answer given in part (b) of my reply actually reflects the current situation. In the past, the waiting time used to be 33 months for subvented RCHEs and over 10 months for RCHEs under the BPS. With the provision of more subvented places and bought places from private homes, we have been able to shorten the waiting time to 29 months and nine months respectively.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in answering the question on the rationalization of options in the application system for admission to RCHEs, the Secretary said that the elderly's rights to select their preferred RCHEs have not been withdrawn. However, I would like to clarify one point, and that is, whether the options available to the elderly will be reduced as a result, and by how much will the waiting time be shortened?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, at present, elderly people are offered many options, but the waiting time will also be lengthened if too many options are offered. For example, as regards the diet, some elderly persons may prefer vegetarian meals, so we hope that in the future, even RCHEs which do not normally provide vegetarian meals will make arrangements to cater for the individual need. Furthermore, some elderly persons may opt for care places at RCHEs of a certain religious background. So, they have to understand that if there are special preferences in respect of diet, religious background and location, then the waiting time will also be longer. We should try our best to explain to the elderly and their families that if they have many preferences and hope to find a RCHE which can meet all their requirements, then they may have to wait a little bit longer; but if they are willing to make some compromises, then the waiting time will also be shortened.

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

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the other part of my supplementary question is, if the rationalization of options were really put into practice, by how much will the waiting time be shortened?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is difficult to say at the moment whether the waiting time will be shortened if the options in the application system were rationalized. One of the most significant factor is the choice of location because the waiting time for RCHEs located in the New Territories and urban area is vastly different. If the elderly persons applied for a place in the New Territories area, the waiting time will be shorter, but if they opted for a place in the urban area, then the waiting time will be longer. Similarly, elderly persons who apply for a place in private homes will only have to wait nine months, but those who opt for subvented homes will have to wait 29 months. It all really depends on the individual need of the elderly persons, and we cannot make any choices for them. However, we must let them know that different choices will lead to different consequences.

MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, insofar as subvented homes are concerned, what is the average level of subvention for each elderly person? And for care places under the BPS, how much is the level of subvention for each elderly person?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, as regards subvented homes, the Government spends about $8,700, excluding land premium, on each elderly person because subvented RCHEs are built mainly on government sites, and the Government does not charge any construction costs or rents. There are different costs for care places under the BPS. For places under the EBPS, the cost ranges from $7,000 to $8,000, with a lower cost for the places in the New Territories and a higher one for those in the urban area. Furthermore, the costs also depend on the type of care places; for places under the BPS, it is $6,000 for those in the New Territories area and $7,700 for those in the urban area. It can be seen that there are differences in the level of subvention made by the Government for different types of homes.

MR HO SAI-CHU (in Cantonese): Madam President, we can see that if more places are bought from private RCHEs, the waiting time will be shorter, and from what the Secretary just told us, it is also less costly to house the elderly in private homes. Under such circumstances, what is the general timeframe for a private RCHE from registration to becoming qualified? How long will the Government take to approve their application? Is there any way to shorten the process?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, generally speaking, if the service quality and staffing level of private RCHEs are up to standard, then arrangements for buying places can be made within a few months. However, it will also depend on whether the RCHEs are willing to sell their places to us, for not every RCHE may be willing to do so.

MR FUNG CHI-KIN (in Cantonese): Madam President, although the Secretary explained that elderly persons have many choices, the facts show that the occupancy rate for different RCHEs is actually fairly similar at around 95% or 96%. May I ask the Secretary whether the Administration knows how many elderly persons there are on the waiting list, and the applications for admission to different types of homes are being registered separately?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, at present, there are about 17 000 elderly persons on the waiting list for admission to subvented homes or private homes under the BPS. All applications are being processed centrally and not handled separately.

DR LUI MING-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, since the population of Hong Kong is ageing very rapidly, there will be greater demands for elderly services. However, it is very difficult to identify suitable sites in Hong Kong for building RCHEs and it is also very costly to buy places. Has the Administration considered purchasing or renting sites on the Mainland for building RCHEs?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, under the existing Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance, we can only regulate RCHEs in the Hong Kong territory, but not those which are outside Hong Kong. Our present subvention scheme and BPS are applicable only to RCHEs in Hong Kong, and we have never considered extending such efforts to places outside Hong Kong.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (b) of the Administration's main reply, it was mentioned that the waiting periods for admission to subvented RCHEs and private RCHEs under the BPS are 29 months and nine months respectively, but I find this still unsatisfactory. What is the targeted waiting time for these two types of homes in the next few years, and by how much should the waiting time be shortened?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, we anticipate that by the year 2002, that is, four years from now, an additional 7 980 care places of different types will be available. I believe that by then, the waiting time will be substantially reduced, and corresponding construction plans will also be in place. Furthermore, we have also allocated funds to proceed with the BPS. We hope that by 2002, the waiting time for admission to RCHEs will be very much shortened.

MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has now answered my question on by how much the expected waiting time will be shortened.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): We cannot work out by how much will the waiting time be shortened, but it will definitely be much shorter than at present.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last supplementary question.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, it was mentioned in part (a) of the Administration's reply that about 1 900 care places were bought from private RCHEs. Which department is responsible for the allocation of care places, and what is the "turnover" annually?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, all arrangements are made by the Social Welfare Department. As regards each year's ...... Madam President, could you please repeat the supplementary question?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr TANG, please repeat your question to make it clearer.

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): My question is: If 1 900 care places are made available each year, how many places will be allocated to elderly persons?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, did you catch the supplementary question?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): To my understanding, the supplementary question is on how many care places will be vacated. This really has to depend on the timing of the vacation. Generally speaking, the RCHEs usually has a vacancy rate of about 10% to 20%.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The third question.

Professional Conduct of the Provisional Liquidator of Peregrine

3. MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in its Statement made upon the completion of the investigation into the professional conduct of the Provisional Liquidator of Peregrine Investments Holdings Limited (Peregrine), the Council of the Hong Kong Society of Accountants (Council of the HKSA) reprimanded the Provisional Liquidator for failing to disclose its audit relationship with the purchaser in handling a transaction concerning the sale of the business of Peregrine. The Statement also pointed out that an affidavit submitted by the Provisional Liquidator to the Court in the application for sanction to sell the business could have been more clearly drafted. However, the Statement did not offer any explanation for the acts of the Provisional Liquidator, nor did it provide an assessment of the impact brought about by the case, or respond to the other queries raised by the Court in respect of the case. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it has examined if the way the Council of the HKSA handled the case was in accordance with the requirement of the law; if the Administration considers it to be so, the reasons for it; if it considers otherwise, of the follow-up actions to be taken;

(b) it has assessed if the acts of the Provisional Liquidator were in breach of the professional conduct, and their impact on the community; and

(c) it has assessed if the Provisional Liquidator was in breach of the law in the course of liquidation, when he failed to faithfully declare its interest to the Court, or submitted an incomplete or incorrect affidavit to the Court?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Chinese): Madam President, with regard to the questions raised by the Honourable CHEUNG Man-kwong, my reply is as follows:

(a) The HKSA is established under the Professional Accountants Ordinance (Cap. 50). One of the Society's objects as specified in the law is to regulate the practice of the accountancy profession. The law provides the Council of the HKSA with a wide range of powers, for example, to issue statements of professional ethics, and to set up the Investigation Committee and the Disciplinary Committee. The aim of the legislation is to establish the HKSA and vest in it powers to regulate the practice of professional accountants.

In respect of the Peregrine case, first, the relevant judge has, in his judgment, already commented on the Provisional Liquidators' act of failing to disclose to the Court their interest in the case. Subsequently, the HKSA, in exercise of its powers under the law, has taken follow-up action by instigating an investigation against the Provisional Liquidators and thereafter issuing a public reprimand against them. In fact, both the Court and the creditors have agreed to allow the Provisional Liquidators to continue to handle the liquidation case.

Hence, throughout the process, I do not see any reason as to why the Government needs to pinpoint on this particular case by examining whether the way the Council of the HKSA handled the case was in accordance with the requirement of the law.

(b) The judge has already given his comment in his judgment on whether the acts of the Provisional Liquidators were in breach of professional conduct. In addition, the Council of the HKSA has instigated an investigation by exercising its powers under the Professional Accountants Ordinance. The HKSA had to assess the impact of the case on other people before making its decision on what disciplinary action to be taken. Since the HKSA and the Court have made their views known, there is no need for the Government to make its own separate assessment.

(c) The Provisional Liquidators of the case in question were appointed by the Court under section 193 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32). The provision specifies that "where a liquidator is provisionally appointed by the court, the court may limit and restrict his powers by the order appointing him." In this case, the Provisional Liquidators, being officers of the Court, were accountable to the Court.

In the judgment handed down by the judge, there was no suggestion that the Provisional Liquidators were in breach of the law. The judge has already commented on the act of the Provisional Liquidators of failing to disclose to the Court their interest in the matter. Insofar as the contents of the affidavit are concerned, the judge ruled that he was satisfied that there had been no deliberate intention on the part of the Provisional Liquidators to mislead (in page 23 of the judgment).

The fact is that the Court approved the Provisional Liquidators to remain in office after making the winding up order and to be the Liquidators of the companies, following the decision made at the first statutory meetings of creditors and contributories. The Government respects the decisions of the Court.

MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, part (a) of the main reply indicates that the aim of the Professional Accountants Ordinance is to regulate the practice of the accountancy profession through the establishment of the HKSA that is empowered by law to do so. Does the Government regard the present regulatory system by self-discipline can achieve the aim of effecting fair, just, independent and credible supervision, in connection with the way the HKSA handled the matter in this incident? Will the Government inform this Council whether it will review the present regulatory system for auditors by introducing more supervision by the public so that the public can have more confidence in the regulation of auditors?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong's question has been asked in relation to a particular case and I have answered it with respect to that case. All professional bodies have self-regulatory mechanisms, and this is not unique to the accountancy profession. The HKSA has been operating for over 20 years under the system. During this period, there has been continuous improvement to make it a better system. So, for this case alone I do not see any evidence to show the self-regulatory system is at fault. Of course, by now the HKSA and its leaders must have noted from time to time that the way it handles professional issues is a focus of attention from all sectors of the community, people in the same trade, the business sector and other professions. Under such circumstances, I do not think there is any need for immediate action to change the self-regulatory mechanism, simply because of the case mentioned by Mr CHEUNG.

MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, is the Government aware that in the question and answer between the Government and the Honourable Member that there seemed to have been some confusion over the status of the Liquidators and that of a professional accountant; each has a completely different status. In fact, in part (c) of the main reply, the Government clearly pointed out that the Provisional Liquidators were appointed by the Court. Unless Mr CHEUNG or the Government insisted that the Provisional Liquidators must be an accountant anyone can be appointed as a Provisional Liquidator. Thus will the Government confirm whether it should be the Court which should carry out the liquidation if we want a consistent supervision over Liquidators? As far as this incident is concerned, can the Government make it clearer to the public that they will gain extra protection if the Liquidator appointed is a professional accountant?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, first of all I am glad that the Honourable Eric LI has pointed out that it is not only accountants who can deal with liquidation matters. Other people can deal with them too. The fact, however, remains that most of the liquidation cases are dealt with by accountants. In the past one or two years, the Government has been trying to invite more participation so that not only accountants are asked to deal with liquidation matters.

Now, I must answer the Honourable Member's supplementary question. It is correct to say that the Liquidator, especially at the provisional liquidation stage, is under the supervision of the Court. The Liquidator is a representative of the Court.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Madam President, as the Government said, in many cases the Liquidator is an accountant. The Peregrine case is an example. But the Court has made two criticisms. One of them was about abuse of fees and it queried whether receipts could pass any tests; the second one is whether the interests of creditors have been fully looked after during the liquidation process. Both criticisms were serious ones but the HKSA had not mentioned them in its report. Will the Government inform this Council whether it was concerned that there was no mention of the criticisms in the HKSA report despite their having been made by the Court?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government is always concerned about any opinion made by the Court. The Honourable James TO made two points. The first was about fees. In reality, the issue was not raised by the HKSA during its investigation. Nevertheless, the HKSA, the Court and the Official Receiver's Office are taking active steps to find an improved and more objective standard of fees charging to assess the fees required in a liquidation case. I understand that even now the Court indicates it cannot make assessments alone due to the professional nature of fees. In some cases, it must consult people in the trade to arrive at a consensus. In this connection, the Court, the Official Receiver's Office and the HKSA are working on the matter. The Government is concerned.

The second point is about the incident as a whole. The verdict mentioned about the conduct of the Provisional Liquidators. The Court did make some criticisms, in response to which the Provisional Liquidators had provided an explanation. Finally, with the consent of the creditors, the judge decided the Provisional Liquidators could go on to deal with the case. In the circumstances I do not think there is any impropriety with the case.

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, can the Secretary inform this Council whether, in respect of Provisional Liquidators or Liquidators, he has available information on the number of similar cases in the past three years? And in the main reply, the Secretary said the Provisional Liquidators were responsible to the Court. Can the Secretary clarify whether the Provisional Liquidators are responsible to creditors as well? In civil litigations, if there are conflicts in the work of the Provisional Liquidator, can creditors make claims against the Liquidator via the civil route?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, I said Members can raise only one supplementary question at a time.

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): In that case, I asked the latter question, which is: Can creditors make claims against the Liquidator via civil proceedings and what are the responsibilities of a Liquidator?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I cannot give an authoritative reply now to a question about law raised by the Honourable Ambrose CHEUNG. If necessary, I can seek legal opinion within the Government. In general, under the relevant laws, including the Companies Ordinance and the Bankruptcy Ordinance, creditors do have their rights. There are special provisions stating what rights creditors have at certain stages. Although the President only allowed Mr CHEUNG to raise one supplementary question, I have some relevant answers that I wish to add to what I have said, with leave from the President.

In provisional liquidation, although the Provisional Liquidator represents the Court, it has to obtain approval from the Court on decisions it makes in respect of liquidation matters. Such decisions of course need to take the views and interests of creditors into account.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, do you wish to seek elucidation?

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question. Maybe the Secretary was saying he would give a reply later to my inquiry about the possibility of creditors instituting civil proceedings against a Liquidator who has not declared its interest?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, I believe I have to obtain legal opinion before giving an answer. (Annex I)

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, the main reply of the Secretary focuses mainly on the relationship between a Liquidator, who is an accountant, and the HKSA; and its accountability to the Court if appointed by the Court. But the Secretary did not mention the responsibilities of the Official Receiver's Office as Official Receiver under him. The Secretary only said an examination on the issue of fees has been initiated. But there are still questions unanswered. For example, the Court complained that in the realization of assets the Liquidator has not catered to the interests of creditors. What role does the Official Receiver play overall in his capacity as Official Receiver? What measures has he taken to protect the interests of creditors and shareholders to ensure the Liquidator or Provisional Liquidator has indeed faithfully performed its duties?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, of course, by law the Official Receiver's Office has certain duties to perform. I must take this opportunity to stress that under section 139 of the Companies Ordinance before a winding-up order is made, a company is in provisional liquidation when the Official Receiver is not in a position to intervene. After a winding-up order is made, the Official Receiver will have to discharge a series of duties. For instance, when he is of the view that there are certain irregularities in the liquidation process he may raise questions. In the charging of fees, he may examine the accounts of the Liquidator to see if the fees are reasonable. If he receives complaints from creditors or other party directly affected regarding improper behaviour of the Liquidator, then he must deal with them. These are just some of the examples. A full range of duties is set out in law clearly. If the Honourable Member is interested, I can give him a written reply.

I must stress again, however, that the duties of the Official Receiver are different for the provisional liquidation stage and the stage after a winding-up order is made.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to seek elucidation on one point. From what the Secretary said, does he mean there is a loophole in the existing law so that he cannot intervene during provisional liquidation? Is that what he means?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Cantonese): Madam President, this is not a loophole as present liquidation procedures in Hong Kong are governed by common law and proven commercial law. At the beginning of a liquidation process, it is not possible to deal with the company or its assets because some other factors may be involved. Hence, a provisional stage has to be set for the relevant parties, companies or professionals to decide whether the company has to go to the liquidation stage. There is a significant difference.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than 17 minutes on this question. Let us go to the fourth question.

Classification of Patients at the Accident and Emergency Departments

4. DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, at present, persons seeking treatment at the accident and emergency (A&E) departments of public hospitals are classified into five categories according to the urgency of their cases, so as to determine their priorities for consultation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the respective numbers of persons in the different categories seeking treatment in different time slots of the day at the A&E department of each public hospital over the past three years, and the percentage of each category against the total number of persons seeking treatment at that department;

(b) the percentage of the operating cost (please state the items included) for the A&E department of each hospital against the overall operating cost for that hospital last year; and

(c) how the average operating cost for the A&E department of a public hospital compares to that for a clinic under the Department of Health (DH) in providing night-time out-patient services; whether it has plans to extend the night-time out-patient services currently provided by the DH, so as to reduce the workload of the A&E departments of public hospitals?

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

(a) The number of A&E attendances for each hospital with breakdown by triage categories and the percentage of each category against the total number of A&E attendances for 1997-98 and 1998-99 are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. Since it was only until 1997-98 that the Hospital Authority (HA) had clearly defined the various triage categories, the HA can only provide the data for the past two years.

In order to understand the patients' usage pattern of A&E services at different hours, in March 1998, the HA conducted a survey at each A&E department to capture the total A&E attendances by triage category by each hour of the day in that month. According to the information obtained, the A&E departments recorded the lowest attendance from 2 am to 7 am, and the highest attendance from 9 am to noon, from 1 pm to 4 pm and from 8 pm to 11 pm. The survey results are shown in Table 3.

(b) The percentage of the operating cost for the A&E departments of the major general hospitals against the overall hospital operating cost is shown in Table 4. The major elements of the operating cost include staff salary, drugs, and other expenses such as water and electricity. Given that the size and service mix of each hospital are different, and the number of A&E attendances and their case mix are also different, the percentage of operating cost of A&E departments at different hospitals varies.

(c) According to the information from the HA and the DH, in 1998-99, the average A&E unit cost per attendance is $621, whereas the unit cost for the DH's general out-patient clinic service is $218. Since A&E departments are fully equipped with manpower and facilities to provide urgent treatment for patients injured in accidents or with acute diseases, the average operating cost is much higher than that of the general out-patient clinics which provide treatment for patients with non-acute or less severe diseases. The DH now operates 22 evening clinics, with an average utilization rate of 86%, which have remaining capacity to meet the needs of more patients. The DH will continue to publicize its evening clinic services through various channels. We will closely monitor the utilization rate of the evening clinic service and will review such service when necessary. The present triage system implemented in the A&E departments of public hospitals can effectively enable the provision of immediate treatment for critical patients. Also, almost all of the patients categorized as emergency and urgent cases can receive treatment within 15 and 30 minutes respectively.

Annex A

The number of A&E attendance in 1997-98

		Triage categories*
Hospital		1	2	3	4	Unclassified**	Grand Total
Alice Ho Miu Ling Netheresole Hospital (8-hour A&E service commenced in July 1997)	No. of 1st attendance % of total no. of 1st attendance	118 0.4%	8 379 25.7%	22 753 69.7%	1 360 4.2%	36 0.1%	32 646 100%
Caritas Medical Centre	ditto	1 059 0.9%	20 114 17.9%	74 098 66.0%	17 036 15.2%	27 0.02%	112 334 100%
Fanling Hospital	ditto	247 0.3%	9 471 13.1%	57 021 78.6%	4 931 6.8%	892 1.2%	72 562 100%
Kwong Wah Hospital	ditto	1 138 0.5%	31 718 15.0%	152 802 72.2%	21 196 10.0%	4 923 2.3%	211 777 100%
Princess Margaret Hospital	ditto	464 0.4%	24 033 20.1%	71 165 59.5%	14 775 12.4%	9 124 7.6%	119 561 100%
Pok Oi Hospital	ditto	741 1.1%	6 802 10.1%	50 682 75.1%	9 094 13.5%	174 0.3%	67 493 100%
Prince of Wales Hospital	ditto	1 101 0.5%	33 826 16.1%	131 926 62.8%	33 070 15.7%	10 288 4.9%	210 211 100%
Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital	ditto	1 459 0.9%	26 598 15.5%	134 105 78.4%	8 163 4.8%	837 0.5%	171 162 100%
Queen Elizabeth Hospital	ditto	2 639 1.2%	105 376 48.1%	90 977 41.5%	16 971 7.7%	3 216 1.5%	219 179 100%
Queen Mary Hospital	ditto	1 366 1.0%	46 074 33.4%	78 958 57.2%	11 425 8.3%	266 0.2%	138 089 100%
St John Hospital	ditto	61 0.5%	397 3.5%	10 183 90.4%	583 5.2%	36 0.3%	11 260 100%
Tuen Mun Hospital	ditto	1 479 0.7%	41 268 20.7%	107 910 54.0%	38 348 19.2%	10 765 5.4%	199 770 100%
Tang Shiu Kin Hospital	ditto	945 0.9%	15 498 14.4%	63 632 59.1%	25 590 23.8%	2 003 1.9%	107 668 100%
United Christian Hospital	ditto	1 770 0.7%	76 504 30.8%	139 570 56.2%	18 497 7.5%	11 842 4.8%	248 183 100%
Yan Chai Hospital	ditto	710 0. 5%	40 267 25.3%	89 313 56.2%	22 163 14.0%	6 466 4.1%	158 919 100%
Total no. of 1st attendance		15 297	486 325	1 275 095	243 202	60 895	2 080 814
% of total no. of 1st attendance		0.7%	23.4%	61.3%	11.7%	2.9%	100%

* Since April 1999, the number of triage categories has been increased from 4 to 5.

** "Unclassified" category mainly includes those cases which patients who had undergone the triage system but left the A&E department without having received any treatment, and cases which the triage category of patients had not been properly recorded.

Annex B

The number of A&E attendance in 1998-99

Hospital		Triage categories*
		1	2	3	4	Unclassified**	Grand Total
Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital	No. of 1st attendance % of total no. of 1st attendance	358 0.3%	30 398 22.8%	95 722 71.8%	6 867 5.2%	36 0.03%	133 381 100%
Caritas Medical Centre	ditto	969 0.8%	20 224 16.6%	77 622 63.6%	23 273 19.1%	15 0.01%	122 103 100%
Fanling Hospital	ditto	105 0.4%	4 154 15.2%	21 832 79.7%	955 3.5%	362 1.3%	27 408 100%
Kwong Wah Hospital	ditto	839 0.4%	37 550 15.5%	181 595 75.0%	17 375 7.2%	4 701 1.9%	242 060 100%
North District Hospital (24-hour A&E service commenced in August 1998)	ditto	248 0.4%	13 189 18.7%	47 052 66.6%	7 592 10.8%	2 527 3.6%	70 608 100%
Princess Margaret Hospital	ditto	483 0.4%	30 302 23.3%	74 592 57.4%	12 596 9.7%	11 891 9.2%	129 864 100%
Pok Oi Hospital	ditto	614 0.9%	8 036 11.7%	47 887 69.5%	12 192 17.7%	177 0.3%	68 906 100%
Prince of Wales Hospital	ditto	1 012 0.5%	23 116 12.3%	118 385 62.7%	40 181 21.3%	5 989 3.2%	188 683 100%
Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital	ditto	2 024 1.1%	36 475 20.2%	128 428 71.2%	12 764 7.1%	822 0.5%	180 513 100%
Queen Elizabeth Hospital	ditto	1 194 0.6%	96 161 44.7%	93 325 43.4%	20 576 9.6%	3 918 1.8%	215 174 100%
Queen Mary Hospital	ditto	1 168 0.8%	46 098 33.1%	80 880 58.1%	10 607 7.6%	473 0.3%	139 226 100%
St John Hospital	ditto	58 0.5%	230 1.9%	10 551 88.4%	1 064 8.9%	32 0.3%	11 935 100%
Tuen Mun Hospital	ditto	1 191 0.6%	44 494 21.6%	140 392 68.2%	11 828 5.8%	7 954 3.9%	205 859 100%
Tang Siu Kin Hospital	ditto	693 0.6%	17 038 15.7%	71 126 65.4%	18 049 16.6%	1 914 1.8%	108 820 100%
United Christian Hospital	ditto	1 625 0.6%	82 519 31.5%	142 986 54.6%	20 911 8.0%	14 087 5.4%	262 128 100%
Yan Chai Hospital	ditto	725 0.5%	39 153 25.1%	87 045 55.8%	23 016 14.8%	6 031 3.9%	155 970 100%
Total no. of 1st attendance		13 306	529 137	1 419 420	239 846	60 929	2 262 638
% of total no. of 1st attendance		0.6%	23.4%	62.7%	10.6%	2.7%	100%

* Since April 1999, the number of triage categories has been increased from 4 to 5.

** "Unclassified" category mainly includes those cases which patients who had undergone the triage system but left the A&E department without having received any treatment, and cases which the triage category of patients had not been properly recorded.

Annex C

The total number of A&E attendance in March 1998

	Triage categories
Hour	1	2	3	4	Unclassified*	Grand Total
0:00-1:00	35 (0.6%)	1470 (23.0%)	3990 (62.4%)	564 (8.8%)	331 (5.2%)	6 390
1:00-2:00	28 (0.6%)	1009 (22.9%)	2735 (62.0%)	371 (8.4%)	267 (6.1%)	4 410
2:00-3:00	33 (0.9%)	933 (24.4%)	2356 (61.5%)	314 (8.2%)	193 (5.0%)	3 829
3:00-4:00	23 (0.7%)	858 (25.5%)	2116 (62.8%)	239 (7.1%)	134 (4.0%)	3 370
4:00-5:00	39 (1.2%)	793 (24.4%)	2086 (64.1%)	222 (6.8%)	117 (3.6%)	3 257
5:00-6:00	34 (1.1%)	773 (25.2%)	1885 (61.3%)	274 (8.9%)	107 (3.5%)	3 073
6:00-7:00	55 (1.4%)	918 (24.0%)	2409 (63.0%)	327 (8.6%)	113 (3.0%)	3 822
7:00-8:00	64 (1.2%)	1263 (22.9%)	3326 (60.4%)	740 (13.4%)	114 (2.1%)	5 507
8:00-9:00	56 (0.6%)	1879 (21.6%)	5363 (61.5%)	1269 (14.6%)	148 (1.7%)	8 715
9:00-10:00	64 (0.6%)	2733 (23.5%)	6919 (59.6%)	1668 (14.4%)	229 (2.0%)	11 613
10:00-11:00	67 (0.6%)	3042 (25.5%)	6984 (58.4%)	1615 (13.5%)	247 (2.1%)	11 955
11:00-12:00	68 (0.7%)	2850 (28.0%)	5864 (57.6%)	1130 (11.1%)	270 (2.7%)	10 182
12:00-13:00	72 (0.8%)	2467 (27.5%)	5212 (58.1%)	976 (10.9%)	250 (2.8%)	8 977
13:00-14:00	45 (0.4%)	2616 (25.8%)	6034 (59.5%)	1169 (11.5%)	272 (2.7%)	10 136
14:00-15:00	64 (0.6%)	2809 (24.7%)	6824 (60.0%)	1365 (12.0%)	321 (2.8%)	11 383
15:00-16:00	59 (0.6%)	2678 (24.9%)	6406 (59.5%)	1346 (12.5%)	279 (2.6%)	10 768
16:00-17:00	64 (0.7%)	2362 (25.7%)	5392 (58.7%)	1096 (11.9%)	269 (2.9%)	9 183
17:00-18:00	74 (0.8%)	2230 (25.4%)	5149 (58.7%)	1008 (11.5%)	310 (3.5%)	8 771
18:00-19:00	64 (0.7%)	2151 (24.1%)	5261 (58.8%)	1119 (12.5%)	346 (3.9%)	8 941
19:00-20:00	62 (0.6%)	2376 (24.0%)	5871 (59.2%)	1264 (12.8%)	342 (3.5%)	9 915
20:00-21:00	46 (0.4%)	2419 (21.8%)	6904 (62.2%)	1384 (12.5%)	348 (3.1%)	11 101
21:00-22:00	42 (0.4%)	2473 (20.5%)	7767 (64.2%)	1333 (11.0%)	479 (4.0%)	12 094
22:00-23:00	59 (0.6%)	2201 (21.7%)	6428 (63.3%)	1019 (10.0%)	455 (4.5%)	10 162
23:00-24:00	56 (0.6%)	1906 (21.1%)	5708 (63.1%)	909 (10.1%)	461 (5.1%)	9 040
Grand Total	1 273 (0.6%)	47 209 (24.0%)	118 989 (60.5%)	22 721 (11.6%)	6 402 (3.3%)	196 594 (100%)

* "Unclassified" category mainly includes those cases which patients who had undergone the triage system but left the A&E department without having received any treatment, and cases which the triage category of patients had not been properly recorded.

Annex D

The operating costs of A&E departments at the major acute hospitals in 1997-98

A&E department	% of total hospital budget
Caritas Medical Centre	5.8
Kwong Wah Hospital	6.3
Princess Margaret Hospital	4.6
Prince of Wales Hospital	5.1
Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital	5.7
Queen Elizabeth Hospital	4.5
Queen Mary Hospital	3.3
Tuen Mun Hospital	6.6
United Christian Hospital	8.1
Yan Chai Hospital	9.5

DR TANG SIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government says in part (c) of the main reply that the average A&E unit cost per attendance is $621 while the unit cost for the DH's general out-patient clinic service is $218. The DH has at present 22 clinics providing evening services. May I ask the Government whether it will increase the number of evening clinics in the next 12 months to extend its coverage?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the evening clinics operated by the DH still have remaining capacity to meet the needs of more patients. Therefore we will continue to publicize this service to encourage more people to use this evening service. Should there be a need to extend such service, we will review it again.

MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as I know, to alleviate the overcrowdedness of A&E departments, the Government has agreed to set up clinics operating round the clock in the neighbourhood of A&E departments. The Finance Bureau has also agreed not to collect the proceeds made but will return them to the HA. May I ask the Government when these 24-hour clinics will be set up, what difficulties have been encountered and why the discussion has been carried on for so long with nothing materialized so far?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the HA is studying the feasibility of setting up clinics in the neighbourhood of the North District hospital or other places to provide day and evening service for non-emergency patients to reduce the workload of A&E departments. The study is still underway and I also have to wait for more information from the HA before we can take further actions to implement the plan.

MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, according to the average operating costs of A&E departments of various hospitals shown in Table 4, some are very low while some are very high. The highest can run as much as two or three times of the lowest. I wonder why there is such a big difference.

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I have already said in the main reply that it is due to the difference in the size and service mix of different hospitals. For big hospitals such as the Queen Mary Hospital, the operating cost for its A&E department accounts for a very small percentage against that of the whole hospital. The reason is that because the hospital is big, it also provides many other services, and so the percentage of the cost of its A&E service against the whole hospital's operation cost is relatively small. For some other hospitals such as the Yan Chai Hospital and United Christian Hospital, owing to the relatively narrow scope of services provided by these hospitals, the operating cost of the A&E departments of these hospitals certainly accounts for a comparatively higher percentage. In other words, the operating cost of the A&E department of a smaller hospital would account for a relatively high percentage against the total operating cost of the whole hospital.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, which part of your question has not been answered?

MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to ask the Secretary ...... I would like to follow up. If ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, in regard to your question earlier, which part of it has not been answered?

MR CHAN KWOK-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not answered why the cost of the A&E department of one hospital is $1,000 while that of another hospital is as high as $3,000. Why is there such a wide difference between the two hospitals?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, please let me explain again. The percentage listed in Table 4 is not a comparison of the costs concerned among hospitals. The costs of all hospitals are more or less the same. I have already pointed out in the main reply that the average A&E unit cost per attendance is $621.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has given us the information that the Government will make use of the remaining capacity of the 22 evening clinics under the DH to ease the demand on the A&E departments. But she has not told this Council the strategy or means to be adopted to encourage the public to utilize these evening services more. Will the Secretary give us information on this?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, in our experience, patients who use the evening clinic service and those who attend the A&E departments belong to two different categories. What the former demands is general out-patient service while most patients who go to the A&E department think that they have acute diseases and need treatment there.

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not told me what strategy will be adopted to encourage patients who originally seek help from the day out-patient clinics or A&E departments to turn to the evening service. What is the strategy?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, at present, both the hospitals and the DH are constantly publicizing and educating the public about this service, telling the people that if they need to use the out-patient service but not the emergency service at the A&E departments at the hospitals, they should go to the DH's out-patient clinics. Our strategy is to keep on running these publicity campaigns.

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, information on Pok Oi Hospital is listed in Table 2. Since Pok Oi Hospital is about to be rebuilt, will the Government reflect to the HA our hope that categories 3, 4 and 5 of the 24-hour A&E service can be retained to allow the residents in that area easy access to treatment?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the HA is still discussing with the authorities of Pok Oi Hospital concerning the way forward for the reconstruction of the hospital. As the reconstruction must be carried out in several stages and phases, the authorities will definitely consider the services demanded by the residents nearby and maintain certain services and at the same time make room for the reconstruction. We will strike a balance between both.

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, may I ask the Secretary when a disaster happens and contingency measures are necessitated, what impacts will there be on the operating cost and arrangements of the A&E department of a hospital?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, when a disaster happens and emergency services are in great demand, generally, the situation will not be handled by one single hospital alone. The wounded are usually sent to several hospitals for treatment. For example, when a grave disaster such as a big fire happens, this is also the approach adopted. As regards contingency measures in this respect, the staff of all hospitals have to undergo drilling and training regularly. When a disaster happens, some hospitals need to provide supporting services while some others may provide direct services. They must be co-ordinated. In case of an emergency or a disaster, other hospitals may have to support the hospital that provides the principal A&E service by sending staff, blood or other medicines there.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, from part (a) of the main reply, it can be seen that the time slots where highest attendance at the A&E departments is recorded are from 9 am to noon and 1 pm to 4 pm, during which time the Government's out-patient clinics are also open, and from 8 pm to 11 pm during which the DH's 22 evening clinics are open. According to the data available, during these time slots, many patients received at the A&E departments belong to categories 3 and 4 who do not have acute diseases. Has the Government reviewed this situation and planned to enhance the out-patient clinic services in order to reduce the number of patients using the A&E services by means of triage?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government's out-patient service only accounts for 15% of the overall general out-patient service across the territory, most of which is provided by doctors in private practice. To ease the overcrowdedness of the A&E departments, it requires not only the enhancement of the Government's out-patient service but also such service provided by doctors in private practice, especially in the evening, as many private clinics are closed during this time. The HA and the DH have set up a liaison mechanism to alleviate the pressure on the A&E service.

MR KENNETH TING (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (c) of the main reply, the Secretary has said that the DH now operates 22 evening clinics, with an average utilization rate of 86%, which have remaining capacity to meet the needs of more patients. Will the Secretary tell this Council what the reason is for such a low utilization rate? Is it because of the remoteness of their locations? And how can we raise the utilization rate?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the DH reviews the utilization rate of the clinics on from time to time. In general, the DH's clinics are located in very convenient spots, so the problem does not lie in here. However, the demand varies from evening to evening. Some people may think that their situation is more serious and must seek treatment from the A&E departments of hospitals rather than the DH's clinics.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, from the tables attached to the main reply, we can see that many people who attend the A&E departments do not have acute diseases. Through the triage system, over 70% of them are found not to have acute diseases. Has the Government considered charging the patients seeking treatment from the A&E departments of the public hospitals for diseases not of an acute nature so as to reduce the abuse of A&E services?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is a very controversial subject in respect of charging an A&E service fee in the hospital. I know that the HA is studying this and I will wait for the findings.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

Strengthening of Training to USD and HD Staff

5. MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is reported that recently some members of the public have been treated as unlicensed hawkers or unreasonably charged with littering by the staff of the Urban Services Department (USD), and some licensed hawkers have allegedly been treated rudely by the staff of the Housing Department (HD). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether training in respect of performing their relevant duties will be strengthened for staff of the USD and the HD; and

(b) of the actions that it will take against the staff who have been proved to have abused their power or failed to carry out their duties properly, to protect the rights of the public?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, all civil servants are expected to treat members of the public courteously at all times and, in carrying out their duties, strictly in accordance with the law and the provisions of the relevant departmental guidelines.

I now give the replies to the question as follows:

(a) Housing Department

All staff of the HD involved in enforcement duties are required to undergo training on the relevant legislation and prosecution procedures before they carry out their duties. The HD will also provide ongoing training opportunities and clear guidelines for staff on how to discharge their duties. Particular attention is paid to the appropriate steps to be followed in situation where enforcement action is resisted.

Urban Services Department

The USD Training School provides a wide range of training courses for members of the Hawker Control Team (HCT), including induction courses, command courses, operational tactics courses and so on. They cover the subject of "Arrest and Charging Procedures". The Training School is finalizing plans for refresher courses to strengthen the training for the HCT. The course will be held towards the end of May. The training programme for all officers will be completed within four months. Training courses are regularly reviewed to ensure any developments in techniques, the law or tactics used by illegal hawkers are properly disseminated and understood.

(b) The Administration takes a very serious view of allegations against staff abusing their official position or misconducting themselves. If the alleged acts involve criminal or corrupt acts, cases will be referred to the police or the ICAC for investigation and/or prosecution as appropriate. For misconduct which is not criminal or corrupt in nature, the Administration will institute disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned. Officers found guilty of the charge are liable to punishment ranging from reprimand to dismissal, depending on the gravity of the offence. If a case reveals possible institutional or management problems, the department concerned would examine the incidents in question and will institute appropriate remedial and improvement measures.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, after the recent incidents involving the HCT which were widely reported by the press, the morale of its staff indeed suffers a big blow. On the other hand, the HCT has given the public a very bad impression. Will the Government integrate the management of the two HCTs in the future or restructure the teams after dissolving the two Municipal Councils?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, with regard to the several incidents covered by the press lately, the nature and details of each of them are different. As far as I know, in the light of the incidents, the USD has already thoroughly reviewed the working procedures of the HCT and tried to locate areas for improvement. After the merger of the two Municipal Services Departments, we will of course integrate the management of the two HCTs. As for the operation of the HCT, we hope that the situation will improve after the integration.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to ask about part (b) of the main reply. We believe that all arrestees should be entitled to three rights: the right to not speaking, the right to not admitting the allegation and the right to not signing any document. However, in reality, the HCT sometimes do not allow the arrestees to speak, saying they should say it before the Court if they want to say anything. If an arrestee does not admit an allegation, the HCT makes them admit by hook or by crook, and even tells them that they can leave after paying a fine of a few hundred dollars. Should the arrestee refuses to sign documents, the HCT sometimes takes their fingerprints or even forbids them from leaving in order to force them to sign. While certain members of the HCT nurture such a culture, has the Secretary considered asking the two Municipal Services Departments to furnish the arrestees with information or pamphlets on their rights so as to prevent the HCT from abusing their power?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, as far as I know, the USD has a set of very clear guidelines for the HCT on how to carry out their duties. As for individual allegation, we will of course have to study each case on its own merits before deciding whether the officer involved has made any mistake in the course of discharging his duties. However, as I pointed out in the main reply, the departments concerned will review the working procedures and try to find out how things can be improved each time after a similar incident happens.

