LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1419
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 11 December
1996
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am speaking as Chairman
of the Bills Committee on the Housing (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1996 and the
Housing (Amendment) Bill 1997. Both of the above-mentioned bills are
Member's bills. As the Honourable Bruce LIU has decided not to proceed with
the resumption of Second Reading debate of his bill, I will only concentrate on
the Bills Committee's deliberations and views on the Housing (Amendment) (No.
3) Bill 1996 proposed by the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung.
The Housing (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1996 seeks to provide for a
triennial rent review for residential units of public rental housing (PRH) estates
under the administration of the Housing Authority (HA), and to restrict the
proposed rent increases for these PRH estates to the level that they shall not
exceed the increase in inflation since the preceding rent review.
The Committee and the Administration have held several meetings. In
the course of the meetings, both parties exchanged viewpoints but the differences
in opinion could not be resolved.
In response to the proposal of the Bill in capping rent increases at
inflation, the Administration has pointed out that inflation may not necessarily
reflect tenants' affordability as the growth in household income may be higher or
lower than inflation. The Administration holds the view that the current cap of
median rent-to-income ratios (MRIRs) of 15% and 18.5%, which have been set
by the HA having regard to local patterns of expenditure on housing and to
international trends, are reasonable and realistic in reflecting tenants' ability to
pay. According to the Administration, increases in public housing rent in recent
years have been much lower than the rise in real wages, and as a result, the
average MRIR for PRH tenants is only about 9%. The Government has to
ensure that, as an important community resource, public housing should only be
provided to those in genuine need.
1420
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Some members consider that the current two MRIRs have exceeded the
affordability of PRH tenants, and it is the Government's responsibility to provide
affordable housing to families of the low-income group. Several members are
of the opinion that, the Consumer Price Index (A) is a more scientific and
objective indicator of the affordability of tenants in the low-income bracket.
Meanwhile, the Committee has also expressed the concern that once the
Bill is enacted, it may lead to a drastic rise in PRH rents at times of high
inflation, incurring a vicious cycle of high inflation and high rent. Although the
Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung has emphasized the need for the Administration
to exercise prudence in determining rent increases, individual members still press
for the introduction of an additional safeguard to ensure rent increases are within
reasonable restrictions.
The Administration criticizes the proposed Bill as adopting the rate of
inflation as the only indicator of rent increases, which does not take account of
other relevant factors including location of estates, facilities, management and
maintenance costs, and rates. Some members accept the explanation given by
Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung that the Administration is still at liberty to set a range of
rents below the ceiling to cater for the needs of different groups of PRH tenants.
The proposal of a triennial rent review in the Bill will allow tenants a
longer period of time to adjust to rent increases. This is also consistent with the
HA's present rent review period for commercial tenants. However, the
Administration has stressed that the current practice of biennial review has been
working well for over 20 years and should not be changed. The Administration
also considers it inappropriate to apply the current rent review cycle to both
residential and commercial tenants as the latter needs a longer time-frame for
making plans and implementing business developments. However, individual
members believe that the proposal of triennial rent increases may not be
welcomed by PRH tenants in view of the larger increases in each revision
exercise.
While the Administration reiterates that the deficits of the domestic
operating account of the HA have been growing and warns that the Bill, if
enacted, may have significant impacts on the revenue of the HA, individual
members consider it necessary for the HA to enhance its productivity so as to
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1421
avoid deficits caused by its poor cost control being transferred to the PRH
tenants.
Since income from rents is the major source of revenue of the HA, the
Administration has suggested that the objective of the Bill may be incompatible
with section 4(4) of the Housing Ordinance which stipulates that "the policy of
the Authority shall be directed to ensuring that the revenue accruing to it from its
estates shall be sufficient to meet its recurrent expenditure on its estates." Some
members nevertheless reiterate that section 4(4) simply prescribes a policy
direction. As long as the HA formulates and implements a policy which is
consistent with this direction, section 4(4) will have already been adhered to.
After detailed deliberations, four members of the Committee, including
myself, have decided to propose Committee stage amendments (CSAs) to the
Housing (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1996 introduced by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung.
We will be explaining the details of our amendments later. In general, the
proposed CSAs not only seek to cap rent increases at inflation, but also introduce
a cap of the MRIR at 10%. The Administration has been unable to reach a
consensus on the proposed 10% cap with members of the Bills Committee.