Madam President, I would also like to point out that the work of front-line law-enforcers is not as simple as inviting somebody to dinner; in fact it is very difficult. Managing unlicensed hawkers is actually an arduous and thankless task as it deals with the public direct. I once was the Deputy Director of Regional Services and I had personally witnessed a number of incidents on the spot. Members of the HCT were often sworn at with foul language, and I have even seen physical clashes. Therefore, I hope Honourable Members can objectively look at the performance of the HCT when they carry out their duties. Should there be clashes, it may not necessarily be the fault of the HCT. I have to stress one point, and that is, no matter whether the HCT is right or wrong, the departments concerned have assured us that they would review the cases and see if improvements can be made in the working procedures.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question: Will the arrestees be given pamphlets on their rights to not signing any document, not admitting the allegations and not speaking in order to prevent the HCT from abusing their power?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I will convey this opinion to the USD for consideration.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is undeniable that, to date, the hawker policy of the Hong Kong Government is still not very successful. The constituency of which I represent — the wholesale and retail industry — has also been making complaints from time to time. For those businessmen who operate under formal licences, the Administration's policy of licensed and unlicensed hawkers may pose threats to their business or constitute unfair competition. Will the Government consider disciplining or regularizing the management of hawkers? It will be better than the present practice of managing by two separate departments. Moreover, since the present HCT is not part of the disciplined forces, many problems often arise. Will the Government consider making it part of the forces?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, as of now, the policy of hawker management is still formulated by the two Municipal Councils. Honourable Members may remember that, a few years ago, a large scale and thorough review was conducted on the duties of the HCT. It was decided at that time to transfer part of the general grade staff's hawker management work to the HCT. As to whether further reviews are needed in the future, I am sorry that I cannot reply here on behalf of the two Municipal Councils.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): As the body in charge of the structure and functions of the Civil Service, has the Civil Service Bureau considered bringing the HCT under the disciplined forces? Just now the Secretary said this is the responsibility of the two Municipal Councils, but in fact it is not so simple because the HD is also involved. On the whole, will the Administration bring the HCT under the jurisdiction of the disciplined forces?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, we have not given consideration to such an arrangement for the moment.

MR JASPER TSANG (in Cantonese): Madam President, if, during the disciplinary hearing held by the government department concerned, an officer is proved to have been extremely impolite to members of the public when he carried out his duties, other than taking disciplinary action against the officer, are there any provisions stipulating what measures should be taken regarding the offended members of the public?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the measures taken regarding members of the public depend on individual cases. If members of the public suffered unnecessary treatment, bodily injury or even loss of property during the officer's performance of his duties, I believe that the department concerned will respond according to the particular situation. Should members of the public be treated impolitely, the department will apologize.

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (a) of the main reply, the Secretary mentioned that the USD is reveiwing its arrest and charging procedures and finalizing plans for refresher courses. Will the Secretary ask the HD to also review the relevant procedures concerning its Mobile Operation Unit and introduce the same refresher courses in order to standardize the arrest and charging procedures?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): Madam President, in fact, the HD also organizes such courses. The Mobile Operation Unit has to, from time to time, received the most updated training in courtesy. Such training also includes the ways to deal with clashes in situation where enforcement action is more likely to be resisted. To date, we have not received notifcation from the HD about immediately organizing such courses. But as far as I know, they do organize this kind of training from time to time.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.

Exhibition Services of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council

6. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, regarding the exhibition services of the Hong Kong Trade Development Council (TDC), will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) it has any information on the TDC's income from providing exhibition services (including venue rentals and income generated from the construction of exhibition stands and so on) in each of the past three years, as well as the TDC's market share in Hong Kong's exhibition services industry last year, in terms of exhibition area used and income in respect of exhibition services respectively;

(b) it has assessed if the TDC's recent plan to construct the Exhibition Services and Logistics Centre in Tseung Kwan O and to expand the scope of exhibition services projects undertaken by its Exhibition Services Department (ESD) has exceeded the purview of the TDC; whether it has assessed if there are a conflict in role and contravention of the principle of fair competition for the TDC, as a public trade promotion organization, to provide such services; and

(c) it knows if the TDC's ESD will undertake relevant projects for exhibitions not organized by the TDC; if the TDC's ESD will undertake such projects, whether it has assessed the impact on other exhibition services companies, and if the TDC will become Hong Kong's largest exhibition services company as a result of this; whether it has assessed, with the continued development of such business, if TDC will become a business conglomerate directly competing with commercial enterprises?

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

(a) According to the information furnished by the TDC, the total income (including participation fees and income generated from the construction of exhibition stands) it received from exhibitions held in 1996, 1997 and 1998 amounted to $285 million, $333 million and $444 million respectively.

Last year, exhibitions held in the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC) took up 877 000 sq m in total. Of this, 38% (or 330 000 sq m) was rented by the TDC for launching its own exhibitions. It should be noted that the above figures cover only the exhibitions held in the HKCEC. If exhibitions held in other venues are to be included, the percentage will be lower than 38%.

As neither the Government nor the TDC has statistics on the total revenue of the exhibition industry in Hong Kong, we are therefore unable to indicate the TDC's market share in terms of the total income generated from exhibition services.

(b) It is stipulated in the Hong Kong Trade Development Council Ordinance (Cap. 1114) that the functions of the TDC are to promote, assist and develop Hong Kong's overseas trade, with particular reference to exports. By virtue of the powers stipulated in the Ordinance, the TDC should be allowed to choose the most practical and cost-effective means to achieve the above-mentioned aims provided that such means are reasonable and comply with the principle of fair competition.

Organizing exhibitions is a very common and popular way of promoting trade in the international arena. The official and quasi-official trade promotion organizations in many places also organize exhibitions. In the case of Hong Kong, local exhibitions provide a valuable channel for our manufacturers and traders, most of whom are small and medium enterprises with little resources for launching promotion programmes overseas, to promote their products.

The TDC was the first to organize exhibitions in the 1970s. Subsequently, as the TDC planned to organize larger exhibitions in view of the fact that the HKCEC, to be completed in 1998, could provide a larger exhibitions venue. To ensure its efficiency of organizing large exhibitions and the quality of these exhibitions, the TDC set up in 1988 the Exhibition Services (ES) responsible for contracting out exhibition works in order to step up the monitoring of the quality of such works. Over the years, the ES has been providing services mainly for the exhibitions organized by the TDC, and has contracted out nearly all exhibition works to private companies. The TDC considers that its ES has played a positive role in helping it develop exhibition services, particularly in enhancing the quality of its exhibitions. In the past decade, the number of exhibitions organized by the TDC has increased threefold. In recent years, the TDC has organized on average 21 exhibitions annually. Most of these exhibitions have been well received by local and foreign businessmen, and have achieved remarkable success.

Since the completion of the HKCEC Extension in 1997, exhibitions organized by the TDC are expanding in scale. On the other hand, exhibitors have higher requirements of the exhibitions. The TDC considers it necessary to upgrade the services provided by its ES in order to enhance the TDC's efficiency of organizing exhibitions and the quality of its exhibitions, so as to enhance the effectiveness in trade promotion. Therefore, in 1997, the TDC decided to construct a new Logistics Centre in Tseung Kwan O with a view to replacing the existing centre in Yuen Long, which has been in use for 10 years. The TDC has advised that even with the completion of the new Logistics Centre in December this year, its ES will not expand the scope of its service and will continue to provide services mainly for exhibitions organized by the TDC.

I wish to point out that the TDC expects that the exhibition industry will still have potential for growth in the near future, and has set the promotion of Hong Kong as an exhibition centre as one of the themes of its services promotion activities. Upon completion of the new Logistics Centre, the TDC will consider renting the facilities in the new Centre to private exhibition services companies to help these companies enhance their services.

The TDC organizes exhibitions with regard to the promotion of trade. Its ES has been providing services mainly for exhibitions organized by the TDC before the construction of the new Logistics Centre, and will continue to do so after the completion of the new Centre. We therefore consider that the establishment of the ES by the TDC to handle the contracting out of exhibition works will not give rise to any conflict with the TDC's statutory function of trade promotion.

According to the Statement on Competition Policy promulgated by the Government, in determining whether the TDC has contravened the principle of fair competition in providing exhibition services, we should consider whether the TDC or its ES has been involved in practices which are restrictive, detrimental to economic efficiency or free trade, and against the overall interest of Hong Kong.

As the ES of the TDC has been engaged primarily in providing services for exhibitions organized by the TDC, the market accessibility and contestability of other exhibition services companies have not been restricted. Take 1998 as an example, the total income of the ES for the year was $78 million, whilst according to the TDC's estimate, the contract value of projects undertaken for exhibitions held in the HKCEC in that year amounted to about $500 million. In other words, the market share of the ES was about 16%. In the past decade, the number of exhibition services companies in Hong Kong has increased tenfold, from 10 plus in 1988 to 140 last year. This reflects that there is still room for competition in the exhibition services industry for newcomers to explore. Moreover, the ES has contracted out the great majority of the exhibition works to private companies. We believe that the TDC has not violated our competition policy in establishing its ES.

(c) As mentioned earlier, the ES of the TDC provides services mainly for exhibitions organized by the TDC. Last year, for instance, 96.4% of the ES's total income was generated from exhibitions organized by the TDC. In the past, the ES undertook projects for exhibitions not organized by the TDC only at the request of the exhibition organizers or exhibitors. Last year, the total value of the exhibition works undertaken by the ES for exhibitions not organized by the TDC was $2.8 million, representing only 0.5% of the total value of the exhibition works in respect of exhibitions held in the HKCEC last year. As the sum amounted to only a tiny market share, we believe that other exhibition services companies have not been affected adversely. Nevertheless, the TDC has advised that, in future, under normal circumstances, its ES will not undertake any exhibition works which are unrelated to the TDC.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, as the Secretary for Trade and Industry took 10 minutes to answer the main question, I will give Members five more minutes to ask supplementary questions.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Madam President, while it is true that the TDC has done a lot of work in the past, the recent development of the exhibition services industry has also been very rapid. In part (b) of the main reply, the Government mentioned that the scope of operation of the Logistics Centre had been expanded. On the other hand, it said that the majority of works were contracted out to private companies. In that case, is there still a need for such a large Logistics Centre? If not, would the problem be solved by simply providing information on private exhibition services companies to exhibitors, so that they could engage in free competition? In contracting out works, does the Government charge any administrative or management fees? Would such fees increase the costs of exhibitors and contractors? Furthermore, does the Government contract out works through tender or private grant?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, can you tell me whether these two questions are related in any way? If not, you can only ask one question and wait for a second turn.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): I think the thrust is whether it affects fair competition.

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, just now in the main reply, I said that the ES of the TDC had contracted out nearly all works. If so, why should it move to the new Logistics Centre? This is because according to the TDC's estimation, the number of exhibitions organized by the TDC in Hong Kong will keep increasing and the requirements of the relevant parties will become higher and higher. To ensure that the exhibitions organized by the TDC achieve a certain quality, it has decided to move to the new Logistics Centre. One of the main purposes of the new Logistics Centre is to enhance the quality of exhibition stands.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): The Secretary did not say whether any administrative and management fee is charged in the contracting out of works and whether this will increase the cost of contractors and exhibitors.

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, we do not have such information on hand. Perhaps we can pass the relevant information to Mr MA after obtaining it from the TDC. (Annex II)

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, I very much support the provision of exhibition services by the TDC to exporters or manufacturers in Hong Kong. However, the TDC has set up its own ES. May I ask the Government whether this is consistent with fair competition? We all know that the TDC is funded partly by taxpayer's money and partly by itself. For this reason, the operating cost of the ES is quite low since it needs not pay any rent or wages. Overall, if we look at the accounts of the TDC, a certain amount of costs need not be recovered. Therefore, may I ask the Government whether it amounts to unfair competition when this ES competes with other exhibition services companies in the market?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, first, let me reiterate that the ES of the TDC has no intention of competing with private exhibition services companies. As I said in the main reply, the TDC's main aim in setting up its ES is to facilitate the arrangement of exhibition services for exhibitions organized by the TDC, in order to ensure the quality of such exhibitions and enable the TDC to fulfil its statutory function of promoting Hong Kong's external trade. In terms of financial arrangements, the income and expenditure of the TDC and its ES have always been kept separate. In the past, the TDC has not used the funding allocated by the Government to cover the recurrent expenditure of its ES. The annual report of the TDC also publishes the balance sheets of the TDC and its ES separately. In accordance with the Hong Kong Trade Development Council Ordinance, the annual report must be submitted to the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council for scrutiny at the end of the financial year.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, in part (b) of the main reply, the Government said that the functions of the TDC were to promote, assist and develop Hong Kong's overseas trade, with particular reference to exports. However, as far as we know, the vast majority of those who participate in the exhibitions organized by the TDC in Hong Kong are foreign companies. For instance, almost all exhibitors in the food fairs and book fairs are foreign companies. Even if a small number of them are Hong Kong companies, they are not given any reduction in fees. They pay the same fees as foreign companies ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY, what is your supplementary question.

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): I am coming to it. The net profit of the TDC is over 33%. In view of this, does the Government think that the TDC is helping Hong Kong companies to develop overseas trade, especially exports, instead of helping foreign companies to import to Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, first, the answer is yes. The Government considers that in organizing these exhibitions, the TDC is fulfilling its functions of promoting trade, including exports. Perhaps I can give some examples. In 1998, the TDC organized a number of exhibitions. If Miss CHOY is interested, I can give her the relevant information. Some large scale exhibitions, such as the Hong Kong Toys and Games Fair, the Hong Kong Fashion Week Fall/Winter and the Information Infrastructure Telecom Expo, were all export-oriented, while several other public exhibitions, such as the Education and Careers Expo, the Hong Kong Book Fair and the Food Expo, were helpful to imports. These only account for a very small part of the exhibitions organized by the TDC. As far as I know, there were only six such exhibitions last year.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government's information is incorrect. I was referring to some trade fairs, including the Information Expo mentioned by the Secretary, in which most exhibitors were foreign companies.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHOY, may I remind you that even if you are not satisfied with the Government's reply, you should not give your personal opinion during question time.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, my supplementary question is quite similar to Miss CHOY's. The TDC has organized some exhibitions focussing on retail trade in the local market. The book fair and food expo mentioned just now have been criticized by members of the industries. These exhibitions seem only to promote the internal sale of products. What do they have to do with promoting Hong Kong's overseas trade? How does the Government monitor the development of the TDC and its discharge of statutory functions?

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, let me repeat one point. I may have mentioned some examples which have no direct relation to trade. However, those examples represent only a very small part of exhibitions organized by the TDC. Generally, they only involve imports. As far as we know, Hong Kong and mainland companies also participated in those exhibitions. I just cited last year as an example, in which there were six such exhibitions which had no direct relation to trade.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, we have spent more than 20 minutes on this question. While several Members are still waiting for their turn, I am sure that Members can follow this question up through other channels. Question time will end here.

May I remind Members again that in future question times, Members wishing to ask questions are requested to press the "Request-to-Speak" button in front of their seat in addition to raising their hands. This way, Members' names will be registered by the computer. Otherwise, if the relevant Member waits for the Clerk to press the button for him, he may be pushed far back in the queue.

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Loan Repayment of Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme and Home Purchase Loan Scheme

7. MR GARY CHENG (in Chinese): Regarding the cases in which property owners who have obtained loans from the Hong Kong Housing Society (HS) and the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) through the Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme and the Home Purchase Loan Scheme but have failed to effect repayment by instalments on due dates, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows:

(a) the number of cases of failure to pay back on due dates during each of the past two years for each scheme; and the percentage of those cases out of the total number of loan cases in the respective schemes;

(b) the reasons for the property owners' failure to pay back on schedule; and

(c) how the HS and HA have dealt with those cases?

SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Chinese): Madam President, the numbers of cases of late repayment and default in the Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme and the Home Purchase Loan Scheme are given below:

Sandwich Class Housing Loan Scheme (SCHLS)

Financial	Total number	Late repayment		Default
year	of	Number	Percentage		Number	Percentage
	loans1		of total			of total
1997-98	1 301	60	4.6		0	0
1998-99	3 284	270	8.2		10	0.3

Home Purchase Loan Scheme (HPLS)

			Default
Financial	Total number	Late repayment
year	of loans		Number	Percentage
				of total
1997-98	20 255	Not available2	8	0.04
1998-99	26 640	Not available	7	0.03
1999-00	27 444	Not available	1	0.004

Most cases of late repayment involve delays of one or two months. Some cases of delay are due to borrowers' forgetting to provide sufficient funds in their bank accounts by the due date. These borrowers resume normal repayment on receipt of a reminder. Most other late repayment cases arise from changes in financial circumstances.

In the event of the late repayment under the SCHLS, the HS will issue written reminders. If no response is received, warnings will follow. Additional interest will be charged on the amount overdue if a delinquent borrower fails to respond within four months after warning has been sent. Under the HPLS, participating banks will notify borrowers and charge interest on the amount overdue.

As regards cases of default, the HS (in respect of the SCHLS) or relevant banks (in respect of the HPLS) will institute legal action for repossession and public auction of the property.

CSSA Recipients Receiving Statutory Employees' Compensations

8. MR BERNARD CHAN: Will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the number of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) recipients who are currently receiving a monthly statutory compensation under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), which amounts to 80% of their pre-injury monthly income;

(b) of the total amount of CSSA payments made in such cases in the past 12 months;

(c) of the number of CSSA recipients who, taking into account the employees' compensation (EC) they also receive, have a monthly income higher than their pre-injury monthly earnings and, among these cases, of the longest period of concurrent payments made;

(d) whether EC is classified as an asset rather than income in processing CSSA applications; if so, the reasons for that; and

(e) whether the Government will review its policy of granting CSSA to recipients who are also in receipt of EC?

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE: Madam President,

(a) According to records available to the Social Welfare Department (SWD), there were nine CSSA recipients who were also receiving periodical compensation payments granted under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance in the past 12 months.

(b) The total amount of CSSA paid to these cases was $792,000 during the past 12 months.

(c) Generally speaking, applicants receiving periodical EC payments may be eligible for CSSA subject to passing the asset test irrespective of their pre-injury income. The SWD, therefore, does not maintain records of the pre-injury monthly income of the recipients. Among the nine CSSA cases mentioned in (a), the longest period in which concurrent payments was paid was 15 months.

(d) Under the current CSSA provisions, the treatment of EC is as follows:

(i) Lump sum payment

Payment of EC in a lump sum (including periodical payments or any other advance payments which are deductible from the final award) for temporary or permanent incapacity or death is normally treated as savings in assessing the eligibility for CSSA; and

(ii) EC for medical expenses

Payment of EC for medical expenses of an injured employee will be disregarded in the assessment of CSSA eligibility.

The treatment of EC as asset rather than income in considering CSSA applications is in line with the treatment of other types of compensation payments, for example, award of common law damages, compensation paid under the Pneumoconiosis (Compensation) Ordinance, and so on.

(e) We have no immediate plan to review the policy on treatment of EC in assessment of CSSA eligibility.

Leasing of Government Property in Oil Street

9. MR ANDREW CHENG (in Chinese): It is noted that a property in Oil Street, North Point, which was previously used by the Government Supplies Department for storage purposes, has been leased on short term tenancies to cultural and arts groups. The terms of the tenancies include rents charged at $2.5 per sq ft and a minimum area of 3 000 sq ft to be rented by each tenant. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the criteria used in setting the level of rent; and

(b) of the justifications for requiring the renting of a minimum area; and whether it will consider relaxing such requirement?

SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY (in Chinese): Madam President, with regard to part (a) of the question, the former Government Supplies Department building on Oil Street has been available for short-term leasing since July 1998, pending sale of the site which was originally scheduled for early 1999, but due to the moratorium on land sales is now deferred to early 2000. The monthly rentals for the premises in the building (at $4 per sq ft for ground floor units and at $2.5 per sq ft for upper floor units exclusive of management charges) are decided by the Government Property Agency having regard to various relevant considerations, including the short period of availability, the design which is primarily for godown purpose with little ancillary office space, the poor condition, and the market rentals in the vicinity.

With regard to part (b) of the question, there is no minimum leasing space requirement. The Government Property Agency have let 32 tenancy agreements so far, involving leased space ranging from 500 sq ft to 14 700 sq ft. Seventeen of these tenancies involve leased space of 3 000 sq ft or less.

Wave-breaking Facilities in Victoria Harbour

10. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): In recent years, the waters in the Victoria Harbour have become choppy due to the effects of reclamation projects, directly affecting the navigation stability and safety of vessels sailing in the harbour. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether:

(a) the seawalls lining the Victoria Harbour are designed with wave-breaking features;

(b) the piers on both shores of the Victoria Harbour are equipped with facilities to cushion the impact of vessels bumping against the embankment; and

(c) it has studied the ways to make the waters in the harbour less choppy; if so, the findings of the study, and the proposals that it has and has not accepted, together with the reasons for rejecting the proposals concerned?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) Existing vertical seawalls in the harbour do not provide for wave energy absorption in the design.

(b) In general, public piers are installed with appropriate facilities, such as wood piles, to absorb the impact of vessels bumping against the pier when berthing.

(c) In February 1996, the Administration commissioned a consultancy study to investigate the causes for inner harbour waves and to recommend the means to reduce them.

The study concluded that the wave problem in the inner harbour was mainly caused by (a) increase in marine traffic; (b) waves generated by high-powered fast-moving vessels; and (c) reflection of waves back to the harbour by the existing vertical solid seawall. The study recommended that the vessel speed limits in the harbour should be reviewed and that wave-absorbing seawall design should be used in future reclamation.

The Marine Department has completed a review of the speed limits in the harbour and consulted the shipping industry. A new speed restriction system will be introduced in the harbour shortly.

The Civil Engineering Department has developed a new design of wave-absorbing seawall which, under laboratory conditions, is able to absorb over 50% of the wave energy. The new design is being incorporated in the Jordan Road Reclamation Phase III Project for testing. After completion of the project in 2001, a wave-monitoring programme will be conducted to assess the effectiveness of this new design of seawall. If the result is satisfactory, the new seawall design will be used in all future marine structures in the harbour.

Structural Safety of Buildings Identified for Redevelopment

11. DR RAYMOND HO (in Chinese): It is reported that, according to a survey, over 40% of owners of properties identified for redevelopment by the Land Development Corporation (LDC) said that they would not spend money on inspecting and maintaining their properties for structural safety purpose. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it knows the current number of buildings identified for redevelopment by the LDC that have just completed or are carrying out structural safety inspection or maintenance works;

(b) whether it has assessed the attitudes of these property owners towards inspecting and maintaining their properties for structural safety purpose; if so, the results of the assessment;

(c) how it will assist and encourage these property owners to have their properties inspected and maintained for structural safety purpose; and

(d) whether it will discuss with the LDC the measures to be adopted so that the owners concerned will assume the responsibilities for having their properties inspected to ensure their structural safety and to safeguard public safety?

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

(a) According to the records of the past three years, in respect of the 30 redevelopment projects announced by the LDC for which clearance has yet to be carried out, the Buildings Department issued statutory orders to the owners of 151 buildings, ordering the owners to carry out investigation or repair works for their buildings. Of these cases, 76 are that the works required by the orders have been completed, 69 are that the works are being carried out or about to be carried out, and six are that the owners have not complied with the orders.

(b) The Administration has not made any formal assessment on the attitudes of these property owners towards inspecting and maintaining their properties. However, the above information indicates that over half of the statutory orders to carry out investigation or repair works have been complied with by the owners.

(c) and (d)

The programmed inspection of the Buildings Department in the coming year covers more than 440 old buildings in redevelopment areas. This is to ascertain their safety conditions and the need for issuing investigation or repair orders. The Department will initiate contacts with the LDC to co-ordinate the demolition and maintenance works of the buildings in the redevelopment areas. The Department will, having regard to the priority of the redevelopment plans, order the owners concerned to carry out certain practicable and necessary repair works, thereby ensuring that the buildings remain adequately safe prior to demolition. As regards the investigation or repair orders that have been issued, the Department will monitor the progress of the works in question. If properties are acquired by the LDC during this time, the LDC will assume responsibility for their maintenance by complying speedily with the investigation or repair orders issued by the Department, or carrying out investigation and the repair works found necessary during the investigation.

Investigations Conducted by SEHK and SFC

12. MR ALBERT HO (in Chinese): Rule A of Appendix 10 of the Listing Rules published by the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (SEHK) provides that during the period of one month immediately preceding the announcement of a company's annual results, the company's directors should not purchase or sell any securities of the company unless the circumstances are exceptional. Besides, the Securities (Disclosure of Interests) Ordinance (SDIO) (Cap. 396) provides that where a principal shareholder purchases or sells any shares of his company, he shall notify the SEHK within the period of five days next following the day of the transaction. It was reported that the Chairman of the Pacific Century Group had sold shares of the Hutchison Whampoa Limited two years ago without notifying the SEHK within the specified time. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it knows if the SEHK and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) are investigating the incident of the Pacific Century Group; if so, of the expected time for publishing the outcome of it;

(b) of the division of work in general between the SEHK and the SFC in enforcing the provisions of the Listing Rules and the Ordinance listed above; and

(c) of the respective numbers of cases of alleged contravention of the above provisions for which the SEHK and the SFC had conducted investigations in each of the years since 1 May 1996; the average time spent on the investigation of each case; the respective numbers of cases in which the conclusion was reached that the persons in question had contravened the relevant provisions; and the respective penalties imposed on the offenders?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES (in Chinese): Madam President,

(a) The SFC is bound under section 59 of the Securities and Futures Commission Ordinance not to disclose information relating to any ongoing investigations, and therefore it is not in a position to comment on whether or not there is an investigation concerning Pacific Century Group Holdings Limited or its directors. Likewise, the SEHK also considers it inappropriate to comment on an individual case that remains in confidence. However, Members can be assured that appropriate action will be taken by both the SFC and SEHK in cases with sufficient evidence of failure to comply with regulatory requirement as provided for under the relevant legislation and rules.

(b) The Listing Division of the SEHK is responsible for enforcement of its Listing Rules, including the monitoring of directors' compliance with the prohibition of any purchase or sale of securities by directors during the black-out period (that is, the one-month period preceding any preliminary announcement of the issuer's annual results and publication of the interim reports). Breaches of the Listing Rules may result in disciplinary actions being taken by the SEHK against the relevant parties.

Disclosures in accordance with the SDIO are to be made to the SEHK and the listed company concerned. The SFC shares a database with the SEHK which contains details of disclosures. Failure by directors to comply with the requirements of the SDIO could also amount to a breach of the Directors' Undertaking under Listing Rules to the SEHK.

The SFC is responsible for the enforcement of the SDIO. Apparent late filings of notifications under the SDIO are referred by the SEHK to SFC for consideration. Upon receiving a referral, each case will be assessed by the SFC taking into account a number of factors, including:

• whether the information subject of notification has already been disclosed to the public by other means (for example, in corporate announcements);

• the number of shares involved relative to the concerned company's issued share capital;

• whether or not the late disclosure related to a change of interest in a company's issued shares capital could be material to the market; and

• the delay in filing; whether the late filing is an isolated incident; and whether the late filing is accompanied by a reasonable explanation.

Depending on the circumstances of each individual case, this assessment can result in no action being taken, warning letters being issued or, in the most serious cases, an investigation being mounted with a view to prosecution.

(c) Since 1 April 1996, some 1 200 incidents of late filing under the SDIO have been referred to the SFC by the SEHK. Of these, the majority involved relatively few amount of shares and short delays in filing of only one to two days which could often be explained. In these cases no action was taken. Of the potentially more serious infringements of the SDIO, 173 warning letters were sent to substantial shareholders and directors of listed companies advising them of the requirements of the SDIO and the potential penalties for non-compliance. There were also seven prosecutions brought under the SDIO for serious breaches of the SDIO or when a person had failed to heed an earlier warning. All these prosecutions succeeded and resulted in fines being imposed ranging from $4,000 to $21,000. The time spent on investigating a breach of the SDIO varies from case to case depending on the complexity of the matter, ranging from a few days to months.

As regards the SEHK, actions have been taken in respect of 13 cases since January 1996 where directors traded in the securities of their respective listed companies during the one-month "black out" period, in breach of Rule A3 of Appendix 10 of the Listing Rules. The SEHK has taken appropriate sanctions in each of the cases, either in the form of private warning or private reprimand. Similarly, the average time of investigation varied from days to weeks depending on the complexity of the case.

Disinfection Method for Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme

13. MRS SOPHIE LEUNG: On 5 January this year, the Chief Executive in Council directed that for Stage II of the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme (SSDS), the Administration should adopt a configuration which comprised chemical treatment and subsequent disinfection of the sewage, followed by discharge via an outfall to the East of Lamma Island in Hong Kong waters. Regarding the decision on the disinfection method, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the process by which the Government will determine the method of disinfection;

(b) whether consultancy study will be conducted before the decision is made; if so, the estimated cost of it; and

(c) when such a decision will be made?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Madam President,

(a) The second phase of the SSDS Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Study is examining the environmental impact of different disinfection options. This study commenced in January this year. Upon the completion of the EIA Study this year, the Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs, the Advisory Council on the Environment, green groups, tertiary institutions and professional bodies will be consulted on the outcome of the Study. Depending on the findings of the EIA Study, the technical and economic aspects of individual disinfection options will be further examined in the feasibility study and also before and during the detailed design stage for SSDS Stage II. The preferred disinfection method will then be decided.

(b) As the scale and scope of any further studies on disinfection options to be carried out after the completion of the EIA Study will depend on the findings of the EIA Study, we have not yet decided on whether those studies will be carried out by in-house staff or consultants. It is also not possible for us to estimate at this stage the consultants' costs for carrying those studies.

(c) We aim to reach a final decision on the disinfection method by 2002.

Fuel Prices

14. MR FRED LI (in Chinese): In connection with the paper on "Retail Prices of Major Fuels" recently provided by the Administration for the Legislative Council Panel on Economic Services, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether it knows the respective gross margins (the ratio of gross profit to net sales) of various oil companies in last year in respect of such fuels as petrol, automotive diesel and cylinder liquefied petroleum gas (LPG);

(b) whether it will request the oil companies to submit regularly to the Government their detailed operational and financial information, so as to facilitate the Government's work of assessing and monitoring the reasonableness of the retail prices of various fuels; whether it will submit regular reports on retail prices of fuels to this Council for reference by this Council and the public;

(c) whether it has plans to motivate other LPG suppliers to follow the example of Shell Hong Kong Limited in adopting a new pricing mechanism whereby LPG prices are adjusted at half-yearly intervals, so that the changes in the wholesale price of LPG can fully reflect the changes in the imported price;

(d) apart from the efforts of the Consumer Council in continuing with its study on the functional aspects of competition in the Hong Kong petroleum products industry, of the other follow-up actions to be taken by the Administration in respect of fuel prices; and

(e) of the respective number of oil companies whose profit margins in respect of cylinder LPG (the ratio of the profits of selling cylinder LPG to the next cost) in last year were higher and lower than the average profit margins?

SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC SERVICES (in Chinese): Madam President, our replies to the questions are as follows:

(a) we do not have information on gross profit margins in respect of unleaded petrol, automotive diesel and cylinder LPG of each oil company in Hong Kong. Information was provided to us by the oil companies on a confidential basis and all that could be publicly disclosed had been set out in the information paper provided to the Legislative Council Panel on Economic Services on 26 April;

(b) We will request the oil companies to provide us with operating and financial information in respect of unleaded petrol, automotive diesel and cylinder LPG on a regular basis. We will analyse the information and will provide Members of the Economic Services Panel and the general public with information that the oil companies agree to disclose. In addition, the Census and Statistics Department will continue to provide Members of the Economic Services Panel with import prices of major oil products, the average retail price of petrol, LPG, automotive diesel and towngas and so on, on a monthly basis for their reference;

(c) We hope that other suppliers of LPG will follow the example of Shell Hong Kong Limited and adopt a pricing mechanism which will fully reflect changes in the import price in half-yearly adjustment of the wholesale price of cylinder LPG. We will pursue this with the other oil companies;

(d) We will continue to request the oil companies to provide more information on their profits such as the rate of return on capital employed in respect of unleaded petrol, automotive diesel and cylinder LPG for further analysis. We will also continue to examine possible ways that may enhance competition in the fuel supply market, such as measures to increase flexibility in the supply of land for use as petrol filling stations; and

(e) According to information provided by three oil companies, last year the profit margin (that is, the net profit before tax on net cost) in respect of cylinder LPG of one company was above the average profit margin of that year while those of two companies were below the average.

Assistance to NGOs for Monitoring the Media

15. MR ERIC LI (in Chinese): Will the Government inform this Council of the assistance it offers to non-governmental organizations established to monitor the media, such as the Society for Truth and Light Limited; and whether it has provided any funding support to such organizations; if so, the details of it; if not, whether it will consider offering support to such organizations; and if the answer is in the negative, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): Madam President, the Government has not received any applications from media monitoring organizations, such as the Society for Truth and Light Limited, for assistance. Nor has the Government provided any financial support to them.

We have not reserved any funds for such organizations. However, if and when we receive any such applications, we shall consider them based on their individual justification and merit.

Provision of Information Technology Co-ordinator to Schools

16. MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): It is planned that 120 schools will each be provided with one Information Technology (IT) Co-ordinator in the next school year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) of the criteria for selecting the 120 schools;

(b) whether priority will be accorded to schools in which the IT Pilot Scheme is being implemented; if so, the reasons for that; and

(c) whether these staff will be provided according to the ratio between different types of schools (for example, the ratio between primary and secondary schools or that between ordinary and special schools); if so, the details of that?

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

(a) The Government will provide 120 schools each with an IT Co-ordinator starting from the 1999-2000 school year. Another 130 schools will be provided with IT Co-ordinators in the 2000-01 school year, making a total of 250 IT Co-ordinators.

An IT Co-ordinator Selection Panel was set up by the Education Department this February to consider applications from schools. The Panel is chaired by the Senior Assistant Director (Support) of the Department and comprises heads and teachers of some secondary, primary and special schools, a university professor, and officials from the Department. The Panel has adopted the following three selection criteria:

1. IT-readiness of the applicant school

Schools are requested to provide information to demonstrate that they have organized IT related activities, and that they are thoroughly ready in terms of experience, involvement and achievement in these activities.

2. How the school will make use of the IT Co-ordinator to enhance the quality of teaching and learning

Schools are requested to provide proposed IT plans, setting out clearly the IT objectives of the schools, the implementation measures, and the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of various initiatives and the work performed by the IT Co-ordinator.

3. Sharing of experience with other schools

Schools are requested to propose how they would share their experience in enhancing the use of IT in education with other schools.

Based on the above criteria, 61 secondary schools, 53 primary schools and six special schools are allocated the IT Co-ordinator posts.

(b) The 20 schools under the IT Pilot Scheme have already been given extra resources in the 1998-99 school year to establish an IT Co-ordinator post. They will not be allocated another IT Co-ordinator.

(c) The Selection Panel has not set a prescribed quota for secondary, primary and special schools. Selection is based on the criteria set out in part (a).

Consultancy Study on Building Legislation

17. MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Will the Administration inform this Council whether the Buildings Department has engaged or is about to engage consultants to study building legislation and related matters; if so,

(a) of the purpose of the consultancy study;

(b) of the details of the briefs issued to the consultants; and

(c) whether issues such as resource and energy efficiency, environmental protection and public health will be covered in the study?

SECRETARY FOR PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT AND LANDS: Madam President,

(a) and (b)

The Buildings Department will shortly engage a consultant to conduct a comprehensive review of all lighting and ventilation requirements for buildings in Hong Kong and to identify any deficiencies or areas for improvement in the Buildings Ordinance and its Regulations. The brief issued to prospective consultants requires the successful consultant to identify any shortcomings in the existing requirements, conduct a comparative study of international and other relevant national requirements, identify special local factors that should be taken into account in formulating the new requirements, consider the integration of the new requirements with building form so as to enhance and encourage energy efficiency and to reduce external environmental impact, and propose new standards and the appropriate means of control. The consultant is required to complete the study within 12 months from the commencement date of the consultancy.

The Department is also preparing the consultancy briefs for engaging consultants to review and update the fire safety and drainage requirements in the Buildings Ordinance and its Regulations.

(c) The above studies will cover resource and energy efficiency, environmental protection and public health issues. For example, as mentioned in (a) and (b) above, the study on lighting and ventilation requirements requires consideration to be given to the integration of lighting and ventilation requirements with building form, so as to enhance and encourage energy efficiency and to reduce external environmental impact.

Disposal of Waste Paper Containing Personal Data

18. MR LAU KONG-WAH (in Chinese): It is reported that in disposing of documents containing personal data as waste paper, some waste paper recycling companies have recently failed to adopt appropriate measures to guard against leaking out the personal data on such documents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(a) whether currently there is any legislation regulating the disposal of waste paper containing personal data by waste paper recycling companies;

(i) if so, how it monitors such companies for compliance with such legislation; if it has not monitored them, the reasons for that;

(ii) if not, whether it will consider introducing such legislation; and

(b) how various government departments ensure that waste paper recycling companies will, after collecting waste paper containing personal data from the departments concerned, adopt appropriate measures to prevent the leakage of the personal data?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): Madam President:

(a) The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance contains general provision for security in relation to personal data. The provision applies to the handling of waste paper containing personal data.

Under the Ordinance, a "data user" is required to take all practicable steps to ensure that personal data are protected against unauthorized or accidental access or disclosure. A party engaging a recycling operator to recycle waste paper containing personal data should take such steps. For example, it should stipulate in the contract with the recycling operator the security measures to be taken by the latter when disposing of its waste paper containing personal data.

The Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data is responsible for monitoring and supervising compliance with the Ordinance. He has powers to investigate, either on complaint or on his own initiative, suspected breaches of the Ordinance's requirements including those on the security of personal data. If, following such an investigation, the Privacy Commissioner concludes that there has been a contravention of such a requirement and that the contravention will likely be repeated, he may issue an enforcement notice to direct the data user concerned to take steps as are specified in the notice in order to prevent further contravention. A data user that breaches an enforcement notice commits an offence and is liable to a fine at level 5 (at present a maximum of $50,000) and imprisonment for two years, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a daily penalty of $1,000.

In addition, an individual who suffers damage (including injury to feelings) by reason of a contravention of the Ordinance in relation to personal data of which the individual is the subject has a civil right of action to obtain compensation from the data user concerned.

(b) Government Security Regulations stipulate that documents containing personal information are classified documents of at least "RESTRICTED" grading. The Regulations also require that classified documents no longer needed will be destroyed either by burning or by shredding. Generally, disposals of classified waste are carried out by departmental staff.

However, in the case of bulk disposal of "RESTRICTED" waste, commercial contractors approved by the Government Supplies Department may be used. There are special conditions in the contract for these approved contractors to safeguard the classified waste handled by them and to prevent unauthorized or accidental access to the information contained therein. The special conditions require a contractor to collect the papers from the departments concerned and provide covered lorries for transportation to the shredding factory under the escort of a representative of the department. The contractor is required to shred all the papers in an enclosed area with adequate security under the witness of the representative.

Appointments to the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission

19. MISS EMILY LAU: I was told that the Chief Executive had appointed a person, who is a defendant in a defamation case, as a member of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission (JORC) for the period 1 February 1999 to 30 June 1999. The case commenced on 21 May 1998 and is now pending in the court. In this connection, will the executive authorities inform this Council:

(a) of the criteria adopted by the Chief Executive in making appointments to the JORC;

(b) whether they have assessed if a person who is a party in a pending court case is an appropriate candidate for appointment to the JORC; and

(c) of the mechanism the JORC has put in place to require a member to declare any conflict of interests when considering recommendations for appointment of judges?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION: Madam President,

(a) In appointing a person to serve on the JORC, consideration will be given to the candidate's integrity, standing in the community, judgment, and ability in carrying out the statutory functions of the Commission independently and impartially.

(b) Section 4 of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Ordinance stipulates the categories of persons who are not eligible for appointment to the JORC. These include Members of the Legislative Council, civil servants and employees of the Urban Council or the Regional Council.

A person who is a party in a civil case of the kind in question does not fall under any of these categories. This reason on its own would not preclude the person from being appointed to the JORC.

(c) A number of measures are in place to guard against possible conflict of interest of members during the JORC's deliberations. Section 3(5B) and section 3(5C) of the Judicial Officers Recommendation Commission Ordinance stipulates that, where the Commission is exercising its function of making recommendations to the Chief Executive regarding the appointment of permanent and non-permanent judges of the Court of Final Appeal or the extension of term of office of the Chief Justice, a JORC member who is or may reasonably be regarded as a candidate shall disclose his intention with regard to appointment or extension, as the case may be, and shall not take part in any deliberation of the Commission with respect to that appointment or extension and shall not vote on any question concerning the matter, if he discloses a willingness to accept an appointment or extension.

In addition to the above statutory requirement, judges on the Commission would not participate in deliberation on filling of vacancies if he is or may reasonably be regarded as a candidate for filling the vacancies. It has been the practice of the JORC members to declare their personal association, if any, with any candidate being considered for appointment, and any possible interest in matters laid before the Commission.

Applications for Provisional Cinema Licences

20. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): A new administrative measure has been implemented since 1 August 1997 to allow an applicant for a Places of Public Entertainment (Cinema) Licence to apply for a provisional cinema licence at the same time, and the applicant may obtain a valid licence within 10 days at the earliest to operate a cinema. Furthermore, legislative amendments are also planned to provide a legal basis for the new measure. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(a) the respective numbers of applications for provisional cinema licences received and approved since the implementation of the new measure, as well as the number of such applications that are being processed;

(b) the number of prosecutions instituted against cinemas operating without licences since the implementation of the new measure, and the average amount of fines imposed on the convicted persons; and

(c) the planned timing for the introduction of the relevant bill?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): Madam President, before answering the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member, I wish to take the opportunity to clarify the current status of the provisional licensing system for cinemas. As yet, the Places of Public Entertainment (Cinema) Licence has not been introduced, pending legislative amendments to empower the licensing authority to issue provisional licences under the Places of Public Entertainment (PPE) Ordinance (Cap. 172). However, in the meantime, with a view to speeding up the licensing process, the two Municipal Services Departments (MSDs), after consultation with the Fire Services and the Buildings Departments, have streamlined the procedures for PPE licence applications. From 1 August 1997, new licensing procedures similar to those for restaurant licensing have been implemented. (Details of the new procedures are annexed.) Both MSDs now pledge to issue a PPE licence within seven working days of confirming compliance with all licensing requirements.

My replies to the specific questions raised by the Honourable Member are as follows:

(a) since 1 August 1997, the MSDs have received nine cinema licence applications (six in the urban area, of which one was subsequently withdrawn, and three in the New Territories) and issued two licences, one each in the urban area and the New Territories. With the exception of one very recent application, in the remaining five cases the applicants were all issued with Letters for Requirements within eight weeks upon receipt of the applications;

(b) during the same period, 38 prosecutions have been taken against operators for running unlicensed cinemas. The average fine in each case has been about $31,000; and

(c) I plan to introduce legislation to put in place the provisional licensing system after reviewing licensing procedures for places of public entertainment later this year.

Annex

Streamlined Licensing Procedures for Cinemas

Quality Audit of Proposed Plans

A. When applicant submits an application, an appointment would be made within one week for the Licensing Officer to interview the applicant in person for a quality audit. The purpose is to ensure that the application and the plans conform to the legal requirements. In the event that the application does not meet the requirements, the reasons will be given to the applicant together with advice as to how the inadequacies can be overcome.

Joint Site Inspection

B. Where the proposed plans are acceptable for further processing, a joint site inspection of the intended premises by officers of the departments concerned (RSD/USD, BD and FSD) would be arranged within two weeks. The aim is allow the departments concerned to come to an initial view as to whether the premises are suitable for licensing.

Application Vetting Panel

C. After the size inspection, an application vetting panel would be convened within two seeks for the applicant to meet senior officers of the departments concerned for a discussion of his application. In the meeting, the applicant would be informed whether his application can go forward as a licensing application or his premises are deemed to have serious impediments such that the application will not be further processed until an alternative acceptable plan has been submitted.

Issue of Letter of Requirements

D. For an application which has been accepted by the Application Vetting Panel, a letter of requirements would be issued within one week to the applicant for compliance.

3-tier System

E. BD has agreed to 3-tier system for verification of compliance with building safety requirements in respect of cinemas which would be categorised into 3 classes. Regarding Category 1 and Category 2 requirements, applicant can employ Authorised Person to certify the compliance by means of certificates. For Category 3 requirements, BD would take up follow-up action to verify compliance as usual.

BILLS

First Reading of Bills PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills. First Reading.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 12) BILL 1999

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 13) BILL 1999

TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1999

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 14) BILL 1999

CLERK (in Cantonese):

Adaptation of Laws (No. 12) Bill 1999 Adaptation of Laws (No. 13) Bill 1999 Tax Reserve Certificates (Amendment) Bill 1999 Adaptation of Laws (No. 14) Bill 1999.

Bills 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 Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills. Second Reading.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 12) BILL 1999

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Adaptation of Laws (No. 12) Bill 1999.

The purpose of the Bill is to effect adaptations to 16 Ordinances and their subsidiary legislation on mattes relating to trade and industry, in order to delete terminologies which are inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China.

The Bill covers the following 16 Ordinances:

- Money Changers Ordinance;

- Weights and Measures Ordinance;

- Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance;

- Hong Kong Industrial Estates Corporation Ordinance;

- Metrication Ordinance;

- Reserved Commodities Ordinance;

- Federation of Hong Kong Industries Ordinance;

- Protection of Non-Government Certificates of Origin Ordinance;

- Trade Descriptions Ordinance;

- Toys and Children's Products Safety Ordinance;

- Hong Kong Industrial Technology Centre Corporation Ordinance;

- Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance;

- Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance;

- Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance;

- Weapons of Mass Destruction (Control of Provision of Services) Ordinance; and

- Hong Kong Productivity Council Ordinance.

Certain terminologies in the above-mentioned Ordinances, such as references to the "Governor", "Governor in Council" and "Crown", are inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a SAR of the People's Republic of China. Although the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance have set out the principles on how terminologies inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China should be constructed, it is still unacceptable to retain such terminologies in the laws of Hong Kong. Therefore, we must introduce this Bill to make relevant amendments to the above-mentioned Ordinances. The proposed amendments are mainly terminological changes.

The proposed adaptations in this Bill when passed into law will take effect retrospectively as from the date of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

I earnestly request Members' support for the enactment of 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. 12) Bill 1999 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 13) BILL 1999

SECRETARY FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move the Second Reading of the Adaptation of Laws (No. 13) Bill 1999.

The purpose of the Bill is to effect adaptations to seven Ordinances and their subsidiary legislation on mattes relating to trade and industry, in order to delete certain terminologies which are inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a SAR of the People's Republic of China.

The Bill covers the following seven Ordinances:

- Sales of Goods Ordinance;

- Import and Export Ordinance;

- Consumer Council Ordinance;

- Travel Agents Ordinance;

- Protection of Trading Interests Ordinance;

- Hong Kong Trade Development Council Ordinance; and

- Hong Kong Export Credit Insurance Corporation Ordinance.

Certain terminologies in the above-mentioned seven Ordinances, such as references to the "Governor", "Governor in Council" and "Crown", are inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a SAR of the People's Republic of China. Although the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance have set out the principles on how terminologies inconsistent with the Basic Law or with the status of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China should be constructed, it is still unacceptable to retain such terminologies in the laws of Hong Kong. Therefore, we must introduce this Bill to make the relevant amendments to the above-mentioned Ordinances. The proposed amendments are mainly terminological changes.

The proposed adaptations, when passed into law, will take effect retrospectively as from the date of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

I earnestly request Members' support for the enactment of 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. 13) Bill 1999 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

TAX RESERVE CERTIFICATES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1999

SECRETARY FOR THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Madam President, I move that the Tax Reserve Certificates (Amendment) Bill 1999 be read the Second time.

Tax reserve certificates, or TRCs, are issued by the Inland Revenue Department for tax payment purposes. There are two kinds of TRCs, namely, normal TRCs which are purchased by taxpayers for tax payment in future, and conditional TRCs which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue requires taxpayers who have objected to their tax assessments to purchase in order to cover the total amount or part of the tax in dispute.

We have recently reviewed the TRC system and identified two proposals which aim at making the system more attractive to taxpayers as an alternative means to save for tax payment and a more equitable system.

The first proposal is to abolish the issue of paper certificates for normal TRCs and replace them by scripless ones. At present, the scripless TRC scheme, which is restricted to civil servants and civil service pensioners, allows participants to purchase TRCs of fixed value on a monthly basis. Instead of issuing paper certificates, we maintain individual accounts for these participants with the evidence of purchase reflected as entries in the accounts. The system has worked well. We have been making arrangements to enhance this scripless feature by establishing electronic accounts which can be directly credited by banks and the Payment-by-Phone system. This will enable TRC purchases to be made at any time.

For other purchasers of normal TRCs, we now only issue paper certificates to them. The issue and redemption of these paper TRCs are resource-intensive and not user-friendly. As most of the normal TRCs buyers are regular buyers and with the enhancement of the scripless scheme which will become more flexible, we propose to abolish the issue of paper certificates for normal TRCs and replace them by scripless TRCs. All normal TRC purchasers will be given an account instead of paper certificates for the record of all transactions. The abolition of the issue of paper certificates for normal TRCs will result in staff savings which will be redeployed to improve the quality and efficiency of service.

The second proposal included in the Amendment Bill is to calculate TRC interest for conditional TRCs by using the moving interest rates fixed under the Ordinance. At present, the interest rate applicable at the time when a TRC is purchased is valid for the entire interest-earning period of the TRC. The fixed-rate mechanism is rather restrictive for taxpayers who are required to buy conditional TRCs as they do not have any flexibility on when they have to make the purchase. As the holding period of conditional TRCs may vary significantly depending on the time taken to conclude the objection or appeal cases concerned, the applicable interest rate may apply for a long period of time until the cases are concluded, irrespective of the prevailing TRC interest rate. This is unfair to both the Government and the taxpayer. We therefore propose to improve the situation by calculating the interest on conditional TRCs on the basis of the interest rate in force from time to time for the tenure of the TRCs. This will mean that every time when the TRC interest rate is reviewed and changed, it will apply to all conditional TRCs issued.

The two proposals I have just explained will only apply to TRCs purchased on or after the passage and commencement of the amendments by this Council.

With these remarks, I commend the Bill to Members.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Tax Reserve Certificates (Amendment) Bill 1999 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill referred to the House Committee.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 14) BILL 1999

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Madam President, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Adaptation of Laws (No. 14) Bill 1999. The purpose of this Bill is to adapt 11 Ordinances and their subsidiary legislation which are under the policy purview of the Home Affairs Bureau to bring them into conformity with the Basic Law and with Hong Kong's status as a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China.

Although the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance have set out the principles on how to construe various expressions inconsistent with the Basic Law and with the status of Hong Kong as a SAR of the People's Republic of China, it is still unacceptable to retain such expressions in the laws of Hong Kong, therefore we must introduce this Bill to amend the relevant expressions.

The proposed amendments are mainly terminological changes. For example, references to "the Colony" are replaced by "Hong Kong". Like other Adaptation of Laws Bills, the proposed adaptation amendments in this Bill, when passed and enacted and subject to Article 12 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, will take effect retrospectively as from the date of the establishment of the SAR. The proposed amendments in this Bill would save the effort of making reference to the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance and the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance.

I earnestly request 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. 14) Bill 1999 be read the Second time.

In accordance with 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): Resumption of Second Reading debate on Adaptation of Laws (No. 6) Bill 1999.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 6) BILL 1999

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 10 March 1999

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Adaptation of Laws (No. 6) Bill 1999 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): Adaptation of Laws (No. 6) Bill 1999.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage

CHARIMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council will now go into Committee.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 6) BILL 1999

CHAIRMAN (in cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Adaptation of Laws (No. 6) Bill 1999.

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

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): Schedules 1 to 7.

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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council shall now resume.

Council then resumed.

Third Reading of Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 6) BILL 1999

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

Adaptation of Laws (No. 6) Bill 1999

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Adaptation of Laws (No. 6) Bill 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): Adaptation of Laws (No. 6) Bill 1999.

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We will resume the Second Reading debate on the Adaptation of Laws (No. 17) Bill 1998.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 17) BILL 1998

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 6 January 1999

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Adaptation of Laws (No. 17) 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): Adaptation of Laws (No. 17) Bill 1998.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage

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

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 17) BILL 1998

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Adaptation of Laws (No. 17) Bill 1998.

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

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): Schedules 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 9.

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): Schedules 1, 4 and 6.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Madam Chairman, I move that Schedules 1, 4 and 6 be amended as set out in the paper circulated to Members.

I move to amend section 8 of Schedule 1. Under paragraph 2 of Article 56 of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive shall consult the Executive Council before making subordinate legislation.

Given that, the original proposal of the Bill sets out that for any principal ordinance, all references to "Governor" in any provision empowering the Governor to make subordinate legislation are to be amended to "Chief Executive in Council". However, whether or not an instrument is subordinate legislation cannot be clearly defined and the controversy so caused cannot be easily settled either.

To enable the adaptation programme to proceed smoothly, the Government now proposes a simpler and more direct approach under which all references to "Governor" are to be adapted as "Chief Executive", whether or not an enactment of subordinate legislation is involved. When the Chief Executive exercises his power to make subordinate legislation, it will be clearly stated in the title of the subordinate legislation so enacted that the Executive Council has been consulted in compliance with paragraph 2 of Article 56 of the Basic Law.

I move to amend section 4 of Schedule 4 and section 8 of Schedule 6. It is proposed to amend the saving provision by deleting the expression, "the rights of the Central People's Government or the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Basic Law and other laws", and inserting instead, "the rights of the Central Authorities or the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Basic Law and other laws".

This proposal is made according to the text of Item 10 of Annex 3 of the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Treatment of 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.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Proposed amendments

Schedule 1 (see Annex III)

Schedule 4 (see Annex III)

Schedule 6 (see Annex III)

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 Home Affairs 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): Schedules 1, 4 and 6 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

Third Reading of Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 17) BILL 1998

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS: Madam President, the

Adaptation of Laws (No. 17) Bill 1998

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Adaptation of Laws (No. 17) 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): Adaptation of Laws (No. 17) Bill 1998.

MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, as the official responsible for moving the government motion has not yet arrived at the Chamber, I declare that the Meeting be suspended.

4.34 pm

Meeting suspended.

4.46 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government motion.

GOVERNMENT MOTION

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Madam President, before moving the motion which has been printed on the Agenda, I would, first of all, like to apologise to the President and Honourable Members who were caused to wait as a result of the breakdown of computers. I am sorry.

Madam President, I move the motion which has been printed on the Agenda.

I believe Honourable Members in this Chamber are well aware of the background of this debate today. I only wish to briefly outline the important development of the right of abode (ROA) issue over the past few months. On 29 January, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) gave a very important judgment on the ROA issue, thereby boosting the number of people who meet the ROA requirement significantly and altering the mechanism governing the taking up of residence in Hong Kong by eligible mainlanders.

We have endeavoured to put the CFA judgment into implementation, but difficulties in enforcement and the population problem triggered off by the judgment which will have a profound impact on our community and economy have compelled us to reconsider, over the past few months, the legislative intent of the relevant provisions of the Basic Law so as to decide how we should solve the problem triggered off by the judgment.

As reflected from recent opinion surveys and public opinions expressed through different channels lately, the public was obviously very worried that Hong Kong could not bear the consequences resulted from the judgment and desperately hoped that the Government could resolve the current predicaments faced by Hong Kong as soon as possible. Such being the case, the Chief Executive decided to, through the State Council, request the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law expeditiously in order to clarify the legislative intent of the provisions and solve the problems faced by Hong Kong at the moment.

I would like to reiterate that the Chief Executive has decided to approach the NPCSC to interpret the following two provisions:

First, Article 22 para 4 of the Basic Law. It reads: "For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region." We hope the NPCSC can clarify whether the "people from other parts of China" as referred to in Article 22 para 4 of the Basic Law should be interpreted as people other than those from provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government, Taiwan province and Macau Special Administration Region, including children born in the Mainland to Hong Kong permanent residents. Such clarification can help revive the proven arrangement under which mainland residents should be vetted under the one-way permit (OWP) quota system for the purpose of settling in Hong Kong.

Second, Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law. It reads: "The permanent residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong of those residents listed in categories (1) and (2)." We hope the NPCSC can clarify the point that at the time the persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong as referred to in Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law, their parents or one of their parents should have already acquired the permanent resident status as mentioned in Article 24 para 2(1) or Article 24 para 2(2) of the Basic Law. Clarification on this point is of utmost importance. This is because, of the large number of people who have newly acquired the ROA, many were born before either of their parents became a permanent resident. But we have no intention to clarify whether or not the children referred to in Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law include children born out of wedlock. This is because there is no reason for us to believe that the CFA judgment on this issue is not in line with the legislative intent. We also accept the CFA judgment that the arrangement under the existing legislation, that is, the provision concerning only children born of female permanent residents out of wedlock outside Hong Kong are allowed to enjoy ROA is discriminatory and inconsistent with the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Clarification on the two points mentioned above is very important. This is because Article 22 para 4 of the Basic Law ensures that mainland residents should settle in Hong Kong through the OWP quota system in an orderly manner, whereas Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law directly affects how many children born to the people of Hong Kong outside Hong Kong can acquire the ROA. Concerning the great number of people who newly acquired the ROA, it is now estimated that the first generation will amount to 700 000. We believe the great majority of them were born before either of their parents became a permanent resident. Therefore, if the NPCSC accedes to our request and make the interpretation mentioned above, the number of eligible children born in the Mainland to the people of Hong Kong will be significantly reduced to not more than 200 000. We will also be able to resume the previous regular pattern governing the settlement of mainland residents in Hong Kong through the quota vetting mechanism so as to enable them to settle in Hong Kong in an orderly manner.

We are of the view that Chief Executive's request for the NPCSC's interpretation of these two provisions is the most reasonable, lawful, expeditious and thorough approach to solve the problems. The reasons are as follows:

First, we believe that it is entirely in line with the legislative intent for us to seek an interpretation by the NPCSC. Concerning the arrangements for mainlanders to come to Hong Kong, that is, concerning the provisions of Article 22 para 4 of the Basic Law, just as I represented to Honourable Members in this Council yesterday, our understanding is that arrangements adopted in the Mainland for the purpose of vetting mainlanders to come to Hong Kong has reflected the interim measures for the control of Chinese citizens travelling on private business to or from the regions of Hong Kong or Macau as endorsed by the State Council in 1986. According to the arrangements, it has been the usual practice for the mainland authorities to control the number of people settling in Hong Kong through an OWP quota system in order to help safeguard the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. Paragraph 4 of Section XIV of Annex I to the Sino-British Joint Declaration also clearly provided that entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of persons from other parts of China shall continue to be regulated in accordance with the present practice.

As for the ROA enjoyed by children born outside the territory to the people of Hong Kong, that is, concerning the provision relevant to Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law, the legislative intent as reflected clearly is that the children in question will only be able to acquire the ROA if, at the time of birth, one of their parents has become a Hong Kong permanent resident, judging from the fact that the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group reached an agreement of understanding by both parties on this provision in 1993, as well as from the fact that the Preparatory Committee formulated an opinion on the implementation of Article 24 para 2in its Plenary Meeting held in August 1996.

All these were reflected in the Immigration Ordinance enacted in July 1997 too. Prior to the CFA judgment, the Immigration Ordinance required that mainlanders must hold OWPs to which Certificates of Entitlement have been affixed before they can exercise their ROA. As for children born in the Mainland to the people of Hong Kong, one of their parents must be a Hong Kong permanent resident at the time of the birth.

Based on the drafting history of the Basic Law and its legislative intent, we have reasons to believe that the Immigration Ordinance has accurately reflected the legislative intent of these two clauses under the Basic Law. Under such circumstances, we consider it more appropriate for us to seek an interpretation than to amend the Basic Law. If the NPCSC accedes to our request for interpretation, it will only need to clarify the legislative intent of the relevant provisions as the interpretation must be loyal to the legislative intent of the relevant provisions. On the contrary, amending the Basic Law is tantamount to seeking to change the legislative intent of the relevant provisions.

Secondly, by virtue of Article 158 para 1 of the Basic Law, the NPCSC has the ultimate power of interpreting the Basic Law. As for the CFA, it has final adjudication on cases by virtue of Article 158 para 2 and para 3 of the Basic Law. As the NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law is expressly provided, I think the exercise of power by the NPCSC to interpret the legislative intent of national laws does reflect part of the new constitutional arrangement in the wake of the handover. The legality of this mechanism is beyond any doubt.

Thirdly, the population crisis faced by Hong Kong at the moment must be dealt with expeditiously in the overall interests of Hong Kong. If we were to amend the Basic Law, we would have to wait until March next year when the NPC convenes its meeting before it would have a chance to consider our request to amend the Basic Law. But it is impossible for the Government not to, in the next 10 months, promulgate a new method for applying Certificates of Entitlement as well as accepting the applications. Otherwise, we will be deemed to have violated the law. What is more, this might give rise to more legal proceedings in which the Government will be accused of delaying the enforcement of the CFA judgment. Under such circumstances, it is highly probable that we will have issued tens of thousands of Certificates of Entitlement before March next year. Or perhaps we will have accepted tens of thousands of mainlanders who have acquired the ROA by virtue of the CFA judgment.

If we decide to propose amendments in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the Basic Law later, we might, very probably, trigger off a large scale illegal immigrant smuggling tide, unless we can ensure that the amendment carries a restrospective effect. This might even bring extreme unease or disappointment to the affected people in the Mainland as well as in Hong Kong and will in turn affect the stability of both places. On the contrary, if we ask the NPCSC to accede to our request to interpret the Basic Law, the problem will be solved when the NPCSC convenes its meeting in June.

Fourthly, we also consider the NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law more pragmatic and feasible. This is because according to the Basic Law, any amendment proposed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to the Basic Law must be agreed by two thirds of the deputies of the Region to the NPC, two thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive. Members might have noted that 27 deputies of the Region to the NPC openly indicated a few days ago that they would not support amending the Basic Law. In other words, we can predict that the proposal of amending the Basic Law will be confronted with numerous hurdles. Or we might need more time to seek enough support before we can put the proposed amendment on the NPC's agenda. Of course, before making our decision, we noticed that not a few members of the community, particularly people from the legal profession, indicated that should we seek the NPCSC's interpretation, we would jeopardize the rule of law in Hong Kong, affect our judicial independence, undermine the CFA's authority and final adjudication, and even reduce Hong Kong's autonomy.

Later on, our colleagues, the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Secretary for Justice, will respond to these accusations and misunderstandings. I only wish to point out that, after repeated deliberation over the past few months, we are deeply convinced that approaching the NPCSC through the State Council in accordance with the Basic Law for an interpretation of the relevant provisions to solve the critical problems we are now facing will not damage the rule of law, affect judicial independence, undermine the CFA's authority and final adjudication, or reduce our "high degree of autonomy". We firmly believe that, after clarifying the provisions of the Basic Law that this problem involves, we will see the following benefits:

First, the legislative intent of the important provisions pertaining to ROA as contained in the Basic Law will be clarified.

Second, laws related to the ROA will become clearer and more specific.

Third, we will be able to remove the population crisis we are facing at the moment and its impact on Hong Kong and our economy, as resulted from the fact that Hong Kong might need to absorb 1.67 million new immigrants within the next 10-odd years.

Fourth, we can revive the proven arrangement under which mainland residents can come to settle in Hong Kong.

Fifth, we can also dispel various uncertainties that have been annoying the people of Hong Kong over the past months so that we can lay down a firm foundation again for the planning and making of proposals for our future.

Honourable Members, as pointed out by some Members yesterday, the ROA issue is the most serious problem that has confronted us since the establishment of the Special Administrative Region. As far as our community is concerned, this issue is most important and fundamental for it involves who and how many people can become permanent residents in Hong Kong. This issue involves not only our most fundamental rights, but also how many resources the Government needs to deploy in the coming 10-odd years for the purpose of absorbing a large number of new immigrants to ensure that they can integrate into our community and become an impetus for social development.

Undoubtedly, the deployment of huge resources to absorb a large number of new immigrants will have a profound impact on the long-term development of the community. Therefore, it is imperative for us to resolve this problem. The importance of this problem can, in no way, compare to the examples cited by some members of the community, who pointed out that cases such as those related to commercial disputes or land compensation might arise in future and that there will be a need for the Special Administrative Region Government to approach the NPC for interpretation. We firmly believe the Chief Executive's decision to approach the NPC for interpretation is correct, lawful, reasonable and in line with the long-term interests of Hong Kong. Therefore, I beg Honourable Members to support my motion.

With these remarks, Madam President, I beg to move. Thank you, Madam President.

The Secretary for Security moved the following motion:

"That this Council supports the Chief Executive's decision to request the State Council to approach the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to interpret Article 22(4) and Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law."

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

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE: Madam President, at yesterday's meeting of the House Committee, I gave a full explanation of the options that were available in resolving current problems and the reasons why an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) is the correct approach.

I do not intend to repeat all that I said yesterday. Copies of that speech have been laid before every Honourable Member, and in due course can be found on the website of the Legislative Council Secretariat and in the Legislative Council's Library. Instead, I will highlight some key legal points and reply to criticisms that have emerged.

I believe that members of the legal profession generally agree that both an NPCSC interpretation and an amendment of the Basic Law are lawful ways to solve our problems. There is, however, a fundamental difference between an interpretation and an amendment. An interpretation reflects the true legislative intent of a provision, whereas an amendment changes the legislative intent.

The question whether an estimated 1.67 million people have the right of abode in Hong Kong depends on the true legislative intent of the Basic Law. The ultimate authority for deciding that question is vested in the NPCSC. That arrangement may seem strange to those trained in the common law, but it reflects the fact that Hong Kong is part of the People's Republic of China, which has a civil law tradition.

When the Immigration Ordinance was amended in 1997 to introduce the time of birth and one-way permit provisions, both the Government of the Special Administrative Region and the legislature believed that they reflected the true legislative intent of the Basic Law. As was explained yesterday, both provisions have foundations that go back before the Basic Law was promulgated, and relevant provisions of the Basic Law were understood to have been built on those foundations.

In the light of the historical background, the Administration believes that there are good grounds for seeking an NPCSC interpretation of the relevant provisions in the Basic Law, namely Articles 22 para 4 and 24 para 2(3). At yesterday's House Committee, I referred to the objections to the interpretation route that has been raised and I explained that they were without foundation. The power of final adjudication of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) will not be affected by the Administration's request for an NPCSC interpretation. The CFA's judgment will remain binding on the parties to the proceedings, regardless of any such interpretation. Judicial independence will be fully maintained since judges will continue to decide cases in accordance with the law without interference, fear or favour. Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy will remain exactly the same as it was on 1 July 1997.

I am disappointed that two objections to an NPCSC interpretation continue to be voiced. One is that it would undermine the rule of law. I have yet to hear one person give a satisfactory explanation of this allegation. The rule of law means that everyone is subject to the law, and that independent judges decide cases in accordance with the law and without interference. Those fundamental principles would not be affected one iota by an NPCSC interpretation.

The second objection is that by seeking an NPCSC interpretation, the Administration is opening the floodgates to other applications, and that could lead to rights guaranteed in the Basic Law being taken away. There is no basis whatsoever for this allegation.

In the first place, a litigant who loses in the CFA would not benefit from an NPCSC interpretation, since the judgment delivered by the CFA would be unaffected by it. Moreover, the vast majority of cases before the courts do not involve an interpretation of the Basic Law, and so are entirely unaffected by the current debate.

Secondly, the standing orders of the NPCSC limit the persons and bodies who can place items on the agenda. If someone sought an interpretation, he would need to persuade, for example, the State Council, to support it.

Thirdly, it is wrong to assume that the NPCSC's power of interpretation would in future be lightly exercised. In fact, since 1949, the NPCSC has exercised its power of interpretation on only eight occasions.

Fourthly, if the NPCSC did decide to interpret the Basic Law, its interpretation would have to be consistent with its true legislative intent. Rights guaranteed by the Basic Law could not be taken away.

Fifthly, the current problems are wholly exceptional in nature, and relate to one of the most fundamental issues for any community, namely, who has the right to join in the community as a permanent resident. If the NPCSC's power of interpretation is exercised in respect of such a fundamental issue, there is no basis for assuming that it would be exercised simply to benefit, for example, the private interests of a litigant in commercial proceedings.

Some commentators have criticized the Administration for not spelling out the circumstances under which it will seek an NPCSC interpretation. They have suggested that there should be some formalized mechanism or some convention that would impose constraints on the Administration and prevent abuse of this process. We note this suggestion and will consider it.

I would, however, like to emphasize that the Administration will only seek the NPCSC's interpretation in the most exceptional circumstances where there are good legal grounds for doing so. The manner in which the power of interpretation should be exercised by the NPCSC is a matter entirely for the NPCSC itself to determine.

Some Members have queried the proposal that the NPCSC should clarify whether the Preparatory Committee's views on the right of abode reflected the true legislative intent of the Basic Law. The main purpose of seeking an NPCSC interpretation is to ascertain the meaning of Articles 22 para 4 and 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law in accordance with the true legislative intent. However, there are other unsettled issues relating to Article 24 para 2 of the Basic Law. It is important that there should be certainty as to who does and who does not have the right of abode under this article. Without this, the Administration cannot properly plan the social services and other facilities that those with the right of abode will need. It would, therefore, be helpful to know whether, and if so to what extent, the Preparatory Committee's proposals did reflect the true legislative intent of the Article.

The reference in the paper tabled by the Administration yesterday to the question whether those proposals have "legal effect" was intended to mean no more than this. It is not intended that the proposals should be directly given any special legal status.

Another criticism that has been made is that if the NPCSC ascertains the meaning of the provisions in the Basic Law by reference to the true legislative intent, this would fundamentally affect the way in which the courts interpret the Basic Law in future. I do not consider that the principles of interpretation set out by the CFA in one of the right of abode cases are inconsistent with the approach of ascertaining the true legislative intent. The CFA emphasized "that in ascertaining the true meaning of the instrument [that is the Basic Law], the courts must consider the purpose of the instrument and its relevant provisions as well as the language of its text in the light of the context".

I, nevertheless, accept that there are different schools of thought as to the manner in which a constitution should be interpreted. This is evident in the United States where, after its constitution has been in force for over 200 years, there is still a lively debate as to the correct approach to interpretation. Given that the Basic Law has not yet been in force for two years, it is to be expected that a similar debate will emerge here.

Finally, I wish to refer to the allegation that the morale of the Judiciary will be adversely affected by the Administration's decision and that some judges may resign. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. I do understand that to some lawyers trained in the common law, the exercise of a power of interpretation by a non-judicial body is an alien concept. However, I hope that they will appreciate that under our new constitutional order, such a power may be legitimately exercised in respect of the Basic Law.

In conclusion, I would again emphasize that a decision to seek an NPCSC interpretation is not only lawful, but is appropriate in the special circumstances that we are dealing with. Such an interpretation could resolve our problems without in any way undermining the rule of the law, the independence of the Judiciary or Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy. The NPCSC's power of interpretation is a pivotal feature of "one country, two systems". Its exercise in the current circumstances will ensure that the Basic Law is faithfully implemented in Hong Kong.

DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Madam President, I rise to speak on the motion with a heavy heart. Heavy heart for three reasons on which I will elaborate.

I believe that nobody, whether within or outside this Chamber, or for that matter in Hong Kong or in the Mainland, is not concerned with the possible sizeable influx of people into Hong Kong irrespective of the actual number, blood relationship or otherwise.

Solving the problem by any legal, pragmatic and workable way must be the desire of each and every one of us in Hong Kong, for which it is only reasonable that this Council and the Administration must work in close partnership. But, Madam President, is this the scenario?

Madam President, ever since the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) and, in particular, ever since the Government announced the possibility of over some 1.6 million people are in the queue marching into Hong Kong, as well as the social costs entailed, it is well known to all of us that some possible actions are in the cooking within the Government. Legislators have responded to the issue positively, inviting legal experts, academics, statisticians, economists, sociologists and members of the National People's Congress (NPC) to give more and independent views to Members so that they could be more equipped and have a better grasp of the problem.

This Council, through its House, has done its part. Regrettably, everything within the Government is shrouded in secrecy. Requests for senior government officials to brief Members were repeatedly turned down or delayed. Possible moves of the Government, even whether government officials would attend the House Committee sessions to further explain the right of abode saga, had to be obtained through scattered information from the media, until perhaps it was too late. Ironically, the Secretariat of the House Committee had to depend on the pieces from the media to complete the jigsaw. Madam President, is this partnership? Is this the expected amicable relationship between the executive authorities and the Legislative Council when it is obvious that the Government will not release anything to this Council?

In a conciliatory move, we came to a majority view to advise the Government to move a motion on its proposed options for Members to deliberate, but in vain. Let me say in no uncertain terms that the motion moved by the Government today is vastly different from what this House has proposed for the Government to consider. For whilst the House requested the Government to move a motion of its "proposed option" for Members to deliberate, the Government has, instead, moved a motion of its ultimate decision for Members to endorse. This House has never deliberated, let alone endorsed.

Madam President, in an important issue as this being discussed in today's Chamber, the House has sought, rightly so, for the appearance of the Chief Executive in person to clarify Members' uncertainty. This, however, was not entertained. Instead, Mr TUNG briefed the press on the same issue. It is difficult to consider this as "unintentional".

Madam President, if the rapport between the executive authorities and this Council is wanting, the public would have expected that Members of this Council could be more co-operative and cohesive in working a way forward for Hong Kong and to push the Government in any way that is in the best interests of the people. Regrettably, in the many special House Committee meetings arranged for this right of abode issue, repeatedly, internal political bickering was the order of the day, hampering perhaps the chance of a uniform stand. The Administration obviously had a field day, for what is better than to be a bystander of a boxing game?

The third reason for my heavy heartedness, Madam President, lies in the way the Administration deals with the whole issue of this right of abode issue. In the judgment for Final Appeal Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 of 1998 (Civil) delivered on 29 January 1999, the CFA declared certain provisions in the Immigration Ordinance, the Immigration Regulations and the Government Notices issued under the Ordinance null and void. Almost four months down the line, the Government has still not sought to introduce amendments to this issue into this Council where Members of this Council could have aired their views, proposed further amendments and consulted the public, such could have prevented this eleventh hour stalemate. In short, the Government has, no doubt, put Members of this Council in the picture but has excluded us from the game.

Finally, Madam President, the haste with which the Government bulldozed its decision through without allowing proper digestion of this Council, let alone the public, has left much to be desired. Furthermore, many of the pertinent questions still needed to be answered, if not addressed. Amongst them are: Is the CFA aware, or has it ever been made aware of the legislative intent of the relevant clauses of the Basic Law? Are there any binding criteria on what and how far the Chief Executive could request the State Council to request the Standing Committee of the NPC to interpret the Basic Law for Hong Kong? And what is the extent of the power of interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee on the Basic Law? Is that power only for clauses that concern foreign affairs or relationships between the Central Government and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or does the power extend to all clauses of the Basic Law, including those concerned with entirely internal affairs?

These, and many others which Honourable Members will no doubt raise, will be pertinent to the confidence of Hong Kong and the "one country, two systems" principle, albeit that it is a brand new concept and for which teething problems are inevitable.

Madam President, some would say that at this eleventh hour, the decision of the Administration is the best way forward. If this is true, it would have been better if the conclusion was derived after meaningful deliberations by the executive authorities with this legislature in partnership.

How would I vote? It is obvious that I have much reservation in the way the Government dealt with the whole issue. It is obvious, too, that I have questions on the possible long-term harmful effects on this precedent move. Yet on a pragmatic base, since the Government has delayed things so far, it is in my mind that amending the Basic Law is a more superior alternative, but this has prematurely met with opposition from at least the majority of the NPC Members of Hong Kong. Such an idea is thus killed before it is even put on the chopping block. The Government's decision may well be the Hobson's choice.

Taking all these into consideration, Madam President, I will abstain from voting but I will still hope that, whilst the interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the NPC is being sought, the Government will still proceed to seek to amend the necessary provisions of the Basic Law.

MR GARY CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I speak today for the purpose of reiterating the position held by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) towards the proposed solution to the ROA issue. Since the emergence of this issue, the DAB has been holding the view that, relative to other proposals, the request for the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions is the best solution. We would also like to reiterate that we fully respect the judgment made by the CFA.