According to the Administration, the proposed 10% is arbitrary and inflexible.
In addition, the calculation method of the MRIR has not been clearly specified
and this will create difficulty in its future implementation. Members hold the
view that the CSAs have already specified that it will be up to the HA to
determine the method of calculating the MRIR, thus providing sufficient
flexibility to the Administration. Moreover, members consider that the contents
of the CSAs concerned will not hamper the HA in implementing other policies,
such as the policy of requiring better off tenants to pay double or market rents.
Members and the Administration remain divided on the interpretation of the
proposed provisions.
Although the Bills Committee holds different views from those of the
Administration, under the principle of protecting the interests of the tenants of
PRH, the majority of the members of the Committee support the resumption of
Second Reading of the Housing (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1996. These are the
general opinions of the Committee.
Mr President, I now move on to express the views of myself and those of
the Democratic Party on this Bill. Mr President, I support Mr LEUNG's
1422
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
member's bill. Although Mr LEUNG's Bill will pose some restrictions on
decisions of the HA when it introduces rent increases, we have to be aware that
when inflation exceeds the growth of wages, tenants will be subject to double
blows. Their miseries will be twofold. On the one hand, their wages will fail
to catch up with inflation; on the other hand, they will find it hard to shoulder the
rising rents. At present, the rents for PRH are determined by the HA mainly on
the basis of tenants' affordability at the level of the two MRIRs of 15% and
18.5%.
First of all, the method of determining the rent is unreasonable. The
income limit for people on the General Waiting List is very low, so the eligible
persons are those in the low-income bracket. The objective of providing public
housing to such applicants is to relieve them of the burden of the high rents.
However, since the Government has acknowledged that applicants on the
Waiting List are people who are incapable of finding accommodation in the
private property market on their own and are in need of help in solving their
housing problem, why does it charge them high rents? Does the Government
want to turn PRH into a commodity? I believe the Government will at least
agree that public housing seeks to provide homes for the lower classes, and help
members of the public who cannot afford high rents of private housing solve
their housing problem, instead of levying high rents on them.
Secondly, whether the level of rents of PRH units are in line with the
affordability of tenants is arguable. According to the information received by
the Legislative Council, amongst the 20% of PRH households with the lowest
income, the rents they pay range from over 10% to over 20% of their income.
These are the households who are most in need of help. I will further elaborate
on problems caused by the determination of rents according to the MRIR. If we
think in terms of more accurate figures of calculation, we will understand that the
median figure does not mean the average figure. When compared to the
households with steady income, the poorer households with lower income are
paying a higher portion of their income on rents than the MRIR. Let me
illustrate this with an example. If the level of rents stands at the median figure
of 15% of the average income, the rents paid by the poorer households probably
amount to 18% or 20% or even over 20% of their income. Of course,
households spending over 25% of their total income on rents are eligible for rent
assistance. However, households spending 15% to 25% of their income on
rents can be categorized as the poorest households. I believe those with general
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1423
mathematical knowledge can understand the above-mentioned situations. It can
be deduced that the current standard adopted by the Administration for
determining rents is not in line with the affordability of the tenants.
While the Government insists that the above method for determining rents
is reasonable, its rationale is unconvincing. Firstly, the Government claims that
stipulating the MRIRs at 15% or 18.5% for rents is based on a survey on
overseas countries which indicates the MRIR for these countries is 20%. We
consider this claim to be arguable since different countries have different systems
of benefits and social security networks. Comparisons between Hong Kong and
countries of similar economic development will indicate that we have less
benefits and social security. If the MRIR of the territory is set at the same
percentage of these overseas countries, the quality of living of families in Hong
Kong will be lower than their counterparts though they may be within the same
income bracket. It is illogical and misleading for the Government to make
direct comparisons of the MRIRs of Hong Kong and other countries.
Secondly, the Government often quote the MRIR of 27% for private
housing as the rationale in support of the level of rents for PRH tenants. This is
again unreasonable. The high prices and rents of private housing are directly
attributable to the Government's high premium policy. To the general public,
the policy itself is unacceptable. On the part of the Government, a major reason
for providing PRH units is to help households at the lower end of the social
stratum solve their housing