I think it is necessary for us to discuss a few issues here. First, is the existing problem related to intervention from the Central Authorities or to the fact that Hong Kong has crossed the line? I think if the Basic Law were purely a piece of local law, the problem might turn out to be very simple: Legislative Council Members may only need to make a little effort in completing the enactment procedures to solve the problem. But the problem we are facing at the moment concerns not only with the fact that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) needs to abide by and implement the Basic Law, but also with the fact that the Basic Law was promulgated by the National People's Congress (NPC). Such being the case, we cannot but consider whether or not the CFA judgment has deviated or gone beyond the scope of "high autonomy". Insofar as those people who can come to Hong Kong by virtue of the CFA judgment but are now living in the Mainland are concerned, they are now, of course, given the right to come to the territory. However, it will be irresponsible of us if we totally ignore and take no consideration of how and when they will come, the order of entry, their number and so on. It will also be irresponsible of us if we totally ignore how the mainland Government, should it insist on not enforcing the CFA judgment, deals with the household registration and emigration procedures with respect to these people and might thereby lead to illegal entry. According to the information gathered from the newspapers and various sources, I believe neither the Central People's Government in Beijing nor the NPCSC is very pleased or anxious to make the so-called interpretation with respect to this issue pertaining to Hong Kong. The existing problem concerns whether the CFA judgment is involved with issues falling within the scope of "high autonomy", instead of concerning with the so-called interference from the Central Authorities.

The second issue concerns with the fact that some people consider what we are now talking about tantamount to a request for the NPC to interpret the CFA judgment and this will mean that nothing will remain of the rule of law. This seems to suggest that the CFA judgment, not the Basic Law, represents the rule of law. I really do not understand why some people hold such a view. It is clearly stipulated in Article 158 of the Basic Law that the courts of Hong Kong can, if the cases in question concern affairs which are the responsibility of the Central Government or the relationship between the Central People's Government and the SAR, ask for interpretation before making their final judgments which are not to be rebutted. If this step has been taken prior to the judgment, the problem may not have arisen at all. Furthermore, if we look back at the clarification made by the CFA after making the judgment, it was written like this: "We accept that powers exercised by the NPC and the NPCSC in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and the procedure laid down in the Basic Law are not disputable." I do not intend to speak too much on issues relating to legislative intent here. I remember the Honourable Martin LEE had asked government officials in a panel meeting whether or not the Government was aware of this situation and why the problem seemed to have "burst out" all of a sudden. And I recall the Secretary for Constitutional Affairs replying to the effect that, no matter it indicated support for the Government's viewpoint or for the sake of discussion, Members were all along aware of this issue but it did indeed "burst out" all of a sudden until recently.

The third problem concerns with the fact that many people do worry as to whether this issue will lead to endless so-called interference by the Central Authorities or endless requests for interference in future. I think we cannot solely rely on the Government's commitment of not doing this in future. If we believe in the rule of law, then we shall act in accordance with the rule of law. Article 158 of the Basic Law has made it clear and let me repeat that if the final judgments made by the courts of Hong Kong involve affairs which are the responsibility of the Central Government or the relationship between the Central Government and the SAR, the courts will need to ask for interpretation. The problem we have at the moment is we have not completed the necessary procedure which has been laid down clearly. If, in future, cases involving the relationship between the Central Government and Hong Kong as mentioned just now do arise again and the relevant explanations are not clear, the CFA should of course seek interpretation and what is wrong with that?

The fourth issue is really appalling. Many people consider the Government's figures appalling. I also hold that the Government's figures may not be accurate. Even if we invite all statisticians in Hong Kong to conduct a survey again, the answers may still be different. Just as in litigation cases, it is very difficult to reach an opinion which is eternally constant. Many appalling remarks have been made repeatedly in this Chamber, and I have learnt how to deal with them in no time. We may have the chance to listen to them once again today. Such remarks may include: today is the darkest day in Hong Kong's history, Hong Kong's rule of law is dead and foreign capitals will soon retreat. These remarks had been heard repeatedly when the Government intervened in the market, when the CFA made its clarification, when the motion concerning the vote of no confidence in Secretary for Justice Miss Elsie LEUNG and even during the question and answer session chaired by the Chief Executive some time ago. Nevertheless, these appalling remarks are all unfounded and irresponsible.

We can see that, while many Members or political parties are voicing their opposition at the moment, they are actually constantly shifting their position. When the judgment was made at the very beginning, some political parties and Members appealed loudly that it should be taken as it is. But after the figure of 1.67 million was announced, some Members held that only a portion could be accepted and therefore there was a need to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law. While some Members suggested it necessary for the Government to put forward a solution expeditiously, some held that the Government had been acting too fast. I believe members of the public have become smarter. They would prefer some rational, reasonable discussion to sensational appeals.

Even if this motion is passed today and the Government decides to seek interpretation, we still need to deal with some issues properly. At the moment, some people are still waiting in the line under the normal quota for entry into Hong Kong. Once the number of people is raised, we will need to make proper arrangement for them. After finding out a specific method for dealing with this issue, I hope the SAR Government can consider expanding the current quota of 150 daily and speed up the relevant procedures and formalities so as to enable the relevant people to reunite with their families in Hong Kong as soon as possible.

With these remarks, Madam President, I support the motion moved by the Government today.

MISS MARGARET NG: Madam President, let me first declare interest as counsel representing groups of mainland residents qualifying as Hong Kong permanent residents under Article 24 of the Basic Law in various court proceedings.

The motion before us today is not about law or immigration. It is the arena of a power struggle in which the Government takes away from the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) not only its power of final adjudication, but also its authority in interpreting the Basic Law. The Standing Committee will merely complete the formalities in its June meeting. Today, in this Chamber, we mark the beginning of the end of the rule of law.

The point can be made shortly. In paragraph 20 of the Government brief, it is said:

"Since the National People's Congress (NPC) enacts statutes, its Standing Committee knows best what the true legislative intent was and is the most authoritative body to interpret the law."

But where is the true legislative intent evidenced? Apparently not in anything the CFA has the authority to examine and decide, not in any documents before or at the time the Basic Law was promulgated, but in the hearts and minds of the loyal participants of the Beijing and pro-Beijing political machinery, former drafters, members of the Preparatory Committee, deputies to the NPC and political delegates many of whom are unconcerned as they are unlettered in the law and legal system hitherto prevailing in Hong Kong.

The documents the Government has relied on are the memorandum of an agreement in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group (JLG) in 1993 ─ that is six years after the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and three years after the promulgation of the Basic Law, and the "views" of persons unknown who were endorsed by the Preparatory Committee in August 1996 ─ that is six years after promulgation, and 10 years after the Joint Declaration was ratified.

It is common sense and a basic principle of construction that documents coming into existence after the enactment of a provision cannot be used to interpret its legislative intent.

But we are now going to brush this aside. When the CFA has declined to accept these documents in its interpretation of Articles 22 para 4 and 24, the Government now seeks vindication by asking the Standing Committee for a reinterpretation. Paragraph 27(a) asks for an endorsement that the views which the Preparatory Committee itself endorsed "reflected the true legislative intent of the Basic Law correctly" and also that these views "have legal effect".

Madam President, Article 158 para 1 provides for the Standing Committee to interpret the Basic Law, not the views of the persons unknown whom the Preparatory Committee chose to endorse, or whether they have legal effect, let alone conferring legal effect on them. Paragraph 27(a) is an abuse of Article 158 para 1.

If endorsement is given, one must assume that everything contained in this document has the effect of law in Hong Kong. This will be legislative effect retrospectively given, to have force in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), although it does not belong to any categories of the sources of law in force in the SAR under Article 18.

The legal effect of this document directly affects everyone who thinks that he or she enjoys the right of abode in the SAR but may not, in fact, enjoy it. Paragraph 4 of that document refers to those "born when either one or both of their parents have already attained the Hong Kong permanent resident status under category (1) or (2) of paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Basic Law." No one can become a Hong Kong permanent resident under category (1) or (2) before 1 July 1997 when the Basic Law comes into force. The status of "Hong Kong Permanent Resident" did not come into legal existence until 1 July 1987. No child born outside Hong Kong before 1987 claiming through category (2) parent can be a Hong Kong permanent resident under category (3). On the English version, no child born outside Hong Kong before 1 July 1997 can so claim.

But why are we talking about what the law says as if it has any meaning any longer? In the case before the Court, when the Government could find no scrap of document indicating Article 22 para 4 was intended to qualify Article 24, that is, that the right of abode of the mainland children of Hong Kong permanent residents were subject to the one-way permit quota system, a former drafter (and present member of the Basic Law Committee) swore an affirmation to say that this was the intent because he clearly remembered that it was.

So, the law is not what is contained in our written constitution or statutes, but in the memory of those who created them. The meaning is not as interpreted by our courts on legal principles, but what the NPC Standing Committee and those who claim to speak for it say what it means. I should refine this: The meaning is what the SAR Government asks them to say it is.

The Basic Law is the arbiter of all our laws. Take away the Court's authority to interpret the Basic Law, and what authority is the Court left with?

If this is where we are, where indeed is the rule of law?

Our rights are supposed to be protected against the SAR Government and the Central Authorities under the Basic Law. Judges are given security of tenure so that they can faithfully and fearlessly apply the law to protect our rights. If the executive and not the judges are now the authority for saying what the Basic Law means, and our rights can be taken away or abrogated by reinterpretation, what good are the judges to us?

Madam President, the CFA's interpretation of Article 24 is clearly right. The law cannot have intended discrimination between children born in or out of wedlock, born in the mainland of China or overseas; the law cannot have intended the violation of international conventions protecting family unity. Hong Kong is part of China. Chinese nationals born in Hong Kong or has resided here for seven years have the right of abode here, and so do their Chinese national children even though they were born outside Hong Kong. On the plain words of Article 24 para 2: "Persons of Chinese nationality born outside Hong Kong of those residents listed in categories (1) and (2)" ─ it is not for the Court to input restrictions, especially when the restrictions are contrary to human rights.

The Government now concedes that the discrimination against "illegitimate" children contravenes international conventions. But it has fought against this every inch of the way, insisting that this also was the true intent of Article 24.

Paragraph 27(b) asks the Standing Committee to endorse subjecting mainland children of Hong Kong permanent residents to the one-way permit system. This is discriminatory. Children born overseas are not subjecting to a system which puts an obstacle between their right and the enjoyment of it. By reversing the CFA's judgment, the Government will make the right of abode something which can be restricted by immigration measures.

This abrogates the rights as well as the autonomy conferred by the Basic Law. Mr TUNG has told us that the quota of 150 per day under the one-way permit system will continue. The SAR Government is thus prepared to accept each day 150 people, over which we have no control, while shutting out those who are our children and who have a right to be here if they wish. Many of these children have been waiting, separated from their parents for 10 or 15 years.

The Government refers repeatedly to the "true intent" of Articles 22 and 24. The truth of the matter is that the drafters of the Basic Law have deliberately incorporated the words of the Joint Declaration. They recognized the potential problem belatedly but did not want to change it. This fact is incompatible with the assertion that the "true intent" was to exclude children born out of wedlock or of parents before they have resided in Hong Kong for seven years.

The JLG agreement was, at best, a variation of the treaty as an afterthought. The effect will be that if China should want to amend Article 24, Britain could not object. But something agreed in 1993 cannot be the proof of what was in the mind of the parties or of the NPC in 1990.

So, if the SAR cannot handle the social consequence of an unrestricted Article 24 para 2, it is for the Government to ask for an amendment. The arguments against amendment put forward are either silly or downright dishonest. It is said that if the CFA was right in interpreting the "true intent", it cannot be amended because the "true intent" must be given effect to. But if the CFA is wrong, it would be wrong to amend because of the Court's error. The simple answer is the CFA has not erred in interpreting Article 24, if it is claimed that the "true intent" is something else, it must be the case that Article 24 as drafted does not reflect the true intent, and should be amended for that reason.

The second argument is that Article 24 cannot be amended because it would be changing the basic policy, and therefore unlawful under Article 159 para 4. If Article 24 cannot be restricted by amendment under Article 159, neither can it be restricted by interpretation under Article 158. If both amendment and interpretation are possible, Article 159 should be the only accepted way to do so. Not to do so would be to bypass all the safeguards expressly provided ─ that of transparency and certainty, and of due process. The so-called "advantages" named by the Government are treated as such because interpretation under Article 158 para 1 bypasses all these safeguards. The reinterpretation asked for is in fact an amendment taking away rights retrospectively without being enacted through due process.

Madam President, the legal profession is deeply disturbed about the Government's move to seek reinterpretation. Within one and a half days, 632 practitioners have signed the letter to express their strong objection.

A Government which can make these proposals has neither understanding nor respect for the rule of law. A Government which has neither the wisdom nor the courage to govern under the rule of law is unfit to govern Hong Kong under "one country, two systems".

Madam President, might may win today in this Chamber, but justice will prevail in the hearts of every right-thinking man and woman everywhere and for all times.

MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, I am authorized by the following pro-democracy Members to speak on their behalf: Miss Cyd HO, Mr Albert HO, Mr Michael HO, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr LEE Chuek-yan, Mr Martin LEE, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr Andrew WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr SZETO Wah and Mr LAW Chi-kwong. I represent all the 15 directly elected Members, but not the Members belonging to the DAB. I also wish to mention that Mr SZETO Wah and I were once also drafters of the Basic Law, but we ceased to be so after 4 June 1989.

Madam President, today, with profound indignation and grief, we in the democratic camp want to protest against the attempt of the SAR Government to tackle the recent CFA judgment by requesting an interpretation of the Basic Law from the NPCSC. We have to say that such an action has dealt a heavy blow to our judicial system and the independence of our jurisdiction. Today, all of us in the democratic camp are attending this meeting in black, wearing white chrysanthemums. And, with the deepest sorrow, we now bid farewell to our trust in the SAR Government. We have no other alternative but to draw this conclusion: the existing SAR Government is a government which can no longer command any trust and credibility from us; a government without any credibility is a government without any soul.

MR MARTIN LEE: Madam President, My anger was aggravated by what I heard in this Chamber this afternoon. I have to say that the Secretary for Justice has not said a single word in the past few months in defence of the judgment of the Court of Final Appeal, when it was publicly ridiculed and attacked by various pro-Communist members of the public. The very moving of this motion today is like a stagger striking at the heart of the rule of law, and yet, with perhaps one little hand covering her conscience, she proclaims that this is in defence of the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary. Her assurances are insults to the intelligence of the right-thinking members of the Judiciary and the legal profession. Indeed, if our judges take her words seriously, why is it necessary for Mr Justice Gerald GODFREY to write time and again to the South China Morning Post appealing to judges not to resign? I agree with him, "Please", I say to them, "don't resign".

I call to mind one little sentence from SHAKESPEARE's Macbeth, "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand".

MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government has displayed marvellous public relations skills over this issue, and it really deserves full marks for that. Its skills of figure-juggling are really marvellous, because its mere mentioning of 1.67 million people already manages to scare everybody. Why do I say that this figure has been "thrust before us all of a sudden"? Well, the remarks of Mr Gary CHENG can tell us why. Over the past few years, the Government has been insisting that the figure is 66 000, or even 64 000; at one time, it even said that it was just around 30 000. And, even during the two months immediately following the judgment of the CFA, the Government still claimed that the figure was just 64 000. It also said that 44 000 people had already arrived, and only 20 000 people were left. But then, the figure of 1.67 million has been "thrust before us all of a sudden". Mr Gary CHENG, please note that I am using the expression "thrust before us all of a sudden". After the mentioning of this figure, our Bureau Secretaries started to speak on this matter, describing the worst but altogether improbable scenarios. According to the Secretaries, all the new arrivals will be unable to find a job, and our unemployment rate will thus shoot up to 10%. They also say that the Government will have to construct many public housing units in an estate three times of the size of the whole Tseung Kwan O. But the Government seems to have forgotten that only permanent residents of Hong Kong who have resided in Hong Kong for seven years are eligible for public housing. And, the Government even says that we will have to spend $700 billion on housing all these people. People are naturally scared, because they fear tax increases and unemployment. That is why 80% of them say that these people should not be allowed to come, even if it means at the expense of the rule of law. But who are all these people? They are the children of the people of Hong Kong themselves! The people of Hong Kong have been so scared that they are even prepared to forego the rule of law, because the rule of law may not mean so much to them if they are to go jobless tomorrow. That said, we still notice that 70% of the people do not actually know the difference between interpreting and amending the Basic Law. We have sought the comments from some scholars of economics and statistics, and they all express great reservations about the figure of 1.67 million quoted by the Government. According to one expert, if only 10% of the respondents in the film-cylinder random sampling survey do not follow the prescribed rules (as when the fear of being overheard or noticed by their wives forces those men having illegitimate children in the Mainland to refuse to admit so when required by the film-cylinders they have picked; they may simply reply by saying "taxi"), the results will become very, very inaccurate, with a deviation as big as 94%. Some other experts also say that the figure given by the Government is totally against common sense, an insult to people's intelligence. But then, this is not the end of the tricks of the Government; well, because it now wants to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from the NPCSC, it has suddenly played down the whole thing by reducing the figure from 1.67 million to a mere 200 000. This is simply statistical magic, and some newspapers have even referred to this as a statistical thriller, a good theme for a Hitchcock movie.

What we are now facing is in fact a political and constitutional crisis. In all the relevant court cases, the Government was the defendant, and the CFA has already ruled that it is the loser. Normally, once anyone has lost a case in the CFA, he or she should accept and abide by the outcome. But the Government has behaved rather differently this time around. It is in fact trying to instigate a further appeal by seeking a reinterpretation from the NPCSC, and it even goes so far as to say that this is what "final appeal" is all about. I know what the Government has in mind ─ the CFA can interpret all those provisions in the Basic Law which fall within the autonomy of the SAR; if it thinks that the interpretation of the CFA is proper, it will accept it; if not, it will seek a reinterpretation from the NPCSC. But the problem is that the Basic Law does not contain any provision which says that the Government can judge whether the rulings of the CFA are correct or wrong. This is by far the greatest, the greatest, mistake committed by the Government and all those people who advocate the seeking of an interpretation from the NPCSC, including two law professors from the University of Hong Kong. If laymen are allowed to judge whether the rulings of the CFA are correct or wrong, can the CFA still live up to what its very name suggests? What is happening now is that the defendant, the Government, has already lost its case, but that it wants the Legislative Council to support its move to request the NPCSC to override the judgment of the CFA. I hope that we can all notice the constitutional crisis before us.

I have heard some people say that since there is nothing wrong with the Basic Law, it should not be amended at all. But is it really true that there is nothing wrong with the Basic Law? Well, perhaps, I should say that even though there may not be anything wrong with the Basic Law, it is at least ambiguous. In contrast, the Basic Law of Macau is a lot more precise in this particular respect. The Basic Law of Macau stipulates that the status of permanent residents will only be granted to Chinese citizens who have ordinarily resided in Macau for a continuous period of not less than seven years and persons of Chinese nationality born outside Macau of parents who were already permanent residents of Macau at the time of their births. The Basic Law of Hong Kong does not contain such a clear provision, and this is noted clearly by the CFA. In this particular respect, the Basic Law of Macau is more stringent, and that of Hong Kong is not. That being the case, how can one say that the CFA has made a wrong judgment?

Miss Margaret NG has already explained very clearly whether we should opt for an amendment or interpretation. A viewpoint heard most often these days is that interpretation is more time-saving, and that amendment will cause a delay of nine months. But is this a valid point? If we really choose to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law, these two cases will just be test cases, because, contrary to the claim of the Government, the 1 000 or so mainland residents already in Hong Kong are not the only people at stake. Why should we exclude those of a similar situation who are still in the Mainland? Their situation and those of the plaintiffs concerned are simply the same. That being the case, more lawsuits will certainly follow. As we all know, a court case will usually take about one and a half years from first hearing to final appeal. So, people should realize that it is the request for an interpretation of the Basic Law, not the amendment of it, which will bound to cause a delay of nine months. So far, I have not heard any good justifications for seeking an interpretation of the Basic Law. As a result, I cannot help suspecting that the motive behind this request is really to warn the five judges that they should always remember how they are expected to make their judgment and stop giving us any further troubles. Actually, even though the counsels representing the Government have themselves failed to mention many matters and so on, both in previous cases and the present one, they have still criticized the judges of the CFA for also failing to consider these matters when making their judgment. This will certainly make life very difficult for our judges in the future.

I am sure that within the judicial sector, many judges are really very worried. An experienced and senior judge once said to me, in person, "Martin, the rule of law is not yet dead, but has definitely sustained a mortal wound." he went on to ask, "How is the Special Administrative Region Government going to deal with the extradition of fugitives?" Well, as we all know, this issue was already thorny enough before the reunification. So, now, after the reunification, with such a precedent, judges of other countries may probably ask, "If there is a fugitive, and he is extradited back to Hong Kong to face trial ....... He may win the case. But if some legal issues of his case involves the interpretation of some Basic Law provisions, will the Special Administrative Region Government, which has lost the case, refer the matter to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for a reinterpretation?" This senior judge is deeply worried about such a possibility. I hope that all the judges of Hong Kong will not resign. The last thing I wish to see is the resignation of good judges with conscience. If they resign, what are those left behind going to do? I hope that they can bear with the situation and turn their grief into power.

I know that many of our brothers in the Democratic Party have shed their tears because of this matter. We all have very deep sorrow. I have been in politics for many years, and my sole purpose has been the protection of the rule of law. And, it is precisely because of this that I am so sorrowful now. I have once wanted to go on fasting, to defend the rule of law in Hong Kong with my own life. But in the end, I have figured out what I should do. I will not do this, because I do not want anyone to derive pleasure from seeing me die. So, I have decided that I should also turn my grief into power. Madam President, the rule of law in Hong Kong must not die, and I am convinced that it will not. I can die, but not the rule of law.

Madam President, the Government has never made any concrete proposal to handle this matter, and the only thing it has done so far is to give us the shocking figure of 1.67 million. One just wonder whether any other government in the world will do something like this. If the scale of the problem is really so big, the Government must first consider the whole situation very thoroughly to see whether it has overestimated its dimensions. Then, it should work out a good solution; it should also assess how we can accept these people, how many we can accept and where our bottomline is. Unfortunately, for a very long time, the Government never said anything on these matters except the above-mentioned figure. And, it was not until 2.30 pm yesterday that we were able to see the scheme now before us. So, we are simply given no time for discussions. And, we were given opportunities to ask high-ranking government officials questions on the matter only from 2.30 pm to 5.30 pm yesterday, and from 8.45 am to 10.45 am today. So, why do we still have to thank them before they leave? The point is that they need not have come, because the Government will certainly prevail over us. The Government simply has not given us any chance to discuss the matter and reach a consensus among us. The Government has simply ignored us.

Madam President, Members belonging to the democratic camp are going to leave this Chamber in protest. We all want to demonstrate that we are not prepared to collude with the Government in its attempt to override the judgment of the CFA and impair the principle of "one country, two systems". We are not prepared to rationalize the absolutely wrong decision made by the Government. After our departure, there will not be any more voices of protest in the Legislative Council. Then, there will be full agreement and much rejoicing, and the days of the Provisional Legislative Council will return; but, amidst the voice of support for the Government, the rule of law in Hong Kong will be foregone. The Government is sure to win, but its victory will be a Pyrrhic victory. Madam President, in accordance with Rule 40 of the Legislative Council Rules of Procedure, I move that the debate be now adjourned, so that the wider community and Members of this Council can have more time to explore and discuss this problem, which is by far the biggest and most acute one faced by the SAR Government since its establishment.

I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Martin LEE's motion to adjourn the debate on the Secretary for Security's motion be passed.

A number of Members have indicated their wish to speak, but I am not sure whether they wish to speak on the original motion or this motion. Therefore, will Members please raise their hands or press their buttons again.

MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Madam President, I rise to support the Honourable Martin LEE's motion to adjourn this debate. I just wish to add a couple of points to what Mr Martin LEE has already said.

The Government's case for interpretation by the Standing Committee is based on the argument that it would help to identify the "true legislative intent" of Articles 22 and 24 of the Basic Law. It argues that Article 24 para 2(3) intends to restrict the right of abode entitlement to children when one of whose parents was already a permanent resident at the time of their birth.

The evidence advanced in support are based on the deliberations of the Preparatory Committee and the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group (JLG), but the Government has not explained what standing these two bodies have to provide what was or what was not the legislative intent. My view is that they are of uncertain standing.

The reason I want to support Mr Martin LEE is to urge Members to really think about some of these issues. If you have the slightest doubt that you do not know the answers to these questions, if you have the slightest doubt that we need more time for clarification, I suggest that we give ourselves a bit more time and support the adjournment motion.

There is another issue that I want to bring up, and I want Members to think about whether they know the answer to this or not, and if you do not, give yourself some time. In paragraph 16 of the Government's background paper handed out to us yesterday, it asserts that the "true legislative intent ...... find their origin in the Joint Declaration, and that an agreement was reached in the JLG in 1993." I would like the Government to produce that agreement, or at least to refresh our memory of what press statement was released at the time. If Members of this Council have not refreshed your memory from this, you might wish to look at it.

My colleagues may recall that China had always said that the Basic Law was its own business, and that Britain and the JLG had no standing to comment on or interpret the Basic Law. I believe that paragraph 16 of the document provided for us was written to mislead. If that was not the intent, I ask for that paragraph to be rewritten and resubmitted to this Council. If Members would like to know the content of what that was all about, please give yourselves some time and support Mr Martin LEE's motion.

The fact is that the drafters of the Basic Law did not reflect whatever may have been the "legislative intent", which is why ultimately, it would be better to amend the Basic Law rather than to seek an interpretation. Again, dear Members, if you are not sure about this point, give yourselves the benefit of more time.

Finally, Madam President, the Government says that the route of interpretation by the Standing Committee is lawful under Chinese law. The Secretary for Justice, on various occasions, said that people who were against it just did not understand the Chinese legal system. She said that the reason for disapproval of this route was because we had the wrong perception of what it all meant.

Madam President, I just wish to say that the route of interpretation under Chinese law on its own is lawful, but that is not the point here. The point is whether the Government is going about things in the right way. If the Government is concerned about whether the full National People's Congress would or would not amend the Basic Law next March, as it states in its briefing paper, what is it doing to try and push through an interpretation by the Standing Committee? Is that not abusing the legal process for the sake of expediency?

Madam President, it is not just what Hong Kong does, but how it does it that will also affect the credibility of the public process and the credibility of this Government. I wish to urge my fellow councillors once more that if you feel at all that you do not know the answers to some of these issues, please give us some time and please support the adjournment motion.

MISS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I rise to support the adjournment motion.

Since the CFA made its judgment, the Government has been trying hard to make the public accept its "estimated" and "frightening" figure of 1.67 million people. And, it has also tried hard to highlight the negative effects of the matter. The Government has been depicting the worst scenario and inducing the public to accept its pre-empted conclusions. It has failed entirely to give people any enough time and room to look at the pros and cons of the various possible options from different angles. Worse still, it has tried to give people the false impression that the rule of law and public interests are mutually exclusive.

Over the past 10 days or so, the Legislative Council has invited many experts and scholars from the fields of statistics, actuary, economics and social and public administration to explore the "inaccuracy" of the figure given by the Government, and to query the various statistics relating to housing, education and employment which will result from the estimated figure of 1.67 million people. Senior lawyers from the legal profession and constitutional scholars have queried the Government, but many of the questions asked in the first round have so far remained unanswered. And, members of the public have not been given any opportunities to discuss all these queries and unanswered questions. But the Government has still insisted on making a "prompt" decision before all these doubts are clarified. I therefore wish to ask the Government this question: Does the Government fear that once the public is able to see the pros and cons of the various options, they will withdraw their support for the Government?

The Government has refused to continue its dialogues with the Legislative Council; it has refused to allow any sufficient time for public discussions; and, it has also refused to allow any debates through which the truth can come to light. Is all this because of its fear that once the public becomes better- and well-informed on the matter, they will make a sensible choice themselves? Actually, the interesting point is whether or not people are really going to change their mind after they have become better- and well-informed. The University of Hong Kong conducted an opinion poll last week, and the findings show that those in support of granting the ROA to the mainland residents concerned have risen to 33.9%. This survey was conducted on the basis that there are going to be 1.67 million new arrivals. Hence, we can see that 33.9% of the people of Hong Kong have changed their position and decided to support the granting of the ROA after knowing that the matter actually involves many other problems. Besides, according to available statistics, about 70% of the people do not quite know anything about seeking an interpretation of the Basic Law and about the request for amending it.

Madam President, whether we are going to amend the Basic Law or seek an interpretation of it from the NPCSC, we are inevitably making a very major decision, not least because we will in any case be passing some procedures to take away the ROA enjoyed some children of Hong Kong residents. In this connection, let me just quote the Chief Executive, "This will produce many negative effects on Hong Kong, shaking up the rule of law which we have managed to establish over the years." Our society cannot withstand such impacts. We will find it hard to face the people of Hong Kong if we make any decision before the public can conduct any in-depth discussions.

In making such a significant decision, the Government has adopted such an anti-intellectual, undemocratic, highly suppressive and rash approach. The Frontier must condemn such an irresponsible, short-sighted and stupid action. We support the adjournment. Thank you, Madam President.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, the DAB opposes Mr Martin LEE's motion to adjourn this debate. I think that the reason given by Mr Martin LEE, that is, there is insufficient time to consider this government motion is inadequate.

Recently, I have looked up some news reports and I find that there have been numerous discussions after the reunification about the Certificate of Entitlement to the ROA arising from the problem of non-permit children and the court proceedings in respect of the new arrivals from the Mainland. After the CFA made its judgment on 29 January this year, the legal sector, academics or the political sector have discussed in-depth and explored the controversial points in the CFA judgment. Those who support amending the Basic Law and those who support requesting the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law have expressed their views respectively and fully discussed the matter.

I recall that a radio station had conducted an opinion poll in February this year and around one fourth of the respondents supported amending the Basic Law while more than half supported requesting the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law. The Task Force led by the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Anson CHAN, held the first meeting on 5 February to examine the enforcement of the CFA judgment and evaluate the relevant services. Later, the Task Force attended the special meetings of the House Committee and reported the progress of its work. The result of a survey announced by the Secretary for Security in this Council last month shows that around 1 675 000 children born to Hong Kong people in the Mainland are entitled to come to Hong Kong according to the CFA judgment. Within three weeks from the announcement of the figure till now, various government departments have evaluated the services and facilities they need to provide in the next decade.

Moreover, the House Committee has held a few special meetings and invited people from different sectors including legal practitioners, academics and statisticians to give us advice. Legal practitioners and academics have expressed different views on the solution of the problems arising from the CFA judgment. For instance, the merits and demerits of amending the Basic Law or interpreting some provisions of the Basic Law and the difference between the two. Their views have offered great help in making an analysis and a decision. Furthermore, dozens of opinion polls have been conducted in these four months, reflecting that the public expect the Government to work out solutions to the Certificate of Entitlement problem as soon as possible and they explicitly wish and demand that the SAR Government should request the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions.

In February and May this year, the DAB carried out two opinion polls respectively. During the first poll, the Government had not yet announced the statistical figures and more than 80% people thought that the enforcement of the CFA judgment by the Government would impose a heavy burden and pressure on our community in such areas as health care, education, housing, employment and social welfare. The second poll was made in early May, and 80% people thought that the best proposal was to request the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions. There are unambiguous public opinion and adequate arguments on the basis of which Honourable Members can make a decision.

Mr Martin LEE said earlier that the rule of law in Hong Kong would die if the government motion was approved today. In my opinion, this is one of the intimidating remarks Mr Martin LEE of the Democratic Party usually makes ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LEE, a point of order or ......

MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): I would like to clarify ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Hold on a moment, if you would like to clarify a point, you have to ask the speaking Member if he is willing to give way.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, as time is running out, I would like to finish speaking first.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would ask Mr LEE to clarify his point after you have finished.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): I hope that the President will give me some more time to make up for the time lost.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fine. Please continue.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Madam President, I would like to finish speaking because time is running out and I hope that the President will give me some more time to make up for the time lost as a result of the interruption.

If we request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, the rule of law in Hong Kong will not die. On the contrary, the rule of law in Hong Kong will be enhanced and our prosperity, stability and progress will be further safeguarded. In my opinion, what Mr Martin LEE said are more or less the same as what he said before the reunification. I vaguely remember he said something to the effect that the rule of law in Hong Kong would vanish after the reunification, and it would be extremely dark and there would be economic problems. Some Members even said that democrats like them would not be able to leave Hong Kong and they might be imprisoned after the reunification. Their remarks gave the community an impression that the reunification was terrible and we were facing an imminent disaster. Just as today, they are saying that if Hong Kong requests the NPCSC to interpret the provisions of the Basic Law, the rule of law would vanish, we will completely lose confidence in the Hong Kong Government, and the Government will lose its credibility. We hope that Hong Kong people will evaluate these remarks in an impartial manner and see how credible they are.

Madam President, in short, we fully support the Hong Kong Government in requesting the Central Authorities to interpret the Basic Law. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LEE, you said that part of your speech had been misunderstood; you may clarify it now.

MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): I have not been misunderstood but Mr CHAN Kam-lam has heard it wrong. I said that "while I might die, the rule of law must survive, and I hope that the rule of law will survive". Probably, Mr CHAN has mixed up the rule of law and I.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Democratic Party has always flaunted that it is most ready to listen to people's voices. We have read three newspapers today. It is stated in the Ming Pao that 57.3% of the people ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Philip WONG, do you have a point of order?

DR PHILIP WONG (in Cantonese): Are we debating on Mr Martin LEE's adjournment or ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Philip WONG, please be seated. We are debating on the motion moved by Mr Martin LEE to adjourn the debate on the Secretary for Security's motion. Mrs Selina CHOW, please continue.

MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Madam President, it is stated in the Ming Pao today that 57.5% of the people support requesting the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law while only 13.8% has no opinion. The Oriental Daily has conducted a similar poll on whether the ROA problem should be resolved by the Government's method, and 52% thinks that it is appropriate to do so. The Apple Daily opposes this proposal most strongly but it cannot decline publishing the result of its poll on the number of people who support requesting the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, and the result is 69.6%. Hong Kong people have indicated very clearly that they hope that this problem will be resolved expeditiously, and more than half of the Hong Kong people support the Government's solution. For some Honourable Members, those who agree to the Government's decision do not understand or know the problems; for they know better according to themselves.

We have different views on many issues. If we say that the Government is "intimidating", are some Honourable colleagues also "intimidating" us? They have said that we have to be careful, and after we have asked the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, we have to request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law whenever problems emerge in Hong Kong in future, say next month or next week. They will not believe the remarks or pledges made by the Government. As the Government has said, it is an unusual time and people think that it is necessary to request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law. Although this is not a good method and the Government has also admitted it, we cannot think of a better method. Can Honourable colleagues think of a better method? The problem must be resolved after all. Yet, some Honourable colleagues are still intimidating people. They said that we should never do so and the rule of law was dead. As the problem must be resolved after all, we should take action as soon as possible. We cannot go on debating for a year, for so long as the problem is not resolved, it will bring about many other problems.

Therefore, we reached a consensus at the House Committee meeting last Friday on requesting the Government to solve the problem expeditiously. On the basis of the demand of Hong Kong people, the Liberal Party wants to solve the problem quickly. We need an effective proposal. Although Members may not agree to the Government's proposal, it is at least feasible. Some Members have made proposals that sound pleasant and amending the Basic Law is only their wishful thinking. How many steps and work are involved? Can this really solve the problem? If not, what will be the situation of Hong Kong people? How can our worries be dispelled? Do we have to wait for the outcome of debates? We usually find that different lawyers have different opinions.

Does this mean that the Legislative Council has not discharged its duties? Has the Council conducted consultation? The House Committee has tried its best and we have considered various arguments. Are we unclear about any point? We have carried out thorough discussions, listened to various views and been well informed about the whole situation. Those who oppose the motion and those who support it can follow their inclinations and debate over the matter to our hearts' content.

Madam President, the Liberal Party opposes the adjournment of this motion debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak on the motion moved without notice by Mr Martin LEE to adjourn the debate on the motion moved by the Secretary for Security? Is it right that no Member wished to speak? Secretary for Security, do you wish to speak?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. Firstly, after I have heard the criticisms against the Government made by Miss Margaret NG and Mr Martin LEE on behalf of 15 directly elected Members and extremely sternly by Miss Cyd HO, I am very sad and disappointed as are some of the Honourable Members. I have a high regard for some Honourable Members, especially Mr Martin LEE. Why am I so sad and disappointed? It is because these Honourable Members have made very serious criticisms. They are saying that the Government is dishonest, and has intentionally declined to enforce the judgment of the CFA and wilfully intimidated people to confuse them and exert its power. In the debate that follows, we will know by simply counting the number of votes in support of the motion moved by me and the Government's goal will be achieved; but it will be inglorious for us to do so.

I believe I am right for I see many elected Members nodding. Thank you, Honourable Members. These criticisms have made me sad and disappointed. I hope that the President will give me a bit more time to respond point by point to the criticism that the Government lacks sincerity in enforcing the CFA judgment. I think that this is an extremely unfair comment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WONG, please raise your point of order.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): The motion before us is on the adjournment of the debate rather than the debate on the Government's original motion.

DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): I also agree that we are now having a technical discussion on whether or not the debate should be adjourned. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security, do you get the point? You may continue.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Excuse me, Madam President, may I continue?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You may continue speaking but we are now discussing Mr Martin LEE's motion seeking to adjourn the debate on your motion. I believe that you do not want the debate to be adjourned, therefore, I hope that you will speak on this point. As to the views of Members who have spoken on the original motion, as many Members may speak later on, you can give a reply when you reply to the original motion. However, I also understand your difficulties. You just heard Mr Martin LEE say that if his motion is not approved during the division, he may withdraw from the Chamber, therefore, I understand why you have such a response.

Secretary, please continue but try your best to be concise.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President. I will try my best to be concise. In fact, Honourable Members know the history of this incident very well. After the CFA made the judgment on 29 January, the Director of Immigration went to Beijing on 1 February for discussions on the relevant application procedures while the Chief Secretary for Administration immediately set up a Task Force to enforce this judgment. When the Legislative Council asked government officials to attend meetings, every official has come and I only want to apologize that the Secretary for Justice, Miss LEUNG, and I failed to attend some meetings last week because we had problems with our schedules and preparation. But we will try our best to attend meetings when we have prepared well.

We are absolutely not intimidating the public or Honourable Members because the figure we have is obtained by the usual statistical means. Although academics have queries, we can hardly discount certain figure accordingly. But we will brief Honourable Members after the statistical work has been completed. I find it a pity that Mr LEE has sought to adjourn the debate. As I have said, we must hold discussions quickly and solve the ROA problem. Many Honourable Members have said that the ROA problem has not only perturbed us for four months or two years after the reunification. Actually, from the commencement of Sino-British negotiations in the 1980s to the time of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group, discussions were all along conducted on the ROA issue. And the problem has greatly perturbed the community.

The opinion polls conducted in these few weeks show that the public hopes that the problem will soon be solved to eliminate the unclear factors in the community and allow us to resume normal work and carry out normal plans. Therefore, we should debate this issue as soon as possible so that the Chief Executive can make a decision quickly to request the State Council to solve the problem. In reference to our request for the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, a few Members said that it would affect the rule of law in Hong Kong. I can say very briefly that every official of the SAR Government responsible for handling the matter will definitely not ask the public to choose between economic benefits and the rule of law. We, officials in charge of the matter, have very painfully thought over the option we should take in the past few months. After we had made a decision on the option last Tuesday morning, we immediately reported the decision to Honourable Members. After discussions with foreign businessmen, foreign consulates and legal practitioners in the past few months, we also understand the importance of the rule of law to Hong Kong. We will absolutely not support a proposal that will affect the rule of law in Hong Kong and "one country, two systems".

To save time, I would only say that time is the best proof as to whether the Chief Executive's request through the State Council for the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law in order to solve the existing problem will finally affect the rule of law, judicial independence or cripple the authority and final adjudication of the CFA. I am convicted that it will not have such effects and the Government will not request the NPCSC lightly to make an interpretation whenever court proceedings may be involved. Therefore, I hope that Honourable Members will support the Government and will not adjourn this motion debate. Thank you, Madam President.

MR ANDREW WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I did not intend to speak. Although I am not affiliated with any political group, I have been described as a democrat and some people say that I am a member of the breakfast group. In this dispute, I am somewhere caught between the "interpretation group" and "amendment group" and I am more inclined towards the "amendment group". I am not making an explanation but I only want to state why I support "amendment" but not "interpretation".

I would like to remind Honourable Members that we, including the President, have held discussions with the Government in the past few days, from last Friday and Saturday to this Monday and we hope that the Government will consult us after it has rapped the gavel for the first time. In fact, I did propose to hold a motion debate. The Government rapped the gavel on Tuesday, if we regard this decision as final, then I hope that the Government will at least give Honourable Members and the public one more week to discuss the matter and obtain certain information which is still wanting. For instance, what procedures are involved under Article 158? Are there documents on such procedures? Are they available to the ordinary people? I have asked these questions at our meetings but they have not been answered to date. Therefore, I find it perfectly justified for us to demand that the debate be adjourned for one week.

I hope Honourable Members will not forget the agreement we reached at the House Committee meeting. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I ask Mr Martin LEE to reply, does any other Member wish to speak? (Pause) Mr Martin LEE.

MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Government has actually held the consultation behind closed doors and the figure has not been finally confirmed. I believe the Government would admit this. We have waited until yesterday before we knew that the Government would really move this motion today. In fact, Mr Albert HO of the Democratic Party would propose a similar motion next Wednesday, and the direction of the motion is certainly exactly the opposite of the Government's. The Government has jumped the queue, and we think that it has moved the motion too hastily.

Mrs Selina CHOW's remarks sound pretty strange. She said that the result of an opinion poll showed that people agreed to requesting the NPCSC for an interpretation. This has nothing to do with the motion I am moving at all. Mrs Selina CHOW has not read out the result of an important opinion poll published in Apply Daily. Probably, the way she reads Apply Daily is similar to the way my son eats chocolate. He only chooses to eat the chocolate he likes and he will not bother about the chocolate he does not like. Apple Daily has conducted another opinion poll on the question: "Do you think it is too hasty for the Legislative Council to adopt the proposal today?" This point has something to do with my motion indeed. Among the interviewees, 46% answered yes while 40.1% answered no. When we read newspapers, we can certainly choose to read the sections we like, but I hope that Honourable Members will not only choose to read out the sections they like and ignore the sections they do not like. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Martin LEE according to Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure to adjourn the debate on the motion moved by the Secretary for Security be passed. 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)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member claim a division?

Mr Martin LEE rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LEE has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes? If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Michael HO, Miss Margaret NG, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Mr Bernard CHAN, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Mr LAW Chi-kwong voted for the motion.

Mr Kenneth TING, Mr James TIEN, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Dr LUI Ming-wah, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr HUI Cheung-ching, Mr CHAN Kwok-keung, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr WONG Yung-kan, 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, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Andrew WONG, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Andrew CHENG and Mr SZETO Wah voted for the motion.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Gary CHENG, Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Ambrose LAU and Miss CHOY So-yuk 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, eight were in favour of the motion and 20 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, 30 were present, 15 were in favour of the motion and 14 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.

(After the President declared that the motion was negatived, 19 Members withdrew from the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We shall continue to debate on the Secretary for Security's motion.

DR PHILIP WONG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I should like to express my deep regret about the Democratic Party's decision to leave this Chamber at this juncture. In my opinion, the Honourable Members from the Democratic Party are also members of the local population in Hong Kong, and hence they should have the responsibility to remain here and listen to my views.

Coming back to the issue before us, Madam President, I have no intention to challenge the judgement made by the CFA, but I really cannot accept the view of the CFA that there should be no need to expeditiously seek remedy to the bad consequences brought by the judgement it has made out of inadequate understanding or even misunderstanding of the legislative intent of the Basic Law. On the other hand, I will not try to interpret myself the provisions which are outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, such as those related to the permission for the mainland people to come to Hong Kong. I believe the responsibility to interpret those provisions should rest with the NPC.

As we all know, the CFA has misinterpreted the legislative intent of the Basic Law provisions relating to the ROA and hence made the judgement which would impose unbearable population pressure on Hong Kong and bring about long-term negative effects on our community. The judgement in question is related to the prosperity, stability, as well as long-term security and well-being of Hong Kong; as such, all the people of Hong Kong are very much concerned. This judgement has in fact already given rise to much heated debate among members of the community. In this connection, the debates over the past few months have been concentrated mainly on the issue of "how best could the matter be resolved in the best interests of the long-term development of Hong Kong".

According to the estimation made by the Government, if the judgement of the CFA should be enforced, as many as 1.67 million eligible mainland children will rush to Hong Kong in the next 10 years, thereby giving rise to an additional public expenditure of as much as $700 billion. While there are divergent views on the figure, so far statisticians have only raised, if any, their different views but none has ever said with certainty that the figure is completely incorrect. I hold that a responsible government should prepare for the worst while making its best efforts to achieve the most favourable results. Otherwise, if anything should run out of control, would we be willing to accept an explanation from the Government which claims that "it was due to the views made by certain scholars that it has made an underestimation of the situation"? Certainly not! Further still, do you think the scholars concerned would then be willing to come out and admit that it was they who have misled the Government into underestimating the seriousness of the situation? Certainly not!

I have taken part in both the drafting of the Basic Law and the discussions of the Preparatory Committee. Not unlike many participants and other legal practitioners, I also think that the judgement of the CFA has indeed deviated from the legislative intent of the Basic Law. In this connection, we particularly consider that the CFA has obviously misinterpreted the provision that "Chinese citizens living in other areas do not enjoy the right of abode (ROA) in Hong Kong". Since many members of the community have already pointed out the misinterpretation of the CFA in this connection while the 27 Hong Kong deputies to the NPC have made an announcement in support of both the public opinion and the SAR Government, I do not wish to repeat their views here. As a matter of fact, if we are to cater for the long-term interests of Hong Kong, the most important point is to make sure that Hong Kong could survive the arrangement for the mainland people eligible for the ROA to come to Hong Kong in batches and "in an orderly manner" within a certain number of years. In drafting the Basic Law, it was partly out of humanity consideration and partly out of the fact that Hong Kong was a densely populated small area that we incorporated a mechanism to enable people "to settle in Hong Kong in an orderly manner". This was both the then legislative intent of the Basic Law, and the spirit of the resolution presented by the Preparatory Committee to the NPCSC in 1996. In regard to the SAR Government's decision to request the NPCSC, among other possible means to resolve the matter, by virtue of Article 158 of the Basic Law to exercise its power of interpretation, I consider this is the best decision that the Government could have made. The Government is just making a request in accordance with the law for the highest level of the legislative hierarchy to explain the legislative intent of the Basic Law so as to clear some doubts and stabilize the situation as a whole. What is wrong with that?

I consider it a wise move of the SAR Government to move the motion today. Upon its passage, the motion will serve to safeguard the Basic Law, reinforce the spirit of the rule of law, as well as ensure the implementation of the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong People ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy"; what is more, the issue that members of the community have been debating over the past few months will also be resolved in a reasonable, lawful, effective, expeditious manner which is also in line with the view of the mass majority of the people of Hong Kong. I am sure international investors will also understand and support the decision of the Government. Thank you, Madam President.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the judgment made by the CFA in respect of the ROA of mainland children born to Hong Kong residents has brought about shocking impact on the territory. According to the data provided by the Government, at least some 1.67 million mainland people will be eligible for the ROA in Hong Kong; as such, the pressure on both the economy of Hong Kong and the livelihood of the local population will increase tremendously.

There have been doubts regarding the accuracy of the government data, but the crux of the matter does not lie in the question of whether the projection of 1.67 million people is totally accurate. The problem with the judgment of the CFA is that it allows the mainland children born to Hong Kong residents to settle in Hong Kong generation after generation, regardless of whether the child was born out of wedlock or whether at least either of the parents has become permanent Hong Kong residents when the child was born. This would have unpredictably serious implications for our future population growth, since the influx of new immigrants into Hong Kong will be an incessant process. Without a doubt, Hong Kong will not be able to sustain such kind of population growth, the community will just collapse sooner or later.

As reflected in the opinion polls conducted since the Government has published the relevant figures and disclosed the estimated impact on the various public policies, the public are of the view that Hong Kong could not sustain such an increase in population and that methods must be sought to resolve the situation. Let me explain this with an example. It has been reflected in a survey conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong that close to 90% of the local population believe that both the social and the living conditions in Hong Kong will deteriorate if there should be an influx of mainland children into Hong Kong. Besides, in regard to the ROA issue, 73% of the interviewees have held that the interests of the community as a whole should be the most important consideration, while only 14% of them consider that both the legal perspective and the human rights should be the most important factor in this connection.

Bearing in mind that the ROA issue of the mainland children has already given rise to grave concern among the people of Hong Kong and the residents in the Mainland, and that the tumultuous feelings have lingered on for quite a long time, the Liberal Party is of the view that if the problem could not be resolved promptly, not only will members of the community harbour strong feelings of insecurity and anxiety, but feelings of uncertainty will also be aroused among the affected mainland people. In order to clear the cloud that obscured the future of Hong Kong and to prevent the work of the Administration from being affected, the Liberal Party believes that the Government should expeditiously seek effective measures to resolve the situation.

Apart from resolving the problem once and for all and preventing any future disputes, the Liberal Party holds that the most effective way to resolve the situation should be rational and in line with the law, so as to ensure that the rule of law upheld in Hong Kong will not be undermined. As such, we cannot accept the proposal to ask the CFA to correct its own judgment, for so doing is not only inconsistent with the existing judicial system but will also undermine completely both the authority and the independence of the CFA. Actually, there are but two feasible options open to us; one is to request the National People's Congress (NPC) to amend the Basic Law, and the other is to request the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law.

There have been many heated debates regarding these two options among members of the community over the last two weeks, even the legal profession has a divergence of opinion in this connection. In the opinion of the Liberal Party, introducing an amendment to any existing law to resolve its enforcement problem is no doubt a more easily understandable and commonly adopted method; as such, we have said earlier that amending the Basic Law should be a better option in this perspective. Nevertheless, at the same time we have also expressed our concern that amending the Basic Law might bring about other problems. As a matter of fact, from the heated discussions by the various sectors of the community, we have found that the proposal to amend the Basic Law is not as simple as it appears, since quite a number of issues will be involved, thereby making the implementation very difficult.

To begin with, amending the Basic Law is a time-consuming process, and the earliest action could be taken only in March next year when the NPC calls its plenary session. If the Government should announce today that it would seek to amend the Basic Law but no action could be taken until nine months later, a very dangerous period of uncertainty will then arise. That being the case, not only will the principle of resolving the matter in an expeditious manner be violated, new disturbances will also be brought to the community.

Secondly, given that the Basic Law is the regional constitution of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), amending the Basic Law is a more serious issue than amending any other pieces of legislation. As such, the Basic Law should not be amended casually; otherwise, the stability of our laws will be severely challenged.

Thirdly, Article 159 of the Basic Law has already provided for a very strict amendment procedure regarding the Basic Law. In this connection, the proposal to amend the Basic Law shall be submitted only after consent has been obtained from two thirds of the deputies of the SAR to the NPC, two thirds of all Members of this Council, as well as the Chief Executive. However, 27 of the 36 NPC deputies of the SAR have recently published a joint announcement in support of the proposal to request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law. In other words, the proposal to amend the Basic Law will not be able to obtain the consent of the SAR deputies to the NPC and could not, therefore, be submitted. Even if the proposal could be submitted, there still hangs a major doubt as to whether the Central Authorities and the NPC will lend it their support. While both the mainland deputies to the NPC and the legal professionals there have criticized the CFA for having misinterpreted the Basic Law after it had made the judgment in question, so far the Central Authorities and the NPC deputies have made no mention of any problems with the provisions of the Basic Law nor any need to amend them.

In view of the aforementioned reasons, the Liberal Party believes that although it is a lawful method to resolve the ROA issue by amending the Basic Law, so doing would hardly be viable.

In regard to the proposal put forward by the Government to request the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, the Liberal Party agrees that the concept of the right to interpret any legislative intent is not readily understandable to both Hong Kong and other common law jurisdictions, and would very easily be criticized for undermining the rule of law. However, after studying carefully the views of the legal profession, we consider that Article 158 of the Basic Law has specifically set out that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law shall be vested in the NPCSC, and that the provision has not stipulated that the NPCSC could only exercise such power upon request by the Courts of Hong Kong in adjudicating cases. As such, the proposal put forward by the SAR Government to request the State Council to approach the NPCSC for an interpretation of the Basic Law indeed has not breached the Basic Law. On the contrary, it is in line with both the Constitution of China and the working procedure of the NPCSC, and is therefore a lawful and reasonable course of action.

Madam President, the Liberal Party has assessed the impact that the NPCSC interpretation might have on the power and authority of the judgments made by the CFA. In this connection, although government officials have told us yesterday that the NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law will affect only the principles involved in dealing with those ROA applications pending final decisions or those to be submitted in the future, and that the 80-odd persons involved in the two cases handled on 29 January as well as the relevant persons seeking judicial review on the ground of these two cases would remain unaffected by the NPCSC interpretation, we still believe it will inevitably undermine, though not completely, the authority of the CFA. After taking into account the crux of the matter, which is the need to expeditiously address the grave impact the ROA issue has on the community of Hong Kong as a whole, we consider the Government's proposal to request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law the only option open to us.

The Liberal Party has also looked into the question of whether an interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC could really resolve the matter completely. Will the CFA have the right to disregard the interpretation of the NPCSC in making future adjudication? As referred to by the Government, the CFA had made an announcement on 26 February that "if the NPCSC should interpret the provisions of the Basic Law, the courts of the SAR shall abide by such interpretations, and the Judiciary also accepts that such power of interpretation of the NPCSC's is beyond question", nevertheless we still cannot rest assured that the interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC could really resolve the matter completely. Hence, the Liberal Party has to urge the Government to keep watch on the development of the matter.

The NPCSC will call its meeting in two months, should everything go smoothly, the ROA issue could be resolved towards the middle of the coming month. This is in line with the principle of resolving the matter in an expeditious and effective manner; besides, it is also in line with the major premise of the motion I have moved on behalf of the Liberal Party at the House Committee meeting held last Friday.

There have been views from among the legal practitioners that the interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC would put the rule of law in Hong Kong under doubt, and that both international and local investors would be scared away. I may not have very frequent contacts with the legal profession, however, I believe my contact with the industrial and commercial sector will certainly be the most frequent compared to that of other Honourable Members in this Chamber. In this connection, so far neither I nor the General Chamber of Commerce has received any views from the industrial and commercial sector that its confidence will be undermined if the NPCSC should interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law. On the contrary, members from the sector have expressed their concern that bearing in mind the high rate of unemployment which stands at 6.3%, the local industries and businesses would not be able to provide enough jobs for those 1.67 million people if they should all come to Hong Kong; besides, they are also concerned that the Government might resort to increasing taxes to cover the additional social expenditure, thereby raising their operating costs. Now that there are signs of an economic recovery, members of the sector all hope that the issue could be resolved as soon as practicable. It is in line with the expectation of the industrial and commercial sector that the Liberal Party urges the Government to expeditiously adopt an effective measure to deliberate on the principle according to which the ROA issue should be resolved.

Madam President, as I said earlier, other common law jurisdictions in international community might have difficulty in understanding not only the concept of the power of legislative interpretation but also the background to the Basic Law. Hence, the Liberal Party has to urge the Government once again to fully explain the case to the international community, with a view to dispelling their worries by enabling them to understand that the power of legislative interpretation is a part of the legal system adopted in China, and that the interpretation by the NPCSC is in line with instead of breaching the provisions of the Basic Law.

Madam President, it is beyond the expectation of both the Government and the people of Hong Kong that the judgment made by the CFA would bring about an unprecedented population crisis. In the face of such a grave challenge, we cannot but admit the saddening fact that Hong Kong is unable to sustain such an additional increase in population, and that we are unable to depend solely on ourselves to resolve the matter properly.

Regardless of whether we would like to amend the Basic Law or request the NPCSC to exercise its power of interpretation, it would just be inevitable for us to seek help from the Central Authorities; and I do not see any reason why the Central Authorities would be happy with either of the options. Nevertheless, we have no other alternatives, for we cannot bury our heads in the sand, close our eyes to the various problems and let Hong Kong strive for survival on its own; nor can we shirk our historical responsibility and let the "Pearl of the Orient" which the people of Hong Kong have toiled to cultivate lose its lustre in front of us. Taking account of all the pros and cons, the Liberal Party has decided to support the proposal of the Government to resolve the ROA issue by requesting the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law.

With these remarks, I support the government motion on behalf of the Liberal Party.

MR BERNARD CHAN: Madam President, although the Government has successfully pushed the Council for a debate on this contentious issue, I do not think we are ready to probe into full details, neither is society. When we cast our votes a few hours later, we still have many questions unanswered. How much the influx will cost society is a matter of sheer estimates. And to what extent the rule of law will be undermined is a matter of perception. It takes time for this Council as well as the public to rate carefully against each factor and to opt for a preferred solution. Although a consensus is unlikely to reach, I am adamant that all members of the public should understand in full what the issue is about and what the price is, from both social and legal perspectives.

Now the Government has its time consideration to rush through all the procedures and most colleagues here have taken their side. But is the public convinced that the Government is working for the good of the people, rather than for ites own convenience? Is the international community convinced that the rule of law here is not weakened? I am saddened to say that the answers are in the negative.

We know it very well that all options in our hands have downside risks of different nature. But if the Government failed to anchor its decision in the support of people, damages were doomed. I cannot imagine how the international media will portray this event when the voting result comes out, which is very likely in favour of the Government. Most probably, today will be depicted as the doomsday of the rule of law. These are real damages we have to face. Has the Government taken sufficient steps to control the damage? Or is the damage control effective? I do not think so.

The next question is: How does the public perceive the Government's decision? They may be happy to hear that the influx of migrants has been curbed and the terrible scenario of an overcrowded Hong Kong will not come true. But many of them may think that this is done at the expense of the rule of law.

In my recent survey for business leaders mostly in the financial sector, although about half of them opted for an interpretation by the National People's Congress (NPC), they still had bad feelings that the decision would set a precedent to overturn the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA); needless to mention the other half in support of amending the Basic Law and those strongly opposed to influx control. Their faith in the Judiciary was damaged in various degrees. These are company chiefs who take the lead in economic advancement. Has the Government explained to them the entire issue and listened to their views? I am sorry to say that I do not think that it is enough.

Many people in the business community have mistaken the issue as a matter of immigration policy rather than something about the right of abode. Some of them even suggest a merits system to screen immigrants and absorb them in terms of decades. To some others, both reinterpreting and amending the Basic Law are strongly condemned as unethical and non-humanitarian measures to break up families.

However, very few of them are aware of the supremacy of the Standing Committee of the NPC in interpreting the Basic Law and that the jurisdiction of the CFA is bound. People who are accustomed to the common law system can hardly tolerate a higher power above the Judiciary. But the fact is that we are living in China. The constitutional framework as stipulated in the Basic Law has specified the authorities of the Chief Executive and the NPC. With the existence of one country and two distinct political and legal systems, clashes are deemed to happen one day or the other.

Having considered all these factors, I am convinced that resorting to the Standing Committee of the NPC is the only viable solution that we have. But I wonder how many people in the business community have the privileges as us to listen to various delegations before making up their minds. I think that the debate is premature in the community. As all people have to bear the cost of the decision, is the Government doing it in a manner fair to the barely informed public?

There is one thing I am delighted to find out from the survey which is still going on. Of the 134 company heads responded so far, most of them had no plan to decrease investment regardless of the option taken. The Government's decision may not scare away investment as some colleagues have claimed. Businessmen are mostly very practical. As Hong Kong continues to offer business opportunities, investments will come and stay. But I am not sure what if the situation worsened, such as the rule of law was perceived to be totally shattered and the Judiciary was resentful at what had happened to them. It is time for the Government to take comprehensive damage control measures. These measures should be seen as effective.

I regret about what have happened so far. I do not understand why the reliable data of the possible influx had not been submitted to the CFA before it made the landmark decision but only several months after it. Has the Government taken sufficient preparation for the court case? Or is it a sheer administrative mishap? I think the public deserves a credible answer.

Before closing my speech, I would like to urge the Government to talk to various business communities immediately. There exist lots of doubts and misunderstanding in the business circle and their worries should be properly addressed. Even if this Council turned a green light to the Government's decision, remedial actions should be done to alleviate the downside effects.

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

MISS CHOY SO-YUK (in Cantonese): Madam President, the decision of the Government has caused me to undergo a considerable inner struggle, since either of the options will put me in distress beyond compare. Of all the Members of this Council, I am sure I should be among those who have been most directly affected by the issue before us. The ROA issue has affected not only myself, my family or each and every relative close to me, but also the majority of the folks from Fujian, since we all have mainland relatives whom we long to re-unite with in Hong Kong. Yet behind our strong wishes there is the cruel reality of choice making. Today, we must make our choices, but I am caught on the horns of a dilemma.

on a recent occasion, I have met with some 40 Fujian folks. As we began chatting with each other, we naturally touched upon the issue and expressed our grave concern. After a very brief survey, I have found out that each of the 40 households present there has at least two to 12 close relatives who are eligible to settle in Hong Kong in the near future as a result of the CFA judgment. I am no exception, since I have four relatives aged several months to 14 waiting to move to Hong Kong. Some of the folks have even said that they would be willing to pay the SAR Government $50,000 for the arrival of each of their eligible mainland relatives. Under such circumstances, how could we accept the decision which will disappoint our relatives all at once? Who would be willing to be separated from their own family members?

On the other hand, however, we are also faced with the nakedly sinister question of whether Hong Kong would be able to bear the consequences of the judgment made by the CFA. Could we take in all the eligible mainland people without sacrificing the healthy development of Hong Kong as a whole? Even myself and the 40 Fujian folks have agreed that the number of eligible first generation mainland children would be far more than 700 000; as such, we are very much concerned about the impact on Hong Kong if such a large number of persons should come here within a short time. What would happen to Hong Kong then?

While the way of life which we have taken for granted might perhaps become out of our league tomorrow, the quality of life, social order, basic education, inexpensive public health services and reasonable welfare which we have been enjoying might become something we long for tomorrow; what is more, the international metropolis we live in today might be reduced to one of the second or even third class cities in China. In the face of this issue which is relevant to the survival of Hong Kong as a whole, we have but one alternative. How are we going to make up our minds?

The decision we are going to make today would be a painful and helpless one, and we believe the Government would share the same distress and helplessness we have. Without a doubt, it is a heartrending experience to lose the chance to join one's family members; however, as a responsible Member of this Council who loves the people of Hong Kong, how could I overlook the grave needs of the 6 million local population? How could I let the achievement of Hong Kong accumulated through the efforts made over the past years to be destroyed all of a sudden? In the circumstances, I agree that the Government should seek lawful means to resolve the problem before us; besides, I also agree that requesting the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law should be the most simple and fastest lawful solution to the issue.

Madam President, it is my sincere hope that the government officials in this Chamber today will accept my following suggestion. I suggest the SAR Government making its best effort to request the Central Authorities to ensure that disregarding the ultimate interpretation made by the NPCSC, the immigration authorities in the Mainland will never make use of the decision this time as an excuse to exclude from the 150 daily quota for the one-way exit permit those mainland people who, against their strong wishes, could not immediately come to Hong Kong to unite with their family members. On the contrary, the Central Authorities should ensure that all or a majority of the quota of 150 one-way exit permits per day would be allocated to the mainland children affected by the present incident, with a view to making fair, just and reasonable arrangements for them to come to Hong Kong. I am sure this is the common wish of every member of the local community, in particular those affected by the present incident.

Finally, I should like to urge the SAR Government to collaborate with the Central Authorities and make every effort to strive for its participation in vetting the applications submitted by persons who wish to settle in Hong Kong, with a view to enhancing the transparency of the vetting process. Besides, the Central Government should also set up in collaboration with the SAR Government a complaints mechanism, so as to provide for the mainland people who have been treated unfairly and hence could not come to Hong Kong a fair and open channel of redress. I believe this is the only way to keep those people affected by this incident from losing their hope, as well as to tell everybody that the SAR Government is not merciless after all.

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

DR RAYMOND HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, Hong Kong is now facing the greatest crisis since the reunification with the motherland in 1997. Following the CFA judgment delivered on 29 January 1999 about the ROA of children of Hong Kong people, the number of mainlanders eligible to come to settle in Hong Kong immediately increases abruptly. According to a recent assessment by the Government, those who are eligible to come to settle in Hong Kong immediately, plus those who will be eligible to do so when either of their parents has met the seven-year residence requirement, will total 1.67 million in a span of 10 years or more. The number has not included those who are eligible to come but whose parents have emigrated or passed away.

At the moment, Hong Kong is experiencing an economic downturn and a high unemployment rate. To receive such an enormous number of immigrants within a short time will mean an immense impact for Hong Kong and considerable pressure for the resources in Hong Kong. As a territory with a good sense of responsibility, Hong Kong must have considerable commitment in catering to the needs of those who come here in terms of their education, housing, employment, medical care and social welfare. But if we know we cannot satisfy these needs, we must make a responsible decision so that the quality of life for Hong Kong people and those who arrive will not be adversely affected. This is exactly what a responsible Government should do, considering the real interest of its people and others who may come to settle here. This does not imply there is any discrimination against compatriots in the Mainland.

Like other advanced countries or cities, Hong Kong, being a civilized and advanced place, must not allow an influx of people regardless of the consequences, and of any impact on the social and economic development of it as a SAR of China. If we allow an influx under these circumstances, the progress in the development of our motherland and all the people in our country will be affected. Although we sympathize with the aspirations of those who qualify to enter Hong Kong, the reality dictates that we cannot satisfy the needs of all eligible.

Since the reality bars us from accepting all the 1.67 million people, we must look for a solution that is consistent with the Basic Law and with the laws of Hong Kong. Some people have suggested requesting the CFA to reconsider the relevant decisions it has made in future cases. Given the present political atmosphere, this suggestion will be certainly regarded as exerting pressure on the CFA, tampering with its independence and bringing great impact on the future of Hong Kong.

Another option is preferred by some people: the option to amend the Basic Law. But since the National People's Congress (NPC) holds meetings in March, it will be some more time before the crisis can be resolved. While it may be more reasonable to use more time to resolve the issue, but before the relevant provisions are amended, many people will have obtained the ROA by virtue of the judgment of the CFA. What is more worrying is that many people from the Mainland will enter Hong Kong by illegal or other means before the amendment of the Basic Law is effected. This will have a great impact on Hong Kong.

Article 159 of the Basic Law states that: "Amendment bills from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be submitted to the National People's Congress by the delegation of the Region to the National People's Congress after obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two-thirds of all the members of the Legislative Council of the Region, and the Chief Executive of the Region." But as things stand, it is not going to be easy for the relevant amendment to obtain support from two thirds of the NPC deputies and members of this Council. Earlier, 27 of the 36 deputies of the SAR issued a joint statement in support of the proposal to request the NPC to interpret the Basic Law. That means they are obviously against the proposal to amend the Basic Law. They do not think the present issue originate from any discrepancies in the Basic Law. Rather, it originates from a lack of due regard for the legislative intent by the CFA and from the mistake it made in interpretation. Any proposal for amendment, it seems, is not going to be readily supported by a two-third majority in this Council. So, to amend the Basic Law is not an option to resolve our problem.

The only viable solution remaining is an interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC. Tackling the issue of the ROA in this way is not only relatively desirable but also fair and reasonable. Under Article 158 of the Basic Law, the power of interpretation of the Basic Law is vested in the NPCSC. Through interpreting the Basic Law, the Immigration Ordinance of the SAR will be restored to reflect the original legislative intent of the Basic Law. After the interpretation, the proven emigration arrangements for mainland residents coming to Hong Kong to settle can be restored. The interpretation will also improve the implementation of the Basic Law.

The power of the NPC to interpret the Basic Law is part of the constitutional structure of the SAR. The CFA has established that it cannot query that power, and SAR Courts should follow the NPC's interpretation. If the NPC interprets the relevant provisions in the Basic Law, the question of damage to judicial independence in Hong Kong or intervention of SAR affairs by the Central Government will not arise. The proposal is just what most Hong Kong people want, which is to clarify, as soon as possible, the issue of the ROA of mainland people. The issue has already triggered off controversy in the community. It is time the issue was settled, to avoid further division in society. I hope we can channel resources to reviving the Hong Kong economy and developing our future. Although it has just been 24 hours from the time when the government motion: "That this Council supports the Chief Executive's decision to request the State Council to approach the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to interpret Article 22(4) and Article 24(2)(3) of the Basic Law." was proposed for a debate in this Council, I have made a comprehensive consultation with the engineering sector. The opinions collected show clearly an interpretation by the NPCSC is preferred. In fact, as pointed out by the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW, several major newspapers today reported poll results in support of the above proposal. On basis of the above reasons, I support the motion moved by the Government.

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

MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, originally I did not intend to speak, but now I do. But I would not like to repeat what Mr James TIEN has said. This issue of the ROA has been raised by the Government recently, and in this Council a number of House Committee meetings have been held especially on this as well. Feelings swelled in me when I took part in the meetings and when I heard what the other Honourable Members had said earlier. I feel a bit ashamed to be a Member of the Legislative Council because I find some of the Honourable Members are making use of this issue to hurl insults indiscriminately at those who do not agree with them and say some very harsh words. They are also saying these to government officials. I do not always agree to what the Government does, but if I do not, I will say it for I have my own judgment.

But to this day, I do not believe our Government is an irresponsible one. Nor do I believe that the Government has any motive to cheat its own people. What kind of advantages will it get? When government officials sit here to be rebuked by some of the Honourable Members, what kind of advantages will they get? Moreover, there is no way the Government can retort back. The Honourable Members can rebuke the Government but it cannot rebuke these Members in return. Then why does it have to do so? If the Government is afraid of being rebuked, then what it can do is simply do as what they say. But I think that is not a responsible thing to do. Any responsible government must take the long-term interests of the people into consideration. Then it must move a motion to tell us clearly why we should take up this option and not others. We can debate on that option rationally and make a decision in the end. That I think is a proper thing.

I do not want to discuss whether we should amend or interpret the Basic Law, for the issue has been discussed by a lot of the Honourable Members already. The Law Society of Hong Kong also thinks that both approaches are lawful and constitutional. Even the views put forward by the Hong Kong Bar Association recently do not say that which one of these is unlawful and unconstitutional. So that point is beyond dispute. About the Bar Association, there is something about its opinions which I feel is quite surprising. That is, it says that there are some things which the Government should not do, but some ways and means have to be devised first. The first is to encourage people with the ROA to come to Hong Kong later. The second is to adopt a points system to determine who can come here first and who will come later. I think that is contemptuous of the judgment of the CFA. I am very surprised to hear that from the Bar Association.

The judgment of the CFA is that there is a certain category of people who have the right to become permanent residents of Hong Kong. Therefore, Hong Kong has to let them come within a reasonable period of time and they must not be barred from entering the territory. There is no mention of any distinction by age, marital status or skills as one would adopt in a points system. Would you call such a system lawful? It just makes me feel amazed to hear that from such an authoritative body of legal practitioners. As Miss Margaret NG is here, perhaps she can explain that to us later.

Mr Bernard CHAN said some people had suggested that we could model on the immigration policy of the United States and adopt a points system. We would give approval to just the number of people we can afford to take in. However, that is not the way the CFA makes its judgment. It says whosoever eligible may come. So that is a problem we must get round. And it must be dealt with in a lawful and constitutional way.

Some people are saying that the Government are making some scary remarks by exaggerating the figures. As a responsible government, there is a need to reveal the figures in their entirety to the public. In planning housing supply and transport infrastructure, the Government may not need to take into account the scenario of these 1.67 million people all coming to Hong Kong three or 10 years from now. But as far as I know, the long-term development strategy of Hong Kong has projected that there will be 8.1 million population by 2011. That is to say, there will be an annual natural increase of 100 000. But that has not included the 1.6 million people who have been made eligible to come to Hong Kong in the next 10 years by the CFA judgment. Even if the number is 1 million or 800 000, that will be added on top of the figure of natural increases in population. At present, the long-term development strategy is already facing a great problem for it cannot catch up with the pace of the development of our society. For example, in housing, Hong Kong is unable to solve its housing problem to date. In education, we know how many schools we must build each year and we know how many school building projects an architect in the Architectural Services Department has to manage. In such circumstances, do we still have any more resources to make the additional provisions?

Mr Deputy, if all these people can come here by virtue of this ROA judgment, then I think we have to give half of our supply of flats to them. But we know that the legislative intent of the Basic Law does not include these people. There are certain provisions that we have to invoke when we interpret the Basic Law. When we make that request to the NPCSC, it would not say to us that these people can be taken away if we do not feel like to have so many people. This ROA issue was raised as early as at the time of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group and the Preparatory Committee. The part in the Basic Law which the Government is asking the NPCSC to interpret has been mentioned before. Now they are asking it to make it clearer. Then why will this make Hong Kong lose its rule of law? Who are in fact making these alarmist remarks?

Mr Deputy, I do not want to repeat what others have said before. But why do I feel that we should not amend the Basic Law? Because if we are to amend the Basic Law, it is tantamount to depriving people of their entitled rights in the first place. And this is a very selfish act. We do not want to do that now, we want to let those with the ROA to come here. According to the legislative intent of the Basic Law, there is a group of people who do not have the right to come here. So we have to explain to them and say, "Sorry, according to the legislative intent of the Basic Law, you have no right to come here." It is possible for us to amend the Basic Law to let more people come here, like those who want to come on the ground of family reunion and those who are adults and not children. We can adopt the points system and let them come here orderly. I would prefer to give my support for this kind of a points system.

Thank you, Mr Deputy. I support the motion.

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the SAR Government has decided to request through the State Council the NPCSC to interpret Article 22 para 4 and Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law. Some criticize that this would impair the rule of law in Hong Kong, deprive the CFA of its final adjudication power, interfere with judicial independence and cripple the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong. We must look squarely at these extremely serious criticisms. The Hong Kong Progressive Alliance (HKPA) has come to the view that the criticisms made by such people must be supported by adequate facts and reasons, and they cannot make improper comments on the basis of their own impressions or biased views. Otherwise, they will mislead the public, investors and the international media, undermine their confidence in the rule of law in Hong Kong, the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong and impair the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

First, let us see whether the SAR Government's decision to request the NPC to interpret the Basic Law has really violated the important principles of the rule of law, judicial independence, final adjudication power and a high degree of autonomy.

According to the HKPA, an interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC will not impair the rule of law in Hong Kong. Under the new constitutional order of "one country, two systems", the NPCSC has the final authority to interpret the Basic Law. Article 158 of the Basic Law states that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law shall be vested in the NPCSC. Besides, the CFA recognizes and accepts that the NPCSC has the final authority to interpret the Basic Law and it cannot question the NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law. Therefore, it complies totally with the principle of the rule of law for the NPCSC to interpret the provisions of the Basic Law on the ROA in Hong Kong and the Court to observe the legally authoritative interpretation. The remark of some people that the interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC would impair the rule of law in Hong Kong is inconsistent with the facts.

Judicial independence means that the CFA meets no interference when it tries and adjudicates on cases and it can act according to the law. But it does not mean that the CFA has the right to decline observing the interpretation of the Basic Law made by the NPCSC. Even though the NPCSC has made an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Basic Law, it will not interfere with the freedom of Hong Kong courts to try cases according to the law. Therefore, the remark of some people that the interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC would strip Hong Kong of its judicial independence is inconsistent with the facts.

The interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC will not deprive the CFA in Hong Kong of its final adjudication power. The scope of the Basic Law for interpretation as proposed by the SAR Government is restricted to clarifying the legislative intent of the relevant provisions of the Basic Law rather than stripping the respective people of their interests under the CFA judgment made on 29 January this year. Even if the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Basic Law by the NPCSC differs from that of the CFA, it will not affect the judgment made by the CFA on the relevant case on 29 January. The interpretation of the NPCSC will only alter the legal principles courts will apply in pending or future cases concerning applications made by other people for the ROA. The fact that the CFA has final adjudication power on cases to be tried does not mean that it has the final authority to interpret the Basic Law.

Will the interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC cripple the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong? The HKPA does not think so. The Basic Law originates from Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, and according to Article 158 para 1 of the Basic Law, the power of interpretation of the Basic Law shall be vested in the NPCSC but not the courts of the SAR. If the NPCSC exercises its right of interpretation, the legal authority bestowed on Hong Kong will not be stripped, and the autonomy of Hong Kong will not be crippled. Furthermore, if there is a wide-spread request in the community for a solution to the problems Hong Kong is facing, the interpretation of the Basic Law should not be deemed as interfering with the autonomy of Hong Kong, but rather a response to the request.

In addition, some people criticize that the Basic Law has not expressly provided that the SAR Government may request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law. This criticism is open to question. Although the Basic Law has not expressly provided that the SAR Government has the right to request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, as the ROA in Hong Kong issue comes under the general functions of the Chief Executive under Article 48 of the Basic Law, and generally speaking, the Basic Law as a constitutional document will not specify the procedures for the SAR Government to request for an interpretation by the NPCSC, therefore, the Chief Executive representing the SAR Government has the right to discharge his general function under the Basic Law and request the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law.

Mr Deputy, an expert on constitutional law has said that the Basic Law is an interface between the common law and the continental law and it will inevitably comprise some features of the continental law including the right of a non-judicial body to interpret the laws. This is the feature and reality of "one country, two systems". The smooth implementation of "one country, two systems" and a high degree of autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong really depends on the understanding and communication between Hong Kong and the Central Authorities adopting different systems.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the motion.

PROF NG CHING-FAI (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, Hong Kong has been plagued by the problem associated with mainland children of Hong Kong residents for many years. This is a thorny issue that arouses both sympathy and concern. This is not a problem lasting one or two years, or affecting hundreds or thousands of people only, but a long story about family ethics, legal system, economics and politics put on the stage by the end of the 20th century in Hong Kong. Many Hong Kong people are part of this story or its audience.

It has been almost four months since the CFA delivered its ruling on the ROA for mainland children of Hong Kong residents on 29 January 1999. The story now has reached a climax. The ROA for 1.67 million mainland children of Hong Kong residents has been the focal point of social debate over the past several months, which has also made many government officials busy and confused. Today, the Government has eventually come up with a solution and that is, to seek an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Basic Law from the NPCSC.

I very much support the Government's decision. Why do I emphasize "very much"? It is because I and more than 200 friends of mine have put an advertisement in the newspaper, suggesting the Government should adopt such a solution. I wish to explain the reasons. Mr Deputy, if Hong Kong has access to unlimited resources, we should, from an ethical and humanitarian point of view, accept all the 1.67 million people, even if the number turns out to be 2 million, we should have no hesitation in accepting all of them. What is more, their spouses should also be accepted if the spirit of family reunion is to be truly reflected. From this perspective, I am not satisfied with the definition of Hong Kong permanent residents in the Basic Law. Why are their spouses excluded? It is obvious that when the Basic Law was drafted, the SAR's inability to bear such an enormous pressure must have been taken into account. Therefore, I must first make it clear that the decision is not a happy decision from an ethical and humanitarian point of view. That is why we have used the heading of "Beautiful Slogans, Harsh Reality" in our advertisement to openly call on the Government to seek, from a practical point of view, an interpretation of Articles 22 and 24 from the NPCSC. Today, I am happy to note that the Government has decided to take this course of action to prevent Hong Kong from plunging into a serious social crisis. But on the other hand, I share the sentiments of Miss CHOY So-yuk. I also have a heavy heart as this solution brings no joy to us. Although my situation is not exactly the same as that of Miss CHOY So-yuk whose four relatives are entitled to settle in Hong Kong as a result of the CFA judgment, some of my relatives also indirectly benefit from the judgment. Therefore, I believe nobody inside and outside this Chamber will be very happy with this solution and set off fire crackers to celebrate.

I also sincerely hope that Hong Kong will fare better and our economy will be more prosperous so that those I mentioned just now will be allowed to gradually settle in Hong Kong if they so wish.

Mr Deputy, the people of Hong Kong hold divergent views on this issue and this debate. In a way, Hong Kong has been given a live lecture on what "one country, two systems" means and what purpose the CFA serves and the limitations of its power.

Will the rule of law be all gone after the NPC's interpretation? Many colleagues have spoken on this. I do not wish to speak more on it. But I do wish to point out that I believe nobody in this Chamber does not treasure the CFA institution. We still respect the CFA. The question is what should be done if it had made a wrong judgment? The solution put forward by the Government today is aimed at solving the problem.

Miss Margaret NG talked with eloquence just now about the end of the rule of law and the darkness which, as pointed out by Mr CHAN Kam-lam, are remarks familiar to us. If we continue to be bombarded with such remarks, I suspect that Hong Kong could become part of the Arctic Circle that is covered in total darkness day and night. Hong Kong is still in the subtropical belt which I am afraid could be turned into Arctic or Antarctic if we go on talking like that.

As a matter of fact, before and after Hong Kong's reunification with the motherland, leading members of the Bar Association always considered themselves to be Muhammad on legal matters and only they could hear the voice of the God in the wilderness. But, in my opinion, they have seriously misled the public on this matter of enormous importance. Their mindset is confined to the boundary of common law, and they are reluctant to open their minds in an effort to understand the characteristics of the Basic Law. They are drifting away in a canoe of arrogance and prejudice. They have lost their judgment. No wonder they have been likened to a frog in a well. They have always regarded themselves as defenders for the CFA, but have actually distorted the CFA's functions. As I have said, this debate has made us fully understand that the CFA has the power of final adjudication while the final power of interpretation rests with the NPCSC. So it is clear that if the interpretation given by the NPCSC at the request of the SAR turns out to be different from that of the CFA, that will not spell the end of the rule of law. Of course, it is the SAR Government which requests the NPCSC for an interpretation, the latter has not promised to do so. Therefore, I wish to point out that this is something done in accordance with the law, the Basic Law. The CFA will not be damaged to the slightest extent. As with the case where the CFA does not agree with the ruling by the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal does not agree with the ruling by the Court of First Instance, this is a mechanism which has nothing to do with face. Of course, we wish this matter would not have developed to such a stage. However, we can see that the prestige of an individual or an organization is established through achievements rather than mistakes.

Mr Deputy, this matter concerns ethics, law and resources. Finally, I wish to express my grave disappointment with my friends from the democratic camp today. According to their logic, those who hold different views from theirs are regarded as "colluding with undesirable elements". Is this the democratic spirit? In this respect, I admire Miss Margaret NG very much as she is still sitting here listening to our views. What is more, Mr Martin LEE has declared the "death of the rule of law" on numerous occasions. I consider him a muddle-headed doctor who often misdiagnoses the diseases of his patients. Before the reunification, he predicted that "freedom would die" and everything would have to change after the reunification. Such a doctor will not do any good to our society. I hope that both Mr Martin LEE and the Bar Association will treasure their feathers and stop frightening the people of Hong Kong who have had enough of it.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the motion.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, on the day when the Government announced the initial figures of mainlanders with the ROA in Hong Kong, the issue had instantly sparked off widespread discussions in the territory. This Council has also sought the advice of many experts in the many special meetings of the House Committee. One clear fact emerges from this period is that the various parties have already learned of the basic direction of this motion and taken a stance on it a long time ago. The stance as seen in the wording of a member's motion to be moved next week is clear evidence of this.

The consensus reached by the community as well as by most Honourable Members of this Council is that bold attempts should be made to solve the ROA problem as soon as possible. As each party has already decided its own stance on this issue, it is both a lawful and reasonable thing to vote on the motion today. It is a responsible thing to do as well.

As a series of public discussion and meetings has been held in the House Committee to hear views from all parties recently, if we say that we have not had ample time to consider the issue because of political reasons, then the public would indeed have reason to suspect that this is a procrastination and an evasion of the issue, a lack of a sense of crisis to face the mounting pressure posed by a sharp increase in population, and an irresponsible act because it does not take into account the overall interest of the public. Therefore, I urge that this Council should face this grave problem squarely and engage in rational discussions, and in the end, make a decision which is in line with the overall interest of the public.

First of all, on the various proposals on the ROA, the most fundamental issue is their legality. That is to say, whether the Government's attempt to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from the NPCSC has any legal grounds. We need to look into the provisions of the Basic Law if we are to discuss this problem, for if we depart from the stipulations of these provisions and just talk about the principle of the rule of law, then it would be an insult to the rule of law in the very first place.

Article 158 para 1 of the Basic Law confers the NPCSC the power to make final interpretations of the Basic Law. That point is beyond dispute. The judgment made by the CFA in Hong Kong on 29 January 1999 also made that point clear.

Some people may think, given that the NPCSC has by virtue of Article 158 para 2 conferred upon the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region the authority to interpret on their own the provisions of the Basic Law which are within the limits of the autonomy of the Region, would it be true to say that the NPCSC has automatically lost its power to make final interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Law? Apparently, this has missed the meaning of Article 158 para 1 which is very clear and unambiguous. Moreover, in the established interpretation of laws in Hong Kong, there is no such interpretation whereby the empowering party would automatically lose its power after delegating the power to another party. Section 44(1)(a) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance makes it clear that: "Such delegation shall not preclude the person so delegating from exercising or performing at any time any of the powers or duties so delegated." That is simple enough.

As to whether the Government has any mechanism, power or responsibility to request through the State Council the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, we have to look at a few related instruments. First, Article 89(2) of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China provides that the State Council has the power to submit proposals to the NPCSC. Then in Articles 43 and 48(2) of the Basic Law, the duty of being accountable to the Central People's Government and the responsibility for the implementation of the Basic Law is vested with the Chief Executive. These duties and responsibilities of the Chief Executive are vested in him by the National People's Congress through the Basic Law. As it is incumbent on the Chief Executive to implement the Basic Law, it is also incumbent on him to seek the most accurate meaning of the provisions of the Basic Law. The power to interpret laws comes from the NPCSC rather than the CFA which also admits unequivocally that such interpretation must be observed by the courts of the SAR.

Some people may think that if an interpretation of the Basic Law is sought from the NPCSC, the concept of a high degree of autonomy will be destroyed. The concept of a high degree of autonomy is not only built on a basis of mutual trust, it must be defined through a scrutiny of the provisions of the Basic Law rather than pure imagination. The Basic Law has provisions which vest powers and impose restraints. We cannot just take what we want from the provisions and make an arbitrary interpretation. We cannot accept powers but reject restraints. This is not paying due respect to the law.

And some people think that even if it is lawful to seek an interpretation from the NPCSC, it would still be difficult to accept from a constitutional perspective, invoking some constitutional conventions in Britain to justify their argument. But actually, precedents in common law show that the courts do not take these conventions enforceable as law. Besides, the constitutional conventions in Britain are formed after a long history of constitutional monarchy; whereas the Basic Law has only been in force for less than two years. It is doubtful if a constitutional convention is formed here. Even if there is one, it is also questionable that this constitutional convention has been accepted by all parties within the constitutional framework. The specifics of this constitutional convention are also unclear. These questions are no easy ones to answer for those who put forward this argument.

Mr Deputy, some members of the Hong Kong Bar Association are of the view that seeking an interpretation of the Basic Law from the NPCSC is a contravention of the Basic Law itself. They even think that this will bring death and destruction to the rule of law in Hong Kong. But the public will ask: Why do only 632 people out of the thousands of solicitors and barristers in Hong Kong hold such a view? Do the rest of the legal practitioners not believe in the existence of the rule of law and its stability? Are all the solicitors and barristers not practising as usual?

Having said that, as a professional body, the Bar Association and its views ought to be respected if the views are purely presented as a result of a scrutiny of the issue from a political and legal perspective. We need purely political and legal advice from professional bodies and professionals as long as the advice does not represent any pre-set stance. If political views are presented together with an elucidation of some legal points of view, then it would be better if only the latter is done. This would certainly be more welcome and valuable, and it will bring greater positive impact to society.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the motion moved by the Government to take forward bold and effective measures as soon as possible.

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, when faced with such a grave issue as the ROA, I shall try to exchange my views with the Government in a calm and objective manner. I would like to bring up the following points:

First, I support and appreciate the Government's efforts in seeking a solution to such a vital and urgent problem which is of common concern, though I may differ from the Government in the means to be chosen and the conclusions reached. My stance on this issue is that I am opposed to an interpretation of the Basic Law and I support its amendment.

The Government thinks that the problem is a pressing one, and that I do not deny. In the motion debate in the Legislative Council today, a request is to be made to the NPCSC to interpret Articles 22 and 24 of the Basic Law. I think there are some very important words which should be written into the motion, that is: "the legislative intent". If there is no mention of the legislative intent, then when a request is made to the State Council to ask the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law, the scope of interpretation will be too broad to be practical. The omission of this important point may be due to the urgency of the issue. But it is clear from the speech made by the Secretary and from other papers that the legislative intent is the key point they wish to seek an interpretation.

The Government has presented many arguments defending why interpretation is preferred to amendment. Some of these are well-justified. For example, the worry that the National People's Congress will not be convened before March 2000. What may happen during these nine months? I think these worries are justified. As for the Government's worry that a two-third majority may not be obtained from the deputies of Hong Kong to the National People's Congress and the Members of the Legislative Council, I think there may not be a ground for that. This really hinges on the decision made by the Government. If the Government decides to amend the Basic Law, I believe after some lobbying work on the part of the Government, the local deputies and Members of this Council would certainly lend their support.

In considering the matter, the Government may have thought that amending the Basic Law is tantamount to confirming that the judgment of the CFA is right, and amending the Basic Law to admitting that there are loopholes made by the Central Authorities in the drafting of the Basic Law or that the Basic Law is problematic in itself. The Government does not want to amend the Basic Law because this may embarrass the Central Authorities and that it may give people the impression that there are loopholes in the Basic Law which must be plugged by an amendment. I would think that this may be an important factor considered by the Government. The option of interpretation is chosen because the Government does not want to embarrass the Central Government.

I would like to say a few words on this option of interpretation. If we want to look at the legislative intent, we will need to look at not just Article 24 but the entire Basic Law. Then what is the most ingenious thing about the Basic Law? It is this brilliant design of "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy". I would say that this grand scheme is based on a few cornerstones; the first being the delineation of the affairs of the SAR and those of the Central Government together with foreign and defence affairs, and the second being a saving clause in Article 158 para 1 which provides that the power of interpretation of the Basic Law shall be vested in the State. Actually, the Central Government is not inclined to exercise this power and would in most cases not exercise it. Such a power is only a demonstration of sovereignty. To instil confidence in the Hong Kong people, the Basic Law gives further detailed stipulations on the power of interpretation in Article 158 paras 2, 3 and 4; and on the power of amendment in Article 159. In dealing with affairs of the SAR, the power of interpretation and the power of final adjudication shall be vested in the CFA of the Region. If a request is made to the NPCSC to activate its power of interpretation, it must only be a request on interpreting the relationship between the Region and the Central Government. As for the amendment of the Basic Law, there is also a very prudent mechanism that can only be activated with the consent of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, Members of the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive.

If we go through the entire Basic Law, we will find that there is no provision on the mechanism to activate the power of interpretation on the part of the Government of the Special Administrative Region. Why? It is because the Central Government does not expect the Government of the Region to request the NPCSC to make an interpretation of affairs which fall within the limits of the autonomy of the Region. Therefore, such an activating procedure is not laid down in the Basic Law. This is how I see it. As the Government cannot find any provision on that, it invokes Articles 43 and 48, seeking an interpretation of the Basic Law through obscure paths instead of formal channels. But this obscure path is a very controversial one. The Government thinks that this is workable, but it is also creating a very bad precedent, that is, the SAR Government is activating the mechanism by making a request through the State Council on the NPCSC to interpret the Basic Law on matters within the limits of the Region's autonomy. I agree that the NPCSC has the power of interpretation. But this bad precedent has damaged the autonomy of Hong Kong. After this is over, I hope the Government can carefully set up some kind of procedural checks or checks on the nature of the issues to be considered. Actually, the Secretary made a pledge this morning that this would be done. The pledge will give both the Legislative Council and the public the confidence needed so that we shall be able to know under what circumstances in future will the same means be used or otherwise. I think such a pledge and the information related are very important.

I would like to say also that the price paid for the option taken by the Government this time is not just undermining our high degree of autonomy but also it has created substantial direct and indirect impact on the CFA. We should not dwell on the question of right or wrong because it is very difficult for us to tell whether the judgment made by the CFA on 29 January was right or wrong. But I think at least we need to be fair to the CFA. The Government has been saying time and again that we must look at the issue from a constitutional perspective and focus on the legislative intent, especially that of Articles 24 and 22. However, the Government does not explain that as a matter of fact, the CFA also comes under the restraints of the Basic Law. It uses the system of common law and the law of equity as used in Hong Kong when it makes a judgment. In common law and the law of equity, the issues of legislative intent and the binding effect of law are questioned by many schools of thought in law. Under what circumstances will legislative intent be considered? Are there any limitations to the binding effects of law? To put it simply, if the wording of a legal provision has been unequivocally put, as for example the wording of Article 24 is in my opinion clear enough, and if we add other meanings to it, then it will give rise to a lot of disputes in common law. The legislative intent which the Government is talking about comes from an agreement reached in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group in 1993 and some reports of the work done by the Preparatory Committee up to 1996. But are these the original intent of the legislative bodies? Furthermore, the above-mentioned bodies are not legislative bodies in the straight sense. As Miss Margaret NG has said earlier, the so-called legislative intent is only some recollections of memories which come to the mind after the enactment of the law. What does it need to recognize these as the legislative intent? Even if the Government recognizes these as the legislative intent, under the concept of binding power in jurisprudence, this cannot be regarded as part of common law. We cannot put into the provisions the interpretation that we expect the NPCSC will give, if the Government does so, then by virtue of the move it has already amended the Basic Law.

I would like the Government to give consideration to something that it has already done so for a long time. In fact from 1993 to 1996, the Government was doing that and finally it took a stand. At the time of the Provisional Legislative Council, it implemented the Basic Law by amending the Immigration Ordinance. As a matter of fact, in the past few years, the Government was well aware of the problem and it had tried to tackle it through a number of ways and means; one being the amendment of the Immigration Ordinance. The present problem arises because when the amendment was made to the Immigration Ordinance, no thoughts were given to the possibility that this Ordinance might clash with the Basic Law or that there might be conflicts when the CFA was to make a final adjudication. If it is really the case that the legislative intent is that clear, but that the law cannot be enforced for so many years until the CFA makes a legally-binding judgment on 29 January 1999, then I would say the Government has to bear some responsibility for it.

Moreover, I think that the discussions on the judgment of the CFA have centred too much around whether it is right or wrong. This will only do more harm to the Court. My view on this is that the CFA has been working according to the existing system of law in Hong Kong, that is, the common law system. It has made its interpretation of Article 24. As to whether we should invite the NPCSC to interpret Article 22, that would be another matter. It can be another subject for debate. But I feel that all along the Government has been saying that it respects the judgment made by the CFA and that it will enforce it, but on the other hand, it has not treated the judgment truly fairly.

Finally, having made these points, Mr Deputy, I really hope that the Government can lay down some concrete guidelines and criteria if it is to follow these obscure paths of Articles 43 and 48 of the Basic Law. This will enable us to know under what circumstances in future will these two articles be invoked again or otherwise. I suggest should the Government feel that this mechanism ought to be activated in future, the consent of two thirds of the deputies of the Region to the National People's Congress, two thirds of all the Members of the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive will need to be obtained. To be frank, I do not wish this will happen again. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.

DR LUI MING-WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, in regard to the Government's decision to request the State Council to approach the NPCSC to interpret Article 22 para 4 and Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law to resolve the problem which has lingered on for months and aroused extensive attention among the community, I consider this move of the Government's rather late but not too late.

I represent the industrial sector. If I take into consideration only the interests of the industrial sector, I should be in opposition to the Government's decision in this connection. This is because the judgement of the CFA could enable the population of Hong Kong to expand by 1.7 million within a short time, and this should do good to the labour supply situation in Hong Kong. The influx of labourers into the market will inevitably pull down the wage levels and thereby lower the operating cost of industries and businesses, this should be regarded as a piece of good news, in particular at the present moment when our economy is in a downturn.

However, after taking into account the interests of Hong Kong as a whole, an influx of immigrants into Hong Kong should not be regarded as something recommendable. On the one hand, a sudden increase in population will lower the standard of living of the public at large; on the other hand, it will impose enormous pressure on our social facilities, financial resources and economy while affecting adversely the development and progress of our community. For these reasons, I will give my support to the motion proposed by the Government against the interests of the industrial sector which I represent. Nevertheless, I do believe the industrial sector will agree in consensus with my decision.

Madam President, I understand that there have been many voices opposing this move of the Government's both from within this Council and from among the community at large. As an outsider of the legal profession, I should like to express in this debate my views as follows:

(1) The function of the law: I believe the law is a system of rules that the community at large have made via their legislature and agreed to abide by it. As for the objective of such rules, it should be to regulate the behaviour of the public and thereby safeguard social security as well as the interests of the community as a whole.

(2) The function of the Court: The judge is just an adjudicator whose responsibility is to make fair judgments in accordance with the legal provisions so as to safeguard both the enforcement and the sanctity of the law.

(3) The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal is the highest level of the judicial system existing in Hong Kong which has the responsibility to make authoritative judgments in accordance with the law. What makes its judgements so authoritative? The trust of the public — let me repeat, the "trust" of the public — that the well-experienced and learned judges of the CFA have the best knowledge and interpretation of the law, and hence the judgments they make should be most well-accepted by members of the public. Nevertheless, to safeguard the interest of the community as a whole, the judgment of the CFA must always be made correctly and in accordance with the law.

(4) The mistake of the CFA: In my opinion, this time the CFA has made two fatal mistakes. First, it has overlooked the possible impact that its judgment may have on the community. Second, it has believed that the CFA has the absolute right to interpret arbitrarily the provisions of the Basic Law, and that the public will accept each and every judgment it makes; however, the fact is that its decision regarding the ROA issue has met with objection from the majority of the people of Hong Kong.

Madam President, the judgement in question is made by the CFA in the light of its understanding and interpretation of certain provisions under the Basic Law, but since its understanding and interpretation are in breach of the legislative intent of the Basic Law, this judgment is unacceptable to the community and has given rise to considerable discussion and distress among the public. In order to resolve the problem, I support the Government's attempt to request the NPCSC to interpret the relevant provisions of the Basic Law so as to enable the eligible persons to settle in Hong Kong as soon as practicable on the one hand, and expeditiously pacify the local community on the other. That way, we should be able to collaborate in dealing with the economic difficulties as well as other problems facing Hong Kong.

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

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

(No Member responded)

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION: Madam President, with your permission, I should like to take this opportunity to pull together the most important strands of the Government's case. I want to make it clear that in doing so, I am mindful of the views we have heard, both for and against the course of action we propose to take in this matter. This issue has clearly aroused strong feelings on both sides of the argument. I do not find this in the least surprising. But what I do find regrettable is that in expressing those views, some Members have felt it necessary to impugn the integrity of individual officers or to question the honesty of this Administration. I suggest that this is totally undeserved.

We all of us here know from our own experience, and Honourable Members know from their sacred duty to both make and uphold the law, that there is no issue of more importance to Hong Kong than the preservation of the rule of law. We are all committed to that.

I have said many times ─ and I repeat it here today ─ that the rule of law and the independence of the Judiciary are the very cornerstones of our success and prosperity. This Administration has no higher obligation than to keep those cornerstones in place.

I know that, on the basis of our decision to seek an interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on the legislative intent of Article 22(4) and Article 24 para 2(3) of the Basic Law, the commitments I have just so unambiguously made will be challenged and even derided by some. I do not challenge their right to do so, but I do ask them to stake their claims on a sober analysis of the facts. And the facts of this matter are that in considering the options before us, the Administration took into account the very issue at the heart of concern of Honourable Members of this Council and of the community at large. We needed to satisfy ourselves that, in weighing the choices available to us to address the serious socio-economic consequences of the decision of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) on 29 January, we did not in the process damage the legal and judicial underpinnings of this law-based society.

We had to ensure that whichever course we took was constitutionally rock solid and cast iron in law. It had to be based on these twin principles, not on expediency. There was simply no question that we could now ─ or ever ─ act in an arbitrary manner. We had to satisfy ourselves that in charting our course, we would not act against the interests or independence of the courts; or threaten the structure of our legal system; and that above all, we upheld, as all of us are sworn to do, our constitution, the Basic Law. Finally, we had to act in what we saw as the best interests of the people of Hong Kong. It is their well-being, and their future well-being which is at stake here.

As I have said, I understand the passion that has been stirred up by this issue, and I respect the deeply-held feelings and views put forward on all sides of the argument. The right of abode debate has reverberated across the community for weeks and months now. The pros and cons of the obvious options available to us have been thrashed out in a very public way. It is difficult to accept that after this great debate, so much of it having been initiated and hosted by this Council and its House Committee, that there has been insufficient time to consider the way forward.

After careful deliberation, the Chief Executive has decided to request the State Council to approach the NPCSC for an interpretation. The terms of his request will be made public.

I have listened carefully to the concerns and misgivings expressed by some Members on the impact, or at least the perceived impact, on the rule of law. These same concerns were just as closely argued and as hard fought in our own deliberations as they have been in the wider public debate. I acknowledge that no issue binds all sectors of the community together more closely than the need to protect and preserve the rule of law. I further acknowledge the role of the legal profession in pursuing that goal, even when I do not agree with all that they say. There is, clearly, a divergence of views within the profession itself.

These concerns were understood as we wrestled with the horns of this dilemma. But in the end, as a responsible Government, we needed to make a balanced decision that would most fairly and effectively produce a solution to an enormous problem. We knew that whatever we decided would be controversial and would not be without cost.

Madam President, it is not my intention to address the detail of the legal and constitutional or practical issues involved. My distinguished colleagues, the Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Security, have already done that. But I would like to put the issues in a constitutional, social and, yes, political framework for, whilst we must abide by the law, we must also live in the real world.

And the reality of this world for us is the new constitutional order which came into effect with the birth of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) on 1 July 1997. To be precise, the SAR of the People's Republic of China. One country, two systems was an ingenious concept devised to solve the seemingly insoluble, and many men and women from Hong Kong and the Mainland and, indeed, from the United Kingdom, devoted endless hours, days, months and years towards turning this concept ─ for that is what it was ─ into a reality. That dedication, that work and a good deal of argument and debate, was ultimately absorbed in the Basic Law.

This constitutional document guarantees the high degree of autonomy Hong Kong was promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration to enable our community to function pretty much as we always have done, as a free society based on the rule of law. The most fundamental change it brought with it, however, was that for the first time in our history, we had a written constitution.

More significantly, the Basic Law is the place where one country meets two systems, for at the end of the day we enjoy not independence, but a high degree of autonomy. Our own constitution is in itself an instrument of the law of the sovereign. This is why the Basic Law is sometimes described in useful shorthand as Hong Kong's mini constitution. It is because it is part of a greater constitutional whole.

And this remarkable meeting point, the Basic Law, is the interface between Hong Kong's hallowed common law and the Mainland's own different legal system. Herein lies the nub of our present quandary. For whilst the Basic Law provides the CFA with the power of final adjudication, it preserves for the NPCSC the power of final interpretation of the Basic Law. The CFA itself has expressly acknowledged these powers.

It also provides mechanisms for either amendment or interpretation of the Basic Law, the first through the National People's Congress (NPC); the second via its Standing Committee. We have already spelt out in great detail to the House Committee yesterday and again to this Council today, our consideration of the options, and our reasons for choosing interpretation. I do not intend to go over those grounds again, but it may be useful for me to address some of the criticisms and concerns aroused by our decision.

First and foremost, there is no intention, nor was there ever any intention, to ask the CFA to change its judgments of 29 January. The CFA's judgments in that matter are just that ─ final. These judgments will stand, no matter what the Standing Committee decides. The rights of the people who brought those cases have been, and will continue to be protected.

It is not out of disrespect for the CFA or its judgment that we have made our decision. On the contrary, it is precisely because we respect the CFA's decisions that we need to find a constitutional and legal avenue to address the enormous socio-economic consequences, as would any other law-based jurisdiction or country facing such a profound dilemma.

We have already stressed on a number of occasions, and I do so again today, that our overriding consideration in seeking an NPCSC interpretation is to give effect to what we believe to be the true legislative intent of the Basic Law. Put another way, we are seeking an interpretation of the Basic Law, not an appeal against the CFA's judgment ─ two completely different things. Here I should stress that we are seeking an interpretation, not a re-interpretation ─ again, two different things.

Any interpretation could not diminish the status of the CFA. It would simply reflect the respective roles given to the CFA and the Standing Committee as clearly spelt out in the Basic Law. Similarly, it cannot be argued that an interpretation would deprive Hong Kong of any legal powers. Hong Kong does not have the power of final interpretation or amendment, so those powers are not there to be taken away.

Further, we are seeking an interpretation of legislative intent, not because we have plucked the rationale for it out of thin air, but because conclusions reached by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group and the Preparatory Committee earlier this decade lead us to believe that there is a reasonable case to do so.

Some have said an interpretation of the Basic Law would undermine judicial independence. Why and how? In any common law jurisdiction, judges have the freedom to decide cases in accordance with the law. If the law changes, or if there is an authoritative statement on the law, judges are also duty-bound to decide cases on this basis. They are as bound by the law as the rest of us. And they are sworn, in our case, to uphold the Basic Law.

Finally, I want to address the question of precedent. Given the nature of our new constitutional order, and the inevitability of conflicts arising as we learn how to manage one country, two systems in real life, we were bound to arrive at the questions we now face sooner or later. That moment has perhaps come sooner than we hoped. In hindsight, it may well turn out to be a good thing. Problems are not best resolved by leaving tough questions unanswered. We need to focus more deeply on the full range of implications of our own unique constitutional order. I would also say this: There is no reason to suppose that this Administration will wish to go running to the NPC every time a court decision on the Basic Law goes against us.

An interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC is a rare event. It has happened only eight times over the past half century, and the people of Hong Kong and Macau can be grateful for the last two interpretations which cleared the way for our generous nationality provisions. We have taken an exceptional decision to deal with an unarguably exceptional case. In doing so, we have scrupulously observed the requirements of the constitution and acted wholly within the framework of the law. We have done so in a way which is transparent, clear for all the world to see.

I repeat the Chief Executive's pledge that we will seek such an interpretation only in exceptional circumstances. We have noted the concerns expressed by some that the SAR Government should establish some criteria for seeking an NPCSC interpretation in future. I wish to assure this Council and the community that these concerns will be addressed separately.

Madam President, Hong Kong does not have unlimited resources. Within the confines of 1 000 sq km, we already have a population of 6.7 million people.

For all that some people say, I do not think that we are a selfish society. Many of us come from immigrant or refugee stock. We know what it takes to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. We are not heartlessly pulling up the drawbridge behind us. It is plain that this tiny place simply could not withstand the pressure of another 1.67 million people over the next decade, with the relentless, never-ending pressure of succeeding generations. The inevitable consequence is a severe deterioration of services and the quality of life, and a much diminished Hong Kong socially and economically. That would not be fair to the existing population, or indeed to those who had suddenly become eligible to live here. It is not a question of turning our backs, but facing reality.

We should not lose sight of the fact that with our acceptance of children born out of wedlock, another 200 000 people would acquire eligibility. That is almost four times our current annual quota of 55 000 mainland immigrants who will continue to come every day, 365 days of the year, to be reunited with their families here. Furthermore, even those affected by our decision will continue to be able to apply for residency here, but in an orderly manner under the one-way permit system.

Nor do I see it as a weakness of our community, or indeed of the Administration, that this issue should have generated such controversy. I would expect no less of a free society committed to the rule of law and the accountability of its executive. We have dealt with this matter openly and frankly. We have carried out an honest assessment of the likely addition to our population. Stating the facts plainly when they carry such profound and far-reaching consequences is not to my mind scaremongering. We would have been pilloried had we tried to conceal or fudge them. And in planning for the future, any responsible government has to take into account all of the possible consequences.

We have made a decision that we would all much rather not had to face. But major crises which impact on a community for generations to come require tough decisions, so long as those decisions are faithful to the law and have the backing of the people in whose interests they are taken. We have made our choice in good faith, set against the clear wishes of the community and the need to preserve its fundamental constitutional guarantees.

I urge Members of this Council to support the motion. Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security, do you wish to reply?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to speak again. Just now I already spoke once. In the speeches of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Secretary for Justice, they analysed the issues involved in the ROA issue thoroughly and in detail. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat these main points at length. I just wish to make three points. First, did government officials of the SAR show contempt for the rule of law and not try their best to enforce the judgment of the CFA? Second, did government officials of the SAR deliberately adopt scare tactics, announcing some exaggerated figures so that the public would reject the judgment? Did government officials of the SAR, acting in bad faith, sell some proposals to the Legislative Council or the public which are against the long-term interest of Hong Kong? I just wish to say a few words in these three respects.

First, the enforcement of the CFA judgment. I can assure Members that over the past few months, we have indeed tried very hard to enforce it. Shortly after the delivery of the CFA judgment, the Chief Secretary for Administration set up an ad hoc group, formed by all the Policy Secretaries concerned. On 1 February, the Director of Immigration went to Beijing to discuss how it could be enforced. Had we not made an appointment with the Ministry of Public Security before the delivery of the judgment, could we have arranged a meeting with them so soon? Therefore, our sincerity cannot be questioned. In the course of discussion with the Ministry, we certainly realized that the issues involved in the enforcement of this judgment were very complex. Not only would it affect the question of how many people and which people would have permanent resident status in Hong Kong, it would also have very far-reaching effects on the Mainland. The Ministry in the Mainland has identified five categories of persons who have points according to a points system. However, after the delivery of the judgment, certain persons with lower eligibility and qualifications are suddenly given priority under Hong Kong laws to come to Hong Kong. Even the issuance of OWPs by the Mainland would not be able to control the situation. According to the CFA judgment, as soon as the Certificate of Entitlement is ready, the Mainland must have the OWP ready in order to accommodate us. This would contravene the exit and entry control regulations in the Mainland. In other words, the Mainland found that the problem it would be faced with if the judgment were enforced in full is that its exit and entry control system would be turned upside down. Furthermore, the relevant systems throughout the country might be led by the nose by Hong Kong, not to mention the resources involved. Therefore, even though we have talked for a few months, little progress has been made.

Meanwhile, we certainly have a duty to ascertain how many people have the ROA. We already know that the number is very large. We also have the responsibility to ensure that the 500 000 or 1 million people can integrate into the Hong Kong society. What is the amount of resources needed to provide them with housing, schools and hospitals? We have to make an exact calculation. Having calculated the figures, we have this debate at the Legislative Council. How can we withhold these figures from the public and not announce them? Therefore, the course of events was not a Hitchcock thriller written and directed by us, as Mr Martin LEE suggested. Rather, the events had developed step by step. Before taking each step, we had gone through soberly all the past factors and very often found that there was no alternative but to take the next step, culminating in the decision made yesterday by the Executive Council.

Another question is: Has the Government deliberately adopted scare tactics, announcing some exaggerated figures so that the public would reject the CFA judgment and support the Government instead? I have to reiterate that our statistical survey is absolutely honest and that the methods adopted are the same as those used before. Of course, some scholars have pointed out that we might have the wrong figures in some areas. I very much respect these scholars' views. However, as I said in answering reporters' questions yesterday, we cannot make a 20% discount on the results because of Scholar A's opinion, and a 30% discount because of Scholar B's opinion. If we do this, what is the basis of our assessment? Therefore, we can only give an account to the public when the whole assessment is completed.

As for whether we can wait until next March to settle this matter, by that time, there may be a lot of people in the Mainland and in Hong Kong who thought they had the ROA and subsequently lost it. Since their hopes are dashed, would it result in unrest? I believe that as a responsible government, we should deal with it now. As the Secretary for Security, I especially have to remember always the factors that might lead to social unrest and disturbance.

Third, I want to say a few words about the integrity of officials. Just now Mr LEE quoted Macbeth ─ the little hand dripping with blood. According to Mr LEE, the officials present should all have their hands dripping with blood. Do we lack any sense of principle so much so that we force our proposal on the public or the Legislative Council to achieve our political purposes or because we put economic interests above the rule of law? As the Chief Secretary for Administration explained just now, this is a very painful decision for us. We have never misled the public. I would like to respond to one point. Just now Miss Christine LOH commented on paragraph 16 of the paper we submitted to the Legislative Council about the agreement reached in the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group. The tone she used was extremely stern. She asked us to make this agreement public and accused us of deliberately trying to mislead. I do not know whether she was implying that this agreement does not exist and is simply made up by us. I am extremely disappointed about such remarks, because in fact, we have submitted this agreement to the Court. Unfortunately, Miss LOH was not present yesterday when I was answering questions at the Legislative Council. I pointed out that we had reported the matter to the Legislative Council in 1994, and the consultation paper also contained the content of the agreement.

Therefore, Madam President, I have to repeat to the President and Members that this decision is a painful decision for every responsible official, as the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration have pointed out. We know that we will face much criticism and the SAR Government must even pay a price. We have engaged in a lot of internal debate. As for the colleagues at work, both junior and senior staff have done a lot of overtime work. For us officials, overtime work is taken for granted. But even our female secretaries had to come back on Saturdays and Sundays to help us handle a lot of paper work. However, they were perfectly happy to do so and their morale was very high. This is because each one of our colleagues believes that when today's debate has become history, or if we look back to this day one year from now, the people will agree that the decision we make today is correct. When I was shopping in a housing estate on Sunday, I met some members of the public. They said to me: Mrs IP, this problem is so troublesome. Why does the Government not solve it? It is really a pain in the neck. You should take decisive action.

We can say with a clear conscience that we believe that the proposal we make is consistent with the long-term interest of Hong Kong. Therefore, I hope that Members, including Mr CHEUNG and those Members who have indicated that they will not support it, will support our motion. 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 Security, as set out on 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.

(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): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes? If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Kenneth TING, Mr James TIEN, Mr David CHU, Mr HO Sai-chu, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr Eric LI, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Dr LUI Ming-wah, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr HUI Cheung-ching, Mr CHAN Kwok-keung, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Bernard CHAN, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Gary CHENG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr WONG Yung-kan, Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr Ambrose LAU, Miss CHOY So-yuk, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr FUNG Chi-kin and Dr TANG Siu-tong voted for the motion.

Miss Margaret NG and Mr Ambrose CHEUNG voted against the motion.

Dr LEONG Che-hung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mrs Rita FAN, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 39 Members present, 35 were in favour of the motion, two against it and one abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, she therefore declared that the motion was carried.

MEMBERS' MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motion. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debate. The mover of the motion will have up to 15 minutes for his speech including reply. Other Members will each have up to seven minutes for their speeches.

THE 4 JUNE INCIDENT

MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, exactly 10 years ago, on 19 May 1989, Beijing declared martial law and here in Hong Kong with Typhoon Signal No. 8 hoisted, tens of thousands of citizens gathered in Victoria Park to start a march of protest to the Xinhua News Agency, to voice their support for the students and citizens of Beijing, heralding the magnificent, extensive and raging waves of support for the patriotic pro-democracy movement in China.

Hong Kong had hitherto never been that patriotic, united and aroused in its 100-odd-year history. However, that unprecedented patriotic pro-democracy movement was suppressed by tanks and machine guns in the darkest moments during the small hours of 4 June. There has never been a similar murderous and large scale suppression of peaceful and totally unarmed citizens by their own government throughout the history of mankind. People around the world were both aggrieved and enraged. Ten years have passed, but the wrongs suffered by those compatriots who died have not been redressed. Ten long years is not that long, much shorter than the time taken to vindicate the 28 February incident of Taiwan and the Kwangju incident of South Korea; but it is by no means a short time, it is longer than the bloody eight-year war against Japanese aggression. There is bound to be a day, some time, in the future, when the 4 June incident will be vindicated. From the founding of the People's Republic in 1949 to the pro-democracy movement in 1989, what misjudged, framed or wronged cases were not redressed? I am the oldest Member of this Council, I hope I can live to see that day; but if I cannot, I believe Mr James TO, Miss Cyd HO and Mr Bernard CHAN are sure to see that day.

I moved the same motion two years ago on 21 May 1997, and my motion was approved by the then Legislative Council, with only one Member voting against it, and that Member is now serving time in Stanley. Whether today's motion will be approved or not is unimportant, what is important is to maintain a record of each and every Member of this Council. Those who suppressed the student movement will come to no good end; as to the one who supported the suppression of the student movement and opposed the vindication of the 4 June incident. What has his fate been? At least, there leaves a blot on history that can never be removed and that has even made his offspring feel ashamed. Madam President, with these remarks, I beg to move.

Mr SZETO Wah moved the following motion:

"That this Council commemorates the tenth anniversary of the 4 June incident, mourns for those compatriots who died in the incident, and considers that the pro-democracy movement on 1989 must be vindicated."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr SZETO Wah as set out in the Agenda be passed.

MR WONG YUNG-KAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the political storm that blew in late spring and early summer of 1989 happened exactly 10 years ago. Having witnessed what the so-called "pro-democracy movement organizers" did and said abroad in these 10 years, carefully analysed the process of steady development of the People's Republic of China in the same 10 years, and also contrasted the same with the fortune of our neighbouring countries, I think that this storm should be contemplated in a dispassionate manner.

We must think, if this bunch of so-called "pro-democracy movement organizers" had gained power, and like what happened in the Soviet Union, changed the name of the state, the national flag and imported the western system of "democracy" and "human rights", what would China have become?

When the storm rose, many Chinese, including Hong Kong people, hoped that those holding power in China could rectify the wrong policies and improper practices prevailing in the government at that time, nobody wanted to overthrow the national government. In fact, national leaders did meet representatives of the students and accepted the latter's reasonable requests. But the planners of the movement did not stop at the opportune time, instead, they further unfolded their programme to overthrow the government, with a view to "destroying the Communist regime", "toppling DENG Xiaoping", and "ending the one-party dictatorship".

That the People's Republic of China is standing proudly among the strong nations of the world is the result of waves after fallen waves of Chinese Communist Party members leading the Chinese people in blasting away the three huge mountains of warlordism, feudalism and imperialism that used to sit on top of the people of China. After the founding of the republic, China fought the "United Nations forces" headed by the United States in Korea for three years, and beat the "United Nations forces" back to the 38th Parallel. Since then, despite the various tricks employed by western countries to provoke China, they have never again been able to violate our national territorial integrity.

Mr DENG Xiaoping was the one who, after the upheaval of the "Cultural Revolution" and at a time when the national economy was on the verge of collapse, decided to embark on the road of reform and opening up; as a result, the gross national income of China has kept doubling itself, the speed of its economic growth has been world-shockingly spectacular. Mr DENG is universally deemed a great man of the century. Therefore was it against the interest and wish of the Chinese people to plan "toppling the Communist regime", "toppling DENG Xiaoping"?

For the duration of the storm, the so-called "pro-democracy movement organizers" were "idolized". Now let us draw our conclusion by examining their deeds and words in the past 10 years. Before the political storm even ended, "student leaders" were exposed to be corrupt. When they went abroad, they incessantly fought each other for fame as well as benefits. In order to assume the title of "Father of Pro-Democracy Movement", they attacked each other in front of the United States Congress. They lobbied western countries to impose economic sanctions on China. They claimed that the sovereignty of Tibet and Taiwan did not belong to China. Ridiculously and queerly, they hurled insulting words at the Hong Kong reporters who bypassed them and obtained exclusive interviews. When the NATO air forces bombed Yugoslavia and killed Albanians and personnel of our Embassy, these so-called "pro-democracy movement" organizations and people who normally speak a lot about "human rights" and "patriotism" all but disappeared. They did not even dare to blame the "mistaken bombing". Many who have had high hopes in them cannot but feel fortunate that they are not the ones holding power in China.

If the so-called "pro-democracy movement" were successful, what would China have become? The example of the Soviet Union is the most poignant case in point that merits our deep thinking. The people of the Soviet Union embarked on the road to western democracy without considering their own national circumstances. No doubt they earned the cheers of the West and many people in Hong Kong. But the result is, the Soviet Union disintegrated into 16 countries, and the political situation of Russia has remained turbulent with its economy in the doldrums. President Boris YELTSIN keeps replacing his premier, and there are occasional fights in Chechnya. Western countries not only do not help it out, instead, they take the opportunity to expand the NATO eastwards to nibble at its sphere of influence. Did western countries not all say they would support Mr YELTSIN before the disintegration of the Soviet Union?

Look at China after the storm. It calmly and steadily broke the various sanctions imposed by the West, insisted on opening up and reform, promoted democratic politics in a gradual and orderly way, cracked down rigorously on corruption, improved laws and systems, and practised socialist market economy. With the numerous major projects ready for implementation, foreign businessmen vied each other to invest in China. The national strength keeps growing. Many who had been perplexed by the political situation of China have come to understand that it has a government of great prospects, and joined the ranks of those who contribute to the construction of the motherland.

Here in Hong Kong in the two years since the reunification, the Central Authorities have never interfered with our internal affairs. Mr SZETO Wah, the head of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, who before the reunification had spoken about his worries in tears abroad that he might not be able to get another chance to leave Hong Kong, has in fact freely taken trips outside Hong Kong many times since the reunification; he was even able to hold gatherings last year on Chinese soil, that is, in Hong Kong, to openly commemorate the 4 June incident. His pessimistic predictions were defeated by facts.

Lastly, as the conclusion of our rethinking about this political storm in a detached and unemotional way, I wish to quote the words of Mr DENG Xiaoping when he met the forces that enforced the martial law, "That this incident did take place is worth our soul-searching; it has prompted us to coolly reflect on the past, and also to consider the future. Perhaps this unfortunate incident would make our steps towards opening up and reform more steady, better, or even quicker; make us rectify our mistakes more speedily, and enable us develop our strengths in a better way." For this speech, I know that I might be castigated.

Madam President, I so submit.

MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Madam President, 10 years ago today, the weather in Hong Kong was worse than what we are having now. On that day Typhoon Signal No. 8 was hoisted. But after LI Peng announced the martial law at the joint meeting of party, government and military cadres in Beijing and that troops would be sent into the capital to carry out the suppression, the people of Hong Kong braved the heavy storm and took to the streets to oppose the suppression. Members now sitting in this Chamber, no matter where you stand today, I believe you will not forget what happened that year.

The main point of the motion today is "to vindicate the pro-democracy movement of 1989". Vindication is a matter for all Chinese people, but it is worth looking at this issue from the perspective of two kinds of people. First, it is the people at present holding power in Beijing.

The 4 June massacre, without anybody knowing it, has become a matter of 10 years ago. Over half of those key power-holders who ordered the suppression of the Beijing students and citizens were dead, others are no longer in the power core. LI Peng could be the only exception. I believe that the present prominent figures in the Chinese Communist hierarchy, such as JIANG Zemin and ZHU Rongji, absolutely have the ability to vindicate the 1989 pro-democracy movement. The problem is that they do not have the courage to break out of historical barricades, to mend the historical wounds and to create a new historical situation.

The 80th anniversary of the "4 May movement", the 50th anniversary of the founding of the republic should have been major occasions for celebration. But everybody can see that the power-holders in Beijing are filled with trepidation, fearing that the people would get mobilized. Because they know that the beginning of the 1989 pro-democracy movement was closely related to the death of HU Yaobang and the 70th anniversary of the 4 May movement. So long as the 4 June pro-democracy movement remains unvindicated, there will always be a ghost in the heart of the Communist regime, and there will bound to be a major psychological barrier between the regime and its people. JIANG Zemin and ZHU Rongji have to run the country, and I believe they do not wish to spend their days in fear, worrying that the people will once again get mobilized and launch another pro-democracy movement.

The bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia was a tragedy, but it again united all Chinese people (including those overseas). If JIANG Zemin had seized that opportunity to announce the vindication of the 4 June pro-democracy movement, I think that the people of the whole country would have been further united. And only thus can the long-existing contradiction between the power-holders and the people be completely removed.

The power-holders in Beijing fear "4 June", avoid "4 June". But for how long? The more time passes, the bigger will be the reaction when it comes. Therefore, even for self interest alone, the power-holders must seriously consider the issue of vindicating the 1989 pro-democracy movement.

The vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement is also the most important matter for the many people who have been forced on exile overseas because of their participation in the pro-democracy movement. I have opportunities of meeting many such people in exile abroad over the past 10 years, therefore I would like to speak a few words on their behalf.

I believe that the majority of people will not doubt that those who were forced into exile for their part in the pro-democracy movement had ideals and they hoped to contribute to the democracy and strength of the country. Otherwise they would not take part in the pro-democracy movement. During the suppression of the 1989 movement, some were killed, some arrested, some forced to flee the country. But for each and every person in exile, their biggest hope from the day they left China is the earliest possible vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement so that they can return to their motherland.

Days in exile are absolutely not a good way to live. I can tell you that among those who fled, some committed suicide, some became mentally ill. I recently learned that a prominent intellectual is now making his living as a delivery boy. Behind each person in exile is a sad story.

I would also like to tell you a true story. LAO Mu, the young Beijing poet, was the editor of the Press Freedom Journal in Beijing during the 1989 pro-democracy movement. After the 4 June massacre, LAO Mu was on the wanted list and he was forced to flee China, eventually finding himself in France, a totally strange place to him. He yearned for his home country, but he could not return. His mental state deteriorated and lost his mind. He became a straggler. Other people wish to locate him, but are also afraid of meeting him. I do not know where LAO Mu is at present, what poems he writes.

Nevertheless, whether for the unity of the Chinese people, for the unity of the Chinese around the world, or for those pro-democracy movement organizers who have been long oppressed, the power-holders in Beijing should promptly decide to vindicate the 1989 pro-democracy movement, give reasonable compensation to the people and their families who have suffered all these years for their participation in the pro-democracy movement.

Madam President, I so submit. Thank you.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Madam President, the 4 June incident that took place 10 years ago at Tiananmen Square, Beijing was a grave and sad one in the history of China. It began as a protest against speculation by and corruption of bureaucrats by a group of Beijing students who gathered at Tiananmen Square to petition the Central. It was due to the heavy concentration of international media in Beijing at that time that news of the matter was quickly spread to other places within the country and overseas, becoming a focus internationally. It drew massive responses later and many people went to Beijing from other cities to join the crowds at Tiananmen Square, complicating the nature of the affair, even the student command there changed hands. What began as a student movement against corruption turned into an anti-government political movement with the objective of pulling down the Central leadership of the time. It ended in bloodshed.

Behind the Tiananmen Square incident was also the internal power struggle at the top echelons of the Central Government. ZHAO Ziyang and his faction lost and stepped down.

What was the whole truth of the 4 June incident? How did the 4 June incident end in bloodshed? Where did the responsibility of the Central Government and of the students lie? Was there any better way of handling the situation by the Central Government? All these questions must be the subjects of continuous and hard reflection by all parties. The Liberal Party believes that history will pass a fair verdict, and time will make clear everything.

Whether the 4 June incident is to be vindicated or not is a matter for the Central Government. In the past 10 years, though the Central Government did not vindicate the 4 June incident, we must acknowledge that the Central Government has learned a historical lesson. More attention is now paid to the corruption problem in officials and government institutions; public demands are met by rigorously cracking down on corrupt officials. At the same time, the Central Government has also rectified its way of handling protests and marches by the people. In recent years, we have seen on the television that discontented people in Guangzhou, Shenzhen and other places were allowed to march in the streets and to make protests. After the recent bombing of our Embassy in Yugoslavia, the Central and provincial as well as city governments adopted a tolerant attitude and allowed the extremely angry compatriots all over China to stage demonstrations and protests in the streets to vent their spleen.

Madam President, the 4 June incident is the sorrow of the Chinese people as well as a wound in Chinese history. Not only do Chinese people not wish to recall it, I believe the Central Government also does not wish to see a repeat of the tragedy. Ten years have passed, though the wound might still not fully heal up, there should no longer be any pain or blood. What good is it to pull the scab?

What China is facing are new objectives that straddles the present and the next centuries. The unity of all people and the consensus between the government and the people are needed to make the country stronger and more prosperous with greater influence in world affairs. The Liberal Party hopes everybody will look ahead and make a bigger step. The rights and wrongs of the 4 June incident 10 years ago are hard to judge, just let history pass its verdict. The Liberal Party will refrain from voting.

I so submit.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, 10 years ago today, LI Peng, then the Chinese Premier, made the so-called "19 May speech", designating the patriotic pro-democracy movement as a "upheaval", indicating at the same time that suppression by force would follow. His words made all Chinese with a conscience enormously indignant. In Hong Kong the next day, that is, 20 May, several ten thousand people took to the streets under Typhoon Signal No. 8 to protest. And then on 21 May, an unprecedented million people poured out to march in the streets of Hong Kong. Unfortunately, the roars of the masses failed to stop the atrocious acts of the despots. On 4 June, the People's Liberation Army eventually began a bloody suppression inside and outside Beijing, causing the death of a large number of compatriots.

These inciting incidents as well as the many details before and after the 4 June massacre have been etched deep in the heart of many people, and will never be forgotten. I actually do not need to recall them here. However, some people seem to have a shorter memory; not only have they done little to remember certain things, particular that piece of history with deep and lasting effects, but they have also been encouraging other people to "look ahead", to forget the 4 June massacre, and not to investigate the cardinal principles involved in the incident.

In the past 10 years, the Beijing government and pro-Beijing regime elements have been coming up with various sorts of misrepresented justifications with a view to resisting the pressure both in China and abroad for the vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement. An argument prevailing in recent years is that, they are saying, after so many years, we should not remain obsessed, just leave it for the time being; as Mr James TIEN just said, history would be bound to pass a fair verdict on the incident. This is what I wish to discuss today.

Will history pass a fair verdict? In fact, the truth manifests itself more through debates. We should do our best to preserve all the information of and different opinions about the historical incident, and at the same time, have in-depth discussions continuously. In that way, history will truly pass a fair judgment in the future. We all learn from the past. If our generation does not discuss things we personally experienced, particularly those very closely related to us and those we really care about, but instead we put them away and never look at them again, with the passage of time and faded memory, how is our next generation able to make a fair evaluation of that period of history?

As everybody knows, over the past decade the Beijing government has been strenuously blocking any disclosure of information about the 4 June massacre; and despite the effort of conscientious people like Professor DING Zilin in collecting evidence, the information available has been extremely limited and fragmented. For example, how many people were indeed massacred by the People's Liberation Army, how many were arrested, imprisoned or even executed? All these have remained unknown. Therefore if we hope that history can really pass a fair verdict on the 4 June massacre in the future, we should continue to insist on commemorating the 4 June massacre, on demanding vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, and to do our best to amass information about the 4 June incident. On the one hand this will put pressure on the Beijing government, let it know the true feelings of the people; on the other hand, this will let our posterity know the importance and significance of this incident, to pass to future generations the torch and the conviction in the pursuit of democracy.

History has shown us that incidents of despotic regimes suppressing the people are all vindicated at the end as a result of prolonged public insistence. For instance, since the "Kwangju incident" in South Korea, local people commemorated the incident at its anniversaries by staging demonstrations. Eventually, the South Korean Government vindicated the incident. The "28 February incident" of Taiwan is the same. Though the early Nationalist government, like the present Beijing government, strictly prohibited any discussion about the incident, but the people did not forget and when the restraint on the freedom of speech in Taiwan relaxed several decades later, the voice of the people demanding the vindication of the "28 February incident" came strongly. The Taiwan government had eventually to bow to wish of the people and apologized for the massacre in the "8 February incident".

Another way to oppose the commemoration of 4 June is the so-called "the government has progressed" argument. I would quote what our colleague Mr CHAN Kam-lam said when he answered a newspaper question a couple of days ago, he said, "Since the 4 June incident, has the Central Government remained a closed and autocratic one? This is definitely not the case." First of all, I am glad it turned out that Mr CHAN, like me, thought that the Central Government at the time of the 4 June massacre was "closed and autocratic". As to whether the present Beijing government is closed and autocratic, my answer is of course a "Yes".

The present situation might be a little bit more relaxed as compared to the highly oppressive time during the 4 June incident, but the Beijing government by its nature is still autocratic and despotic. It was only at the end of last year that Beijing sentenced three pro-democracy movement organizers to 10-odd years of imprisonment. And today's newspapers report that in the run-up to 4 June, the Beijing government has stepped up surveillance on some prominent pro-democracy movement elements. Can these be the deeds of an open and democratic government? To such a government, we should continue to voice our objection bravely, and not to stay quiet. Only thus can we spur the government on.

Facts have proved that our insistence over the past 10 years has produced its initial effectiveness. In earlier years, the Beijing government was still calling loudly the 4 June incident an "upheaval". However under the pressure of the people both inside and outside China, the Chinese Government has toned down and been saying that it was nothing but a "political storm". We deeply believe, so long as we can keep on insisting, the so-called "political storm" will eventually be vindicated.

Madam President, I so submit.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Madam President, open information is the cornerstone of democracy. Ten years ago today, ZHAO Ziyang, then the Premier, went to Tiananmen Square to visit the students on hunger strike for democracy and freedom. There he spoke in tears for 20 minutes in support of the students' pro-democracy movement. The next day, the Central Television Station broadcast the speech of LI Peng in which he designated the student movement as an upheaval, indicating that troops would be brought into the capital to maintain order. At that time, the 1 billion people on the Mainland wrongly took the lies of LI Peng as the truth, because at that time China was still a place where information was guarded, with the government monopolizing information, and the government was the only source the people could get information.

The 4 June pro-democracy movement was suppressed, and those who organized the movement are either in exile abroad, or imprisoned in China, some even sacrificed their lives during the 4 June suppression. Looking back at the 4 May movement 80 years ago and the 4 June pro-democracy movement 10 years ago, and looking at the present China, we are still fighting for democracy. All the pro-democracy movements in China in the past did not succeed, one of the reasons was that information was blocked.

With the advent of the information era, I believe information technology will liberalize China and vindicate the 4 June incident, allowing us to face the truth of the incident bravely.

Given the information technology nowadays, the universal availability of the Internet in particular, the strength of information has been boosted. We can acquire voluminous and extensive information, and voice our opinions through the Internet virtually unhampered by time and geographical separation. This is unprecedented.

China began to use the Internet in 1995 with the objectives of serving economic development and academic research. It is estimated that about 2 million people are now connected to the Internet in China, representing 0.1% of its total population of 1.25 billion. With the charges for long distance calls as well as Internet service in China coming down earlier this year, coupled with better Chinese contents and more mature web service, it is estimated in the market that Internet users in China will further increase, to 10 million in two years, and to 37 million by 2005, becoming by that time the world's biggest Internet using country, second only to the United States.

China has always been ambivalent about Internet technology. On the one hand, China knows that e-commerce is the new trend in international trade, wider use of the Internet is a prerequisite to enhancing competitiveness, and therefore hopes to develop its economy and to open up international markets through the use of information technology and the Internet. But on the other hand, China fears that the opening up of the economy would lead to political reform. Therefore it tries to prevent the inflow of politically sensitive information into China by way of screening web contents.

However, it seems an inevitable fact that information technology is changing the social, economic and political modes. China is not only experiencing technical constraints that have made complete screening of web contents impossible, it in fact must open up information and intensify the use of the Internet and information technology before it can enhance its competitiveness on the international front.

In the 1970s, DENG Xiaoping first embarked on opening up and reform, and put forward the "four modernizations". At that time, WEI Jingsheng criticized that China needed a "fifth modernization", namely, democracy. The development of the Internet today precisely can serve to push the open policy of Mr DENG further forward. In the foreseeable future, the popularity of the Internet in China will break China's past policy of blocking information and bring liberation. Information itself will vindicate the 4 June incident, will bring democracy, freedom and human rights to the Chinese people. This is not the dream of an idiot on my part.

In June 1995, about the time of the 6th anniversary of the 4 June pro-democracy movement and also four months after Internet service began in China, large numbers of public security officers were stationed at Tiananmen Square to forbid any activity to commemorate the 4 June incident. But on an Internet web site, the words "People will not forget the painful memory" were written beside the portrait of the Goddess of Democracy. That Goddess of Democracy was not demolished by public security officers.

At present, we can have a democracy wall on the Internet which is not restricted by time and national boundaries and on which we can read the articles and poems written by WEI Jingsheng as well as comments from and ideals of Chinese around the world in respect of the state of democracy and freedom in China. Photographs and related commentaries concerning the 1989 pro-democracy movement can easily be found on the Internet. What is more important is that the interactive media can induce discussion and political activities on the Net. Recently WANG Dan launched an international signature campaign on the Internet, demanding the vindication of the 4 June incident and the release of all dissidents by China.

Though China does not like such politically sensitive information and activities, it has been doing a lot in developing and using the Internet. It started a "Government Internet Project" last January, and so far over 300 government home pages have emerged, including those of 48 government departments.

The Chinese Government hopes to put 80% of all its departments on the Internet by 2000 so as to realize the concept of electronic government on the Net.

China began screening Internet contents in 1993, and in 1995 and again in 1997 promulgated the PRC Regulations on the Management of Computer Information Network and the Internet. There have been many complaints that it is impossible for Internet users in China to connect to the web sites of foreign media or those with political flavours. Early this year, LIN Hai, a Shanghai merchant, was charged with "subversive use of the Internet" and sentenced to two years of imprisonment for giving the e-mail addresses of 30 000 Internet users in China to a publishing house in the United States.

In the long term, such screening will not be effective, particularly after China joins the World Trade Organization and opens up its telecommunications market. The world is developing into a knowledge-based community, developing information technology, popularizing the Internet and opening up information technology is bound to be the trend in the 21st century. There will be consequential changes in the social, political and economic modes. China can be no exception.

Information will give the Chinese people opportunities to learn the true facts, will let people have the right of choice and the freedom to decide on their own future. Information will vindicate the 4 June incident and will bring democracy and freedom to China.

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

MR AMBROSE CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I believe all would agree that the 4 June incident is a painful episode in the history of China, and that our feelings about the incident arguably remain unchanged in these past 10 years. At the Legislative Council meeting last week, we debated on the incident of the NATO led by the United States snatching away the precious lives of a number of our compatriots. We saw that in that incident the Beijing government make known its position in a positive way. The leaders of the Beijing government called the compatriots killed revolutionary martyrs, and demanded a full apology and a comprehensive investigation of the cause as well as complete disclosure of the investigation report and full compensation.

The similarity between the 4 June incident and the NATO one is that those killed were Chinese compatriots, were our young Chinese people, Chinese students. I hope that the Beijing government would, with the same attitude as it handled the NATO incident, apply the four demands above to the 4 June incident, to study what happened during the 4 June incident and to see if the four demands are applicable. If these four demands are applied to the 4 June incident, I can say that it would unite all Chinese people.

We must look ahead, we hope China will become strong and wealthy. I would like to request again the leadership in Beijing to handle the 4 June incident with similar attitude and give our compatriots a fair verdict. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, it has been 10 years since the 1989 pro-democracy movement. Ten years is not too long a period of time, but to recall things that happened 10 years ago, I think many people would find it difficult to get much detail. However, regarding the 1989 pro-democracy movement and the 4 June suppression, many things will be with me for the rest of my life.

I remember clearly that this evening 10 years ago, that is, on 19 May, I saw on the television the ferocious expressions of LI Peng, the Chinese Premier, who with clenched teeth, declared martial law and said troops would be deployed to resolve the issue of the students' peaceful petition. The martial law order dashed the students' hope to conclude the demonstration peacefully and it brought about the tragic suppression. Many scenes of what happened the next day, 20 May, are still vividly clear in my mind. Over 50 000 of us braved the strong winds and heavy downpours under Typhoon Signal No. 8 to start our march at Victoria Park to the Xinhua News Agency. Many in the procession were people I did not know, and many I did such as members of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China as well as members of other political parties. I remember that outside the Xinhua premises, the first one to get on the stage was Mr Gary CHENG. Appearing full of justice, he raised his arms and shouted "Down with LI Peng", and thousands echoed him in unison. We were greatly moved. I remembered that sitting beside me was Mr CHAN Wing-ki, now a deputy to the National People's Congress. Everybody was wet all over, tears, sweat and rain water all mixed. On 21 May, Mr Louis CHA told the press that he had resigned his membership with the Basic Law Drafting Committee. Then, we staged the million-people demonstrations. The million-people marches on the three days of 21 May, 27 May and 4 June were arguably the most impressive events in the history of Hong Kong. Many friends walked hand in hand, among them, I remember, were Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, and naturally also Mr Martin LEE and Mr SZETO Wah. We lost count of the distance we walked together. We were of one mind, without distinguishing between you and me, for the future of our country, hoping that an ideal way out could be found, and further hoping that the student movement could conclude peacefully and that the leadership would, from the requests put forward by the students, learn ways how the government could respond to public opinions, so as to build a more rational and open system.

Mr Deputy, 10 years came and went and many things have changed. At present, many people only have faded memories; many have become muddled in their minds, or perhaps appear to be so. Even more people have become very wise, politically. They have completely turned white into black and replaced truth with falsity. While they sincerely supported the pro-democracy movement then, they have changed and now loyally and unconditionally endorse the justifications of the Central Government in suppressing the 4 June movement. Mr Deputy, I only wish to say that as far as I am concerned, the pro-democracy movement is something tied to our lifelong morals and conscience, and the vindication of the 4 June incident is in fact a banner of conscience. Today, on the vast land of our country, people holding dissenting views have been suppressed and silenced. In fact, that banner should appear even brighter and even more brilliant after the reunification of Hong Kong. I hope that this banner will signify that the Chinese nation is still one with moral courage. However autocratic the regime may be, we have to let our voices be heard; however heavy the pressure, we will, like the wild grass or grass in spring that can never be burned out, do more, go farther and be more active.

Over these years, the Chinese Government has employed all sorts of means to shape public opinion, to rebuild an ideology and a new united front. They have done their best to hide the truth regarding the 1989 pro-democracy movement, to vilify the lofty ideals and pure motives of this movement. That is shameful. It is precisely because we have such a government that our people who suffered from unspeakable cruelty during the Second World War have not been able to get any fair redress. The Japanese who ravaged our country are shirking their historical responsibility in a similar manner, and have refused to admit their war crimes or acknowledge historical facts. Even the victims of the Nanjing massacre and many of the comfort women are still awaiting reparation.

Mr Deputy, when LIU Shaoqi, our former President of the State, was arrested by the red guards during the Cultural Revolution, he knew that he was never to see his family again, therefore he said, "Fortunately, history is written by the people." The last thing I wish to say today is that, if our nation does not have the courage to acknowledge history, if we do not have any sense of right and wrong about history, do not have the breadth of spirit to shoulder responsibility, our nation has no future.

With these remarks, I support the motion of Mr SZETO Wah.

MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, 4 June 1989 is forever a day etched in the collective mind of the Chinese nation. Many people fervently hope that the 4 June incident would fast become forgotten history. But it should be noted that we also have something called unbiased history. But history is not always unbiased, sometimes it was so biased that it chilled people's hearts.

Ten years have passed, and naturally there are people who wish that the memory of the 4 June would fade. However, there are always some people who will do something every June, like painting a picture, writing a few sentences, hitting the streets to join a demonstration, or attending a candlelit vigil, all for the purpose of relieving the ache in their hearts.

To many people, the traumatic experience of 4 June was not only that carved in the minds of the people on the Mainland, it is something that the people of Hong Kong who were not present at the scene of the incident cannot forget. The impact of 4 June was felt irrespective of geographical locations.

Despite the lapse of so many years and that we may perhaps have different views in respect of certain political, social and economic development in China, whenever we mention the affairs of that year, we in the Democratic Party and the majority of those who supported the 4 June pro-democracy movement have never changed our overall appraisal of the movement. The Democratic Party feels that even 10 years have passed, and seeing that the faster the economic development in China is, the more human rights are disregarded, we still cherish extremely high goals and hopes as far as national sentiments are concerned.

The concerned public, even when they are so busy working for their livelihood so as to neglect many other things, would perforce recall the emotional trauma brought by the 4 June incident. From their participation in activities commemorating the 4 June incident, we see that the ghost of the 4 June incident is still so deeply etched in the public mind. Even though people have gradually turned to formless commemoration, it is impossible for them to forget.

After the 4 June incident, we have been placed permanently in a certain slot by history and by our own conscience. The Democratic Party took part in the pro-democracy movement and in the upholding of human rights out of worries about the future of our nation.

The Democratic Party hopes that we could really implement the stipulations in the United Nations Charter that various views in respect of ideology, political inclination and religious belief should be treated with tolerance, and also hopes that people with independent thoughts and independent views are no longer regarded as "hostile elements" to be oppressed, placed under surveillance or house arrest, or even arrested. We further hope that the authorities concerned would, with a pragmatic attitude, re-appraise the 4 June incident, release those dissidents still incarcerated, as well as those dissidents who have been imprisoned for their thoughts, words and religious beliefs, and to bravely put an end to our country's infamous tradition of literary inquisition.

Mr Deputy, the Democratic Party also hopes that the entire Chinese society could nurture the tolerant spirit of respecting other people, could promote the rational and fair handling of various contradictions and conflicts, as well as the peaceful expression of one's wishes and views so as to avoid any and all extremist emotions that only serve to aggravate contradictions. Only thus can our country embark with a steady pace on the road to democracy and modernization.

Naturally, to promote tolerance does not imply that we should stress only harmony and disregard rights and wrongs; nor does it mean that vicious deeds that erode public morals and endanger society should be tolerated. Tolerance is inseparable from present-day democracy, freedom and human rights; they complement each other. Tolerance is an element of democratic politics and is a condition of the democratic political culture. Tolerance is manifested in the respect for human rights and freedom and is defined by moral standards and the law.

China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and has formally announced to recognize the World Human Rights Declaration and to sign the International Human Rights Covenant. These are its unshirkable obligations based on human justice, and essential measures China must adopt in protecting human rights so as to advance in lockstep with the rest of the world.

Mr WONG Yung-kan just now ruled out the historical significance of the 4 June incident on ground of the misdeeds of pro-democracy movement organizers abroad. This is an extremely naive way of thinking. What we are striving for is the ideal of promoting democracy in China, we do not worship any of the organizers, and will absolutely not totally reject the 4 June movement on ground of their shortcomings. Mr WONG Yung-kan has this way of thinking possibly because the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong has always, by its nature, honoured rule by man.

It has been 10 years, history is still yet to see the vindication of the 4 June incident. The lesson of blood has not been learned. Therefore we hope that 4 June would become an important day, a day to reflect, to hold fast to our national memories and to mourn the democratic martyrs. For today and for the future, let us resort to our conscience, let us respect history and work for the vindication of the 4 June incident. History is not going to cool the people's blood.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I support the motion.

MR MARTIN LEE: Mr Deputy, a decade can be a long time or a short time. The blood outside Tiananmen Square has long since been washed away and tears have dried. The memory of many has grown dim. But our leaders' fear has not subsided nor have their iron fists loosened their grip. Our leaders want us to forget, like their proteges in this Council. But our leaders will not forget. Our return permits are still not renewed and student leaders are still imprisoned or banished.

But one thing remains as clear as ever: The blood of our compatriots will not have flowed in vain. Democracy will surely come to China just as the 4 June verdict will be reversed, and then our China will truly be great and our people free. But until then, let us remember the long, hot marches, the hope, the tears, the blood. If the mothers of the student martyrs cannot forget, how then can we?

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, let me begin with a poem by BAI Juyi:

When the Duke of Zhou feared rumours,

When WANG Mang was humble and not yet usurped the throne,

If they had died at that time, how to anybody

Could their true colours become known?

As a matter of fact, judgments on many historical events or on the achievements and blunders of many historical figures remained controversial after decades or centuries without any definite conclusion.

As we all understand, grudges, be they big or small, are born of love. Many of the students took part in the incident initially out of patriotism. However, irrespective of the nature of things, excess brings disaster. Whether the motive of an act is good or bad, once it exceeds the limit, there will be calamity. The disappointing deeds and words of student leaders and pro-democracy movement organizers in the past few years are there for everybody to see.

Ten years ago, it was predicted that the People's Republic of China would soon collapse. But that has not been the case. The motherland has made big strides in respect of its political system, economy, human rights, rule of law, social development and people's livelihood. It has assumed a pivotal role in the international arena. To the 1.2 billion Chinese people, a strong and wealthy yet stable country, with well-fed and well-clothed people, is more important than anything else. It is also the best report card a government can show its people. We must never do what certain local politicians do: they have been able to do nothing to solve problems regarding people's livelihood, nor can they come up with constructive ideas to tackle social issues, but every year as a rule they harp on the same old string trying to stir up public emotions, and to echo the anti-China forces in the West.

Mr Deputy, "Beijing City in March is embroidered with thousands of flowers." The results of the development of the motherland are the best and most forceful response to this motion of the Council. With these remarks, I oppose the motion.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, people have always believed that the wheel of history moves forward. In any historical event there are things that merit our reflection. Not only is it the case with the 4 June incident, but so also are other historical events. Further, in each historical event, in the causes leading to it as well as its course of development and results, there are both positive and negative lessons for the posterity to learn from. We must judge history comprehensively and rationally, and not in a fragmented and emotional way.

We have learned from the historical lesson that the development of democracy in China must proceed in a gradual and orderly manner. In the process, other important considerations, such as social stability, economic progress, effective operation of the government machine as well as the strength of the country, must equally be stressed. I agree with the view that our country needs development, and democracy is not the means but the end, which, like economic progress, is the fruit the people hope to enjoy. But in the pursuit of the two, the people have the right to choose their priority according to the actual situation in the development of the country. The assumption that all things come with democracy has already been proved a fallacy by history.

We have seen that in the past 10 years, China has been exerting great effort in seeking development in the face of changing international politics and restraints imposed by the western powers who do not wish to see a strong China by political, economic or even military means (it was military recently). On the one hand, it strives to maintain the stability of its society of 1.2 billion people as well as the integrity of its sovereignty; on the other, it insists on opening up, reform and market economy, keeps on improving government structure and the legal system, enhances the scientific approach in decision-making, and starting with rural areas, begins to institute a democratic election system, building upwards from the basic level. This is a social development strategy with an extremely high degree of difficulty and is a great challenge, the scale and implementation of which demand strong political sense and management prowess. A complete understanding of the state of the country and the world, as well as a commitment to the interest of the country and the nation, is required. It is not something that can be achieved by shouting one or two shallow political slogans.

If history has taught China a lesson, I would say that the present-day China has learned adequately from that lesson and the experience. If we say that our country did made a detour in the past, I would say, as many more other people also do, China is now following the correct way.

Mr Deputy, I so submit.

DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, 10 years is quite a long time. Time may have filtered out our sentiments, but I believe it cannot erode our conscience and our judgment as to what is right and what is wrong. Just now Mr TAM Yiu-chung said that the student movement should be judged by history in the future. I do not rule out that many students at that time were pursuing ideals, but they got involved in party struggles, or even might have been made pawns by other people. Therefore, insofar as this respect in our judgment of the student movement is concerned, we may have to let history find out the truth. But, whatever the analysis, I think it was a fact beyond any doubt that the power-holders sent troops to shoot and kill students. I think that the occurrence of this incident means that the freedom of peaceful demonstration to which the Chinese people were entitled under the Constitution was ignored. This alone deserves universal condemnation, deserves to remain a serious blot on the history, and is a grave mistake in the history of the People's Republic of China.

All analyses concerning the party struggles were basically meant to justify such crimes. Very often we say history has to move forward. I recall that during the Sino-British negotiations, we had an opportunity to contact Mr XU Jiatun. At that time, he said to us that more time should be given to China which, having learned a lot of lessons from the Cultural Revolution, would continue to be prosperous and strong. However, shortly afterwards came the 4 June massacre and he had to leave Hong Kong in a hurry. I do not know when he will return to the Mainland. If we only look ahead, I believe that the Chinese nation is absolutely hopeless. Very often, historical events are cyclical, and it is precisely because we Chinese have not learnt any lessons from history that I deem that the Chinese people must now learn their lessons from the events of the 1989 pro-democracy movement and the 4 June massacre. One-party dictatorship must end, the people must have the freedom of assembly and association and the freedom of the press, and the value of the individual must be respected. Only thus can there be hope for China.

We can all see that throughout this long period of opening up, the emphasis has been on economic reform alone. Even though China became a signatory to the Human Rights Covenant, we can see that when democracy advocates in China wanted to form a Democratic Party, they were arrested. Therefore signing of the Human Rights Covenant by China could very well be its means to join the World Trade Organization, it is not an end. I think that what has to be done will take a very long time. Some people often say that the state of the country should be taken into consideration when talking about democracy and human rights, and that the Chinese culture is very much different from the western one. I remember my Chinese teacher in my secondary school days, Mr MAO Junnian, who later joined the Xinhua News Agency and who I still used to see every now and then, had told us to understand the vast difference between the Chinese culture and the western culture. But I categorically do not accept such a view. I think that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are basically the common values of modern and rational people, and basically do not have any definite correlation with Chinese culture and western culture. When society develops to a certain stage with matching intellectual development, people are sure to want democracy, human rights and the rule of law, it is the same with westerners and with the Chinese. If we say that for cultural reasons, the Chinese are unable to go this way, it is actually a big insult to the quality of the Chinese culture or of the Chinese people. It only gives the power-holders excuses not to make political reforms.

I always cherish a thought. We formed the United Democrats of Hong Kong after the 1989 pro-democracy movement. We committed ourselves to politics, we formed a political party, and we hope as well as believe that our faith is sure to be sustained, and will continue to promote democracy in Hong Kong. Apart from urging political reforms, we further aim to nurture a democratic culture in the democratic soil of Hong Kong, to build a culture and values that are diversified and open, respecting the individual and stressing on democracy and human rights. Reinforced with institutional reforms, we hope that here in Hong Kong a role model can be built for the Communist Party of China which will then learn from Hong Kong. Lastly, I would conclude my speech with a number of objectives of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China: the one-party dictatorship must end; the 4 June incident must be vindicated; persecution of pro-democracy movement organizers must stop and the organizers in exile abroad must be allowed to return to China to live a normal life again; last but not least, the responsibility for the massacre must be traced. History will record what we are saying today. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, the 4 June 1989 incident is already 10 years old. Over the past 10 years, a lot happened. Therefore, I think that the 4 June incident should not be evaluated in isolation and the issue should be examined with reference to the many events that took place in the past 10 years.

The latest event is the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia by NATO air forces headed by the United States with five guided missiles, killing three journalists and wounding over 20 other people.

Mr Deputy, I raise this issue because it is intrinsically closely related to the 4 June incident. I have always been certain that in the 1989 pro-democracy movement, the initial motives of the students were good, their patriotic passions were sincere. The problem was that at later stages, when western influences, and predominantly those from the United States, had a hand in the matter, and this changed the nature of the movement. The recent bombing of the Chinese Embassy and the infiltration of the 1989 movement 10 years ago are all important and integral parts of the international strategy of the United States aimed at controlling and restraining China.

We must understand that the international strategies of the United States have very long timeframes. It often makes policies or takes actions to anticipate things that it will do 20 or 30 years later. For example, in the early 1950s, John DULLES, the United States Secretary of State, formulated the "peaceful evolution" strategy, the key elements of which were to develop their agents within the former Soviet Union and China, to change the social systems and to subvert the governments of these countries by way of ideological infiltration and influencing value judgments, the ultimate aim was to build a United States-styled unipolar world order. In the 4 June 1989 incident, this United States international strategy failed to realize but it almost succeeded. Then in early 1990s, amid traumatic changes, the Soviet Union and the Eastern European bloc disintegrated, and brought fruition to the strategy DULLES designed over two decades ago. Therefore, I have to stress at the start that the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union are important frames of reference when we judge the 4 June incident. But in respect of such frames of reference, people in the past often forgot that they were important components of the international strategy of the United States formulated over 20 years ago. On the other hand, I have always fully acknowledged the patriotic passions and good motivation of the students. This important aspect of the 4 June incident, I still insist, must not be blotted out.

In his article entitled "Clash of Civilizations" published in the Foreign Affairs quarterly, the international strategy publication of the United States, in 1993, Professor Samuel HUNGTINGTON of Harvard University advanced the theory that, after the Cold War, the old bipolar confrontation would give way to clash among the major systems of civilization. This in effect already encompassed the unipolar international strategy the United States has always been pursuing, that is, to elevate to universal supremacy the civilization as represented by the United States. At the same time, FUKUYAMA, a scholar of American nationality, also published the article "The End of History" saying in effect that history ended with American values and social system achieving world pre-eminence. Many think tanks and institutions of the United States Government have been predicting that in the 20 to 30 years into the next century, the economic might of China will surpass that of the United States and this will undermine America's position as the supreme world leader. The related issues, "encircling China" and "demonizing China", have been enthusiastically talked about in the press in America. The negotiations for China's accession to the World Trade Organization have been dragging on for 13 years. Besides, anti-China motions have been moved in the United Nations almost on a yearly basis; and then there are the TMD, the new guidelines for Japan-American defence pact, the MS Milky Way incident, the theft of secrets incident, the political contributions incident, they are all connected and closely related to the involvement of the United States in the 1989 pro-democracy movement.

Mr Deputy, I have talked about the two frames of reference for evaluating the 1989 pro-democracy movement, the first being that the involvement of the United States in the 4 June incident could be traced to the "peaceful evolution" strategy DULLES designed in the 1950s to "win without fighting"; the second being that the unipolar strategy for America to dominate the world as seen in recent bombing of the Chinese Embassy by the United States. These two frames of reference are not separate ones, they are entwined. Furthermore, whether it was to get involved in the 1989 pro-democracy movement, or to bomb Yugoslavia to smithereens, destroying the Chinese Embassy along the way, the pretext used by the Americans was to defend democracy and human rights. In evaluating the 4 June incident, we must not let one leaf cover our eyes and so fail to see the forest, thus forgetting that any major historical event does not exist in isolation.

Mr Deputy, the third important frame of reference is that the 4 June incident has not interrupted the opening up and reform of China in the past 20 years. Further, in the 10 years since the 4 June incident, China has not disintegrated, like the Soviet Union and the Eastern European bloc which have seen their combined strength devastated and their people sinking deeper and deeper into poverty. On the contrary, China saw more rapid development in the last 10 years, greater degree of opening up, quicker construction of democratic legal system. These are all facts not to be ignored. The Chinese Government attaches great importance to handling the relationship between reforms, development and stability. That is how it has managed to sustain rapid economic growth and social progress in the past 20 years. Our country has, in one single generation, achieved what many other developed countries took several generations to do. Our country is now the 10th biggest economy of the world.

All these achievements would not have been possible without a stable social environment. Therefore, I opine that stability is in line with the long-term interest of the Chinese nation, is beneficial to the economic and democratic development of China; all compatriots of the country, Hong Kong included, should do nothing that may undermine the stability of China, or anything that may affect our national unity and solidity.

With these remarks, Mr Deputy, I oppose the motion.

MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I speak in support of Mr SZETO Wah's motion.

I believe that in the modern history of the Chinese nation, no movement will have that long-lasting impact not only on this generation of the Chinese people, but on several ones after us as well, as the 4 June pro-democracy movement. Of course, many Members have said or are going to say today that history has yet to pass its verdict, or that the student movement was a good one initially, one to fight corruption, but changed to activities against the government and the Communist Party, or even as Mr Ambrose LAU said, became anti-Government activities under the control of the United States Government. There are moments when I really want to ask the Members who have said such things, do they actually believe what they said, or are they compelled to say in public that they believe such things?

Ten years may make something seem far away, but many scenes are still vividly clear in our mind, such as the pouring rain, the demonstration by tens of thousands people outside the Xinhua News Agency Mr Albert HO and Dr YEUNG Sum spoke about; and Mr Gary CHENG shouting "Down with LI Peng" as mentioned by another colleague. I recall that Mr CHENG Yiu-tong and I watched the demonstration march of several hundred thousand people at Happy Valley; I also marched holding hands with Mr TAM Yiu-chung. Of course, we could say that what we did at that time was wrong. But sometimes it would come to my mind that we must honestly ask ourselves this question: What we did at that time, was it really wrong? I think we did nothing wrong.

In view of the various constraints under the present political circumstances, many justifications forwarded just now by Members might not be, I hope, what they have deep down in their hearts. I just heard Mr TAM Yiu-chung say that some things, when done in excess, could cause disaster. This much I agree. But what we wish to ask is, what did the students, our compatriots, do around 4 June that was excessive? If troops had not entered the city to carry out suppression, if the public security machinery of the Chinese Government had had other riot control equipment, how can we say that the demonstration of the students exceeded the limits to become a calamity? Could the bloodshed and the massacre be the responsibility of those who simply exercised their right to stage peaceful demonstrations?

I listened with amusement to the concept advanced by Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Mr Ambrose LAU that the event was controlled by a foreign government, or a conspiracy was planned by the students under the direction of a foreign government. I have no inside information, so I do not know if it is true or not. However, in view of the assertiveness with which they made that point, people find it difficult not to believe, particularly how Mr DULLES schemed in the 50s for the disintegration of the Eastern Bloc in the 90s. If the United States Government is actually that competent, that would be a marvel. It seems that they can see into the future and shape the world the way they like, with political powers at their fingertips. Mr LAU might believe such a story, but after we have listened to him today, and then read the official proceedings of the meeting later, do we still believe it?

We debated on a motion last week because a number of our compatriots lost their lives at the bombing of our Embassy in Yugoslavia. They were our compatriots, and we were saddened by their death. But why, when we talk about the several thousand or ten thousand students and workers who were massacred in Beijing 10 years ago, do we have to find all sorts of excuses to convince ourselves that their death was justified, and not unwarranted? Is it because our Central Government has a stance regarding the event we debated on last Wednesday that it was the American imperialists who violated our sovereign territory, and our Central Government did not on the other hand approve that event 10 years ago? If we judge whether some people's death is "justified" or "unwarranted" solely according to the political verdict of the Central Government on a certain event, it is really miserable for us. I think that whatever the justifications proffered, killing people is unpardonable, unless those killed had the intention of killing other people. But during that period of time, we saw nothing indicating that was the case. Any arguments put forward now are, I think, merely sophistry.

Stability has brought peaceful development and economic progress. This I may not oppose. But they are not necessarily achieved only by sacrificing our own compatriots. In many developing countries, it is through consultation and understanding between the governments and the people that democracy, human rights, freedom and the rule of law are available at the same time of economic development. I do not believe we can only obtain economic development by way of suppressing and limiting people's freedoms. If we so believe, how do we judge the progress in Taiwan in the past 40 years? Taiwan also enjoy economic development, its people are also our compatriots, and they have obtained, along economic development, a certain degree of freedom and the democracy they are now enjoying. It is the same with Hong Kong, though we do not have a fully-fledged democratic system. I do not understand why the government cannot have economic advancement at the same time it tolerates the dissenting views we may raise.

Mr Deputy, the suppression of the 4 June incident and the massacre can never be erased from my mind. I hope that there will be a debate in the Legislative Council on this incident every year. I support the motion. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, a point of order ......

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ambrose LAU, do you have a point of order? Why did you not raise it just now?

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): I wanted to do so after Mr LEE had finished his speech.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Do you want to elucidate?

MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Wing-tat misunderstood my words, and I did not say that the United States controlled the students.

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

MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, this year sees the 10th anniversary of the 4 June incident. Today is also a very meaningful day to me, or to the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance), because it was the murderous speech of LI Peng that spawned the establishment of the Alliance. I remember that this was 10 years ago. After listening to LI's speech, I had said to Mr SZETO, and I still remember my words dearly 10 years later today, I said, "Mr SZETO, we have to set up an organization which all Chinese can join to support the student movement in Beijing." At that time, the democrats had a certain set pattern, they were not prepared to do anything for China, including democracy in China. But at that time I asked Mr SZETO to consider establishing such a body. This was what I said, "This is a democratic movement, we support the students, and our day of victory will come." He asked me at that time, "CHEUNG Man, what if it fails, are you going?" I replied, "I will go even it should fail." We then began to get a large number of friend to set up the Alliance. It has been a full 10 years since.

To us, today is very meaningful because in the past 10 years, we saw the patriotic passions of the masses which were expressed in an enthusiastic, courageous and spirited way. We also experienced in the past 10 years the hardship of carrying on with clenched teeth. Under the attacks and pressure from the Chinese Government and pro-China bodies, an organization is bound to have a hard time. I remember that many of my friends here in this Council had over the past few years said to me, "CHEUNG Man, give up the Alliance. You people have in fact much to do. You also have much to do in the Legislative Council, and you could do it very well. After all, you are still young." And I would ask them in reply, "Did you know that I was involved in the founding of the Alliance? The Alliance represents something the Chinese people and the Chinese youths paid with their blood in 1989 when they fought for democracy for China; it is a matter of conscience, it must not be given up."

We have not given up this faith, even after 1997. I also know many of you here in this Chamber were with us at that time. Even today, when the student movement is talked about, and it involves major principles of right and wrong, how can you not have a clear idea in your heart? We are all patriotic, though our ways of expression might be different. But no one would agree that a peaceful student movement for democracy should be crushed by their own troops and tanks in a blood-bath. The NATO bombed our Embassy with missiles and killed several of our people, but in the 4 June incident it was people slaughtering their own young people, their next generation. How could this be forgiven? How could this be forgotten? How could the right and the wrong be made blurred? How could we smear the good name of those who died? Please do not do that. When you do, you will regret it, you will feel uneasy; your children, relatives and friends would despise you for having said that. Naturally, it is a different situation we are facing today, you might not be standing in such a front line as we do, but the least you could do is not to be so heartless as to defame the dead students. Be a member of the human race, and be a Chinese; and please value the enthusiasm of our young people, support their harmless hope. Never again say that they acted under American influence. Such words are simply an insult to people's intelligence. You are sure to regret that, you are sure to feel ashamed, and your children will note what you have said today. Even if we let history pass a fair verdict as you suggested, but when it really does, you will find yourselves disgraced. It is disgraceful to have said such nasty things. Please do not do that, because those who died lost their lives, human lives. You must not say such things.

Naturally, to many of my friends, today is not the occasion to retort, and I am not prepared to do so. I only ask of you here in this Chamber, even you do not vote in favour of the motion, please abstain, and do not vote against it. I have heard that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong will vote against the motion. I do not wish to attack any political party over such matter. I am not willing, as I have not been willing to so over the past 10 years. You can watch me, because I know that it is undesirable to do so, nor is it necessary; and they themselves know full well what is right and what is wrong. I have always hoped that even we occupy different slots, have different political stances, we would still share a common and big wish, and that is China will have democracy. Perhaps you toe your line and I walk my way, but to realize this same goal, I consider the role of each person from an overall perspective, and so I do not wish to hurt anybody. I also trust they took part with sincerity at that time, and even now they still have a clear idea as to the right and the wrong. I believe that people are good by nature, therefore under such circumstances, please abstain from voting, this is important. This is not a question whether you can sleep in peace, it is a question about answering honestly to history. I must do my ultimate best to make this appeal. Thank you, Mr Deputy.

THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.

MR YEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Madam President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong will surely vote against the motion. We do so on the basis of facts, and for our conscience, for our responsibility to our next generation.

Things and people changed many times over in 10 years. Ten years might be a long time for one person, but it is only a brief moment in the vast history of mankind. Our understanding of the 4 June incident has become increasingly clear. It was unfortunate that there was bloodshed in the 4 June incident which nobody wanted to have. When the students hit the streets to demand democratic reforms as well as an end to corruption, their motivation was good, and they were filled with patriotic passions. But they were used later by people with ulterior motives and the nature of their movement changed to one aimed at toppling a particular political party, or the government and replacing it with a new one. Such demands no longer represented the wish of the Chinese people at that time. At that time, the Chinese populace, having experienced anarchy during the Cultural Revolution, treasured tremendously the stability that had been hard won, and hoped that the country would have the stability to institute reforms.

From the films shot by western journalist at the Tiananmen Square, we can witness many of the actual scenes of that time, particularly the little known student leaders, what they were thinking at that time and how they hoped the student movement would develop. For various reasons, the student movement dragged on, and the students occupied the Tiananmen Square for over three weeks, forcing in the process the government to cancel the grand ceremony planned to welcome Mr Mikhail GORBACHEV of the Soviet Union. Troops made several attempts to clear the Tiananmen Square, but were forced to pull back. All these were seen on television. However, the situation went out of control later, some scoundrels and lawless elements infiltrated the student movement, and that brought bloody clashes and casualties. That was most regrettable. We can on the other hand look at the student leaders who fled abroad after 4 June and observe their deeds. Some Members also mentioned just now that they are arguably disappointing. The Chinese populace would think that it was fortunate that such people did not form the government, otherwise the prospects of China would have been in great peril.

Madam President, there is one point which I must make clear. It was said that when the Tiananmen Square was cleared, over ten thousand people were killed, and blood flowed like a river and that the troops used tanks to crush students. It is fortunate that the Spanish Television recorded the process of that night, clearly showing that the clearance was conducted in a peaceful way, and not as the lies that CAI Ling later told in her tape that the People's Liberation Army madly shot at the students. Otherwise, many of the student leaders might have been dead. HOU Dejian was one of the four on hunger strike at Tiananmen Square and he stayed there until the last moment and narrated the actual situation from his personal experience. In reality, there were still around 2 000-odd people at the Square, they were safe after their dialogue with the martial law troops, and they left Tiananmen Square in an orderly manner. Casualties occurred mainly on both sides of Changan Street in the suburb as a result of clashes with martial law troops entering the city.

As a whole, the Central Government put an end to the wrongful deed of trying to topple the government which some people with ulterior motives hoped to perpetrate by making use of the student movement, and restored order. This is conducive to the overall and long-term interest of the country, the nation and the populace. In the 10 years since the 4 June incident, the Chinese Government has not collapsed as some foretold. At that time, it was categorically predicted that China would collapse in half a year, and the country would go backward; that there was no hope for China and its prospects were totally grim. On the contrary, the 10 years since the 4 June incident have been the best 10 years during which China saw the most rapid development: reform has continually intensified, economic growth speeded up, the aggregate strength of the country is the strongest in recent history, human rights have been improving, and the international status of the country has been elevated to unprecedented highs. All these have been possible because of the political and social stability in China. Most Chinese people approved the measures taken by the government. Had China not taken those measures, China would have become another Soviet Union, with the country disintegrated and losing its position as a major power. The 4 June incident is a historical event, and understanding of historical issues requires time. A judgment on the incident should be made at an appropriate time; getting entangled without end over the incident is not to interest of the economic and social development in China.

Madam President, many citizens have said that if Mr SZETO Wah really works for the good of China, he should contribute to the democracy and progress in China, should lobby President CLINTON of the United States to let China join the World Trade Organization as soon as possible and to relax the export of hi-tech products to China, lobby American businessmen to invest in China, and lobby the Americans not to make all those comments to interfere with the internal affairs of China, so as to give China some space for development so that China would become prosperous and strong in a short time. That would be real and boundless contribution indeed, amen.

I so submit. Thank you, Madam President.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Madam President, on behalf of the Frontier, I support the motion of Mr SZETO Wah.

The Frontier totally agrees with one of the statements of Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, the Chief Executive. He said, "When China is good, Hong Kong will be good too." With this we totally agree, because Hong Kong will enjoy democracy if only China has democracy, and then there will be a future for Hong Kong. However, what does it mean by "China is good"? From what Members just said, I think that we all have different standards about that. Many Members said that China is at present very good because people are all well-fed and well-clothed; some Members said that China is now on the right track; other Members said that China now has strong national strength, and the human rights situation in China is improving. What standards are you using? What is the benchmark you have adopted? What improvement has there been to the human rights situation in China? Does China have freedom of the press? Do its people enjoy the freedom of assembly? Do they have the freedom to organize trade unions? Do they have freedom of speech? Do they have freedom of association? No, they have none of these.

Well-fed and well-clothed, indeed! There have been numerous news report that workers of state enterprises took to the streets to protest, or threw themselves over railway tracks. What for? For their wages. Just now Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung said that Mr SZETO Wah should lobby for China to join the WTO. I think that people are now blindly worshipping the WTO. Honestly, I am still ambivalent about the WTO, because if China really joins the WTO, many businessmen would be happy. But what I am worrying about are the workers of state enterprises and the peasants. Are we holding the WTO really that high? If it is as was said during the debate last week on the NATO incident, the WTO is merely a creation of the American imperialists, will China become very promising after joining? I really do not know. Joining the WTO could be a good thing, then we should join. But I have been struggling over this point for a long time and have no conclusion yet. I always think that a benchmark is very important. If we say that China has completely turned for the better, why can we not look from afar? The 80th anniversary of the 4 May movement already passed, but we still have no democracy, how can it be said that this is good? I think this is where we have our biggest divergence.

Secondly, I feel chilly in this Chamber because some people said that the incident had a hidden agenda, the Americans were involved, and it was very complicated. In fact, if people died, so people died; that is that, it is not complicated at all. The NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy, killed a number of our compatriots, nothing is complicated. International politics is not complicated. When people died, so people died, it is not complicated. During the Nanjing massacre, people died, so people died; in the 4 June incident in Beijing, people also died, so people also died. What was the difference whether people died at Tiananmen Square, or died at Changan Street as Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung said? When they died, they died. What we are saying is that there is a government, a regime, that opened fire at its own people. I think that it is not complicated at all, it is very simple.

Just now some Members said that there would have been dire results if China did not open fire, these 10 years would have been terribly wrong. China would be in big trouble if it did not open fire. Just imagine if the pro-democracy movement organizers took over the government. Who ever said this would be the case if China did not open fire? Even if it did not open fire, it did not mean the movement organizers would take over the government. Nobody is saying now to let the organizers form a government. This is absolutely not the subject of discussion. The students demanded democracy, but democracy does not dictate who should form a government. Some people also said that there would be turmoil if guns were not used. I really cannot follow such logic. History does not develop in such a simple way. Some also said that the Soviet Union disintegrated into fragments and that China would have been the same if it had democracy. In that case, just let us have no democracy as long as we live. I do not know what kind of logic is that. It has been 80 years since the 4 May movement. Therefore, I felt very cold after listening to such words. I think that if the motion were to be debated along such lines, we would be so cold that we would become cold-blooded.

Lastly, I would also like to say something about my personal feeling regarding the 4 June incident. Of course, I may be different from some Members. I can hardly forget the night of 4 June when I cried all night at Beijing Hotel. I can hardly forget that after I was taken off the airplane on 5 June, I heard the reports of gunshots outside while waiting inside the airport. I can hardly forget the interrogation by the people from the National Security Ministry, and how I argued with them. I can naturally not forget the humiliation of being forced to sign a statement of penitence. However, I have to also say thank you to the citizens of Hong Kong. I remember that when I returned to Hong Kong after the 4 June incident, many citizens greeted me and showed me their concern. Let me take this opportunity to formally say thank you to the citizens of Hong Kong. I very much believe that we have a common goal, and I also hope that we have a common goal, and that is China itself needs real freedom. I recall that when I returned to Hong Kong, I said, "I am now free, but how about our 1.2 billion compatriots?" How can Hong Kong work for the freedom and democracy for the 1.2 billion Chinese? This will be the subject of contemplation for me, as well as an objective I will be working towards, for as long as I live. But I am very much disappointed, because somebody said today that he would vote against the motion as dictated by his conscience. My heart is really too different from his. Thank you, Madam President.

MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Madam President, I had wanted to talk about some of my personal feelings, because I thought that a 10th anniversary was something worth talking about. It is rare that things happened 10 years ago can be so clearly remembered. The 4 June incident is one of them. Having listened to the speeches of Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung and some other Members, I am a little unhappy. I do not wish to start a verbal war, nor do I want to cause any dispute. I only want to talk about feelings.

Whether CAI Ling, Wu'r Kaixi and their fellow organizers wanted to become national leaders, I do not know. They were that young at that time, and were also very impulsive. I watched the film "Tiananmen" and know now clearly they lied about something, and also made certain mistakes, and even lost control towards the end. All these could be clearly seen. I recall that there were reports every 15 minutes on Hong Kong television. When Mr LEE Cheuk-yan was still on the Mainland, I went to the Xinhua News Agency and spoke with Mr QIAO Zhonghuai, requesting him to appeal to the Beijing government to let Mr LEE return to Hong Kong as soon as possible. I seldom entered the premises of Xinhua News Agency. I can still remember it was quite late in the day, but I could still enter the Agency. At that time, Xinhua showed tremendous sympathy and support. At that time, all the citizens of Hong Kong were very angry and agitated. Everybody was concerned about the event, the media being no exception. I believe all reporters threw themselves wholeheartedly into reporting the event.

Late in the night of 3 June, shots were eventually fired to clear the Square. I remember clearly that it was 11 pm on the night of 3 June because there was live coverage of the scene on television. At that time, the reporter of the Asian Television made his report taking cover behind a toilet. Shortly afterwards, I received phone calls from friends in Canada and my younger brother in the United States, all asking if I was very afraid, whether I wanted to emigrate. I studied in Canada, and I would get extra points if I was to apply to emigrate to Canada. I did think about emigration after watching those scenes and subsequent reports, but only very briefly. I felt that I had to stay in Hong Kong because Hong Kong was a very special part of China. I hoped that after the reunification Hong Kong could influence China. As such an event happened in China, it gave me more reason not to leave. It was not anything lofty on my part. I only felt that I should not leave Hong Kong; I felt a very strong sense of mission. In 1989, I was not a member of the Legislative Council, I was only a district board member. But I had a feeling and that was, I had to stay in Hong Kong and do something.

During that period of time, from the concert "Democratic Songs for China" held in the Happy Valley race course to the days after 4 June, I took part in petitions and meetings every day, often holding hands with many of my friends now present in this Chamber who are against the motion. They said that they would vote against the motion. This does not matter. What can I do about the inevitable? I would not lobby them; if they oppose, then let them do so. I only wish to speak my feelings. To date, I still think it wrong to use the excuses of not having tear gas, plastic bullets or anti-riot gear to explain why the troops shot to kill the students. I think the government must apologize, and must review why it did what it did. The motive of the student movement was a good one, but why at the end they were labelled undesirable elements and scoundrels? I really do not understand how some people could be so in the know. Could they have some very genuine insider information? I really do not know.

Why was force used against the students who were totally unarmed? They were not engaged in an armed revolution, like the Communist revolutionary armies in South America or some other places. Why did they do such a thing to their own people? These days, China is really very open. I am one of the very few members of the Democratic Party who can go to China. I do not know whether this is a good thing or a bad one. Perhaps it is as Mr SZETO Wah has said because "I still have not got sufficient weight", have not the status to have my Home Visit Permit taken away.

I often visit China and have found that economically it has opened up a lot, places in the Pearl River Delta and Guangdong in particular have been under the economic influence of Hong Kong. But is it feasible to form a political party on the Mainland to challenge the Communist Party? Today, I stand here to criticize the Communist Party, there is no problem because I am in the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. But if I were on the Mainland, could I do the same? Let us look at the Chinese Democratic Party, what have they formed? The society on the Mainland is actually quite a closed one, expression by words, written or spoken, is not allowed, and it can get you into trouble. Public security officers are always watching, and they can arrest the people concerned. They can release them later, or simply send them into exile on the pretext of letting them get medical treatment abroad, just to get rid of them. Is such a government a very open one?

We are all Chinese. All of us, members of the Democratic Party, are patriotic Chinese. Precisely because we deeply love China, we are pained. Why does the Chinese Government still refuse to tolerate different views in an open manner? Why are so many of our members not allowed to visit the Mainland? Why does the country not allow its nationals to return? What sort of a country is this? Could it be that we return to China to throw bombs, or to start a revolution? I have a lots of questions. In this 10th anniversary debate, I am not going to get emotional, but I still remember 4 June, still mourn those students who lost their lives. I so submit.

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

(No Member responded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SZETO Wah, you may now reply. You still have 11 minutes and 30 seconds.

MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Madam President, Mr Wong Yung-kan played the role of LIAO Hua as the spearhead, I sympathize with him, and forgive him. He is a thoroughly decent man, both inside and out. Many of the words he said, he should not have said them.

Mr TAM Yiu-chung recited a poem just now. I am not sure if he remembers it wrongly, or if I do, it seems to me that the poem was not written by BAI Juyi, it is in the "Romance of Three Kingdoms" and it reads:

When the Duke of Zhou feared rumours,

When WANG Mang was humble and respected scholars,

If they had died at that time, how could anybody

Be able to see them in their true colours?

I do not know if he was saying that 10 years ago he was the Duke of Zhou or WANG Mang; or if he compares himself now to the Duke of Zhou of to WANG Mang. He is much younger than I am and is sure to live a very long time yet. Whatever are his true colours, let him be judged by then. But he might have by then again disowned his present self.

What Mr Ambrose LAU said was a complete mess, I just do not know what he wanted to drive at. From the peaceful evolution scheme as designed by John DULLES to the 4 June, and then to the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, to the Chinese World Trade Organization negotiations, every and all things in which the United States was involved were linked by him to the 4 June incident, implying that the incident was instigated by the Americans. He used the words "the United States had a hand in"; but even in documents made public by China, there has never been such an allegation. Please show us evidence.

I laud Mr James TIEN. Two years ago, the party to which he belongs abstained from voting, they still do today. There is no change. Well done, no change of course.

I cannot forgive Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung. He is highly educated, and is at present the principal of a secondary school. But he just made slanderous accusations. He said that some people had ulterior motives. But who were they? Was it ZHAO Ziyang? Please speak it out. You said that the students wanted to get hold of national power, to overthrow the government. When did they say that? He implied that nobody died during the 4 June incident. But even YUAN Mu admitted that 23 people died. Does he support appointing an independent investigation commission to look into this incident? He alleged that some people wanted the government to collapse. Who were they? He depicted the event of that time as if there were black hands manipulating backstage. I do not know if he joined the march in that year. If he did not, that would be even worse, because it shows that he was not even courageous. If he did, did he do so at the behest of the Americans?

I appreciate Mr Gary CHENG and Mr Jasper TSANG more. They did not speak today, though they would vote later on. But I understand that they cannot act of their own free will. Nevertheless, they did not speak. This inaction of theirs I appreciate. I would also like to talk about them. I am not afraid to talk because I already wrote about it in my newspaper columns. The Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers to which Mr CHENG belonged was one of the first member bodies of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance). He was elected a member of the standing committee of the Alliance. But he withdrew after the 4 June suppression. At the height of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, he spoke with us on the phone almost on a daily basis. He once told me over the phone that they had a meeting the night before regarding a report in Wen Wei Po, and had decided to break with the Central. However, on one occasion I was almost misled by him. He had passed to us the information that LI Peng was about to step down. And we then planned to hold a march/assembly at Victoria Park to celebrate LI's downfall. But the news was later proved false, and the occasion was changed to one to call for the downfall of LI Peng.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary CHENG, do you wish to raise a point of order.

MR GARY CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, I seek an elucidation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG, as you did not speak just now, I cannot allow you to seek elucidation. Mr SZETO Wah, please continue.

MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Elucidation is impossible. You might ask me to produce evidence, but I did not tape-record the conversations.

I have said I appreciated Mr CHENG for not speaking. Now let me talk about Mr Jasper TSANG. On 4 June 1990, that is on the first anniversary of the 4 June incident, Mr TSANG and I were invited to speak to Precious Blood Girls' Secondary School in North Point. He arrived late and his explanation was that there was an argument in his school whether the flag should be raised; he was against raising the flag because that was a day of national martyrs, the flag should not be hoisted. At that time, my heart was full of respect for him.

Just now someone said "people and things changed many times over in 10 years", I forgot who said it. Changes and changes, he might yet change yet again in 10 years, though it is not known how. Many Members made lots of libellous remarks against the group of students who were in Beijing 10 years ago. Let us see what ZHU Rongji said recently, how he appraised those students of that time. He said, "They wanted democracy, and not the rule of law." In fact, it was not entirely true for him to say the students did not want the rule of law, they were just exercising their right to which they were entitled under the Constitution. Their march was far more peaceful than the recent ones everywhere in China. They did not throw petrol bombs, did not damage any embassy. They were in fact law-abiding. At least ZHU Rongji acknowledged that they loved democracy, and it was not upheaval. Beijing is gradually changing its attitude. At the beginning, "upheaval" was used; later it was "storm"; and now the word "storm" is not mentioned, and the new line is "wanted democracy and not the rule of law". Those in Hong Kong who have been dancing to Beijing's tunes are not following closely. Their present stance has greatly regressed as compared with 10 years ago, and so even compared with what it was two years ago. Things and people really changed many times in 10 years. They keep going backward. Fortunately, the earth is round and they will eventually go back to their original position, though we do not know how long it will take.

It was said that the 10 years of stability and the present prosperity were possible only because of the suppression. South Korea and Taiwan are stable, but they had the Kwangju incident and the 28 February incident vindicated. Are they not more prosperous, more stable after the vindication?

I do not know why Mr CHAN Kam-lam did not speak, (laughter) he wrote in a newspaper that we were interfering with the internal politics of China by having this debate here. In reality, we support China, we protest against the bombing of our Embassy by NATO forces headed by the United States. That is China's affair, it is more than an internal matter, it is even a diplomatic one.

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan just said that 80 years had passed since the 4 May incident, but China still did not have democracy. It does not matter, the Chinese people can wait, generation after generation. Though I have no children, but you have your next generation, they are sure to get it.

Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung asked me to lobby the United States to let China join the World Trade Organization, what did he take me for?

I will later claim a division in voting.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary CHENG, I have just checked with the Rules of Procedure. According to Rule 38(6) of the Rules of Procedure, as I have not put the question to the Council, therefore I can allow you to speak; but this greatly departs from our usual manner of debate, so please be concise. I do not wish Members to follow suit in the future because in that case, I will have to allow the Member moving the motion to make another reply. After Mr CHENG has spoken, I will permit Mr SZETO Wah to reply if he so wishes, but when he does he must also be concise as well.

MR GARY CHENG (in Cantonese): Madam President, as a former member of the standing committee of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance), it was perfectly normal for me to associate closely and speak frequently over the phone with Mr SZETO Wah and other friends; I would not argue as to what I said and what I did not say at that time. I only wish to say that it was entirely normal for us to have such discussions. But I do not agree that the words just quoted were my words at that time. My words and my deeds should be part of history, I will not change them, and there has not been any so-called changes, because they were facts. The facts I am referring to include my marching and demonstrating together with some friends present here in this Chamber; I did go to Beijing, I was in Beijing on 1 June. My history also includes the fact that after that I no longer took part in the activities of the Alliance with other people. These are the facts, I am prepared to let history be the judge; I am also prepared to let history judge me personally. But about what I did, whether it was done together with you or not with you, I have a clear conscience. Judgment on me is a small matter; progress, development and opening up of the country have made me happy; if sustained, I will remain happy. If there is any inadequacy of or problems in the country, let us continue to work together. My speech is this short.

Thank you, Madam President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SZETO Wah, do you wish to reply again. In fact I do not encourage you to do so. But as I promised you such a chance, I cannot go back on my word.

MISS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, I also wish to speak.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fine, but you must also be concise. Let me explain first. I allowed Mr Gary CHENG to speak because he wanted to answer Mr SZETO Wah's reply. But when Mr SZETO Wah replied, he did not seem to have mentioned Miss Cyd HO, therefore I am not too sure why you wish to speak. However, as I allowed Mr Gary CHENG to speak, I will similarly allow you to speak. But I hope you will be really as concise as possible, otherwise the debate would drag on forever, and out of line with the Rules of Procedure.

MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): I did mention her name, because I said that Mr James TO, Miss Cyd HO and Mr Bernard CHAN might see the day the 4 June incident vindicated. (Laughter)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SZETO Wah, you are right, but you mentioned Miss HO's name when you spoke to move the motion, and not when you replied. As you mentioned the name of Miss Cyd HO when you first spoke, if she wanted to respond, she should have done so during the debate.

Miss HO, you may speak now, but please be as concise as possible.

MISS CYD HO (in Cantonese): I thank the President for allowing me to speak. Madam President, please also perhaps allow me to respond to that paragraph of Mr SZETO Wah's speech in which my name was mentioned. I hope that all who are present in this Chamber will see the vindication of the 4 June incident. This is not difficult because power changes hands on the Mainland not according to any democratic political system, when one bunch steps down, another bunch will take over, and the incoming bunch normally rebukes the predecessors for their evil deeds, vindication will come at that time, but that is a vindication that serves a political purpose. The vindication I hope to see is one truly based on justice, on the whole country willing to face this wound in history, some facts. Only such vindication is worth our jubilance. I very much hope that we have the opportunity of seeing a real vindication. We will if only we do not give up. Madam President, I mainly ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss Cyd HO, I must cut short your speech. I am sorry, but you should talk about things Mr SZETO Wah said in his reply that made you feel you must speak. What you are saying should have been said during the debate. I note that you were present at that time, and I asked several times if any Member wanted to speak, so did my Deputy, but you did not raise your hand to indicate your intention. Therefore, unless you are going to talk about what he said in his reply, I must ask you to sit down.

MISS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Madam President, my speech will stop here because in his reply Mr SZETO Wah did not mention my name.

MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr Gary CHENG said that it was normal that he associated and worked with us 10 years ago. In fact it is normal for him to have said so, because it would be abnormal if he did not say those words or votes in favour of the motion. Because things and people changed several times over in 10 years, just tripping head over heel. He said what happened in the past was history, of course it was history, and cannot be wiped away however hard you try. We have to judge, of course there must be a judgment, and it must be carried on indefinitely ......

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SZETO Wah, I allowed you to speak about ......

MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): ...... he mentioned normal history and being happy. Let me say a couple of sentences more. He said he would be happy, I would ask him if the 4 June incident were vindicated now, would he feel happy?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr SZETO Wah be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now proceed to vote by division. The bell will ring for three minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Are there any queries? Voting shall now stop, and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Michael HO, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Ambrose CHEUNG, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Mr LAW Chi-kwong voted for the motion.

Dr LUI Ming-wah, Mr HUI Cheung-ching, Mr CHAN Kwok-keung, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Dr Philip WONG, Mr WONG Yung-kan, Mr Timothy FOK, Mr FUNG Chi-kin and Dr TANG Shiu-tong voted against the motion.

Mr Kenneth TING, Mr James TIEN, Mr Edward HO, Dr Raymond HO, Mr Eric LI, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mr Bernard CHAN, Mrs Sophie LEUNG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr LAU Wong-fat and Mrs Miriam LAU 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, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Miss Emily LAU, Mr Andrew CHENG and Mr SZETO Wah voted for the motion.

Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Gary CHENG, Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr LAU Kong-wah, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr David CHU, Mr NG Leung-sing, Prof NG Ching-fai, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Ambrose LAU and Miss CHOY So-yuk voted against the motion.

Mr HO Sai-chu abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mrs Rita FAN, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, six were in favour of the motion, nine against it and 12 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and by the Election Committee, 29 were present, 14 were in favour of the motion, 13 against it and one abstained. 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.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 2.30 pm on Wednesday, 26 May 1999.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Eleven o'clock.

Annex I

Written answer by the Secretary for Financial Services to Mr Ambrose CHEUNG's supplementary question to Question 3

The reply is as follows:

(a) If a creditor considers that the appointment of an individual liquidator who is appointed by the Court is inappropriate for any reason, including because he has disclosed an interest in a case, he may apply to the Court under section 196(1) of the Companies Ordinance to have the liquidator removed, if the Court considers it to be in the best interest of the liquidator to do so;

(b) If a creditor feels in anyway aggrieved by any act or decision of the liquidator, he may apply to the Court under section 200(5) of the Companies Ordinance and the Court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of. However, section 200(5) only operates after a winding up order has been made; and

(c) There is a general power under section 276 of the Companies Ordinance for a creditor to apply to the Court for damages against inter alia a liquidator if he has misapplied any money or property of the company or being guilty of any misfeasance or breach of duty in relation to the company. This is applicable to all modes of winding up.

Annex II

Translation of written answer by the Secretary for Trade and Industry to Mr MA Fung-kwok's supplementary question to Question 6

The Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKTDC) indicated that it would not collect extra administrative or management charges from exhibitors as a result of the contracting out of exhibition works. The exhibition charges it levies on exhibitors are set having made reference to the market price, and have included in them venue rentals, charges for basic facilities, construction of exhibition stands and publicity. The HKTDC also expressed that on average, the charges for exhibitions it organizes are slightly lower than those for other exhibitions of similar scale.

Annex III

ADAPTATION OF LAWS (NO. 17) BILL 1998

COMMITTEE STAGE

Amendments to be moved by the Secretary for Home Affairs

Clause	Amendment Proposed
Schedule 1, section 8	By deleting "in Council".
Schedule 4, section 4	By deleting everything after "Central" and substituting "Authorities or the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Basic Law and other laws".".
Schedule 6, section 8	By deleting everything after "Central" and substituting "Authorities or the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region under the Basic Law and other laws".".

1.Under the SCHLS, loan recipients enjoy a three-year grace period before they begin to repay loans. The figures given above exclude loans which have been granted but, because of the grace period, are not yet due for repayment.

2.As all matters of repayment under the HPLS are handled by participating banks, the Hong Kong Housing Authority does not keep such statistics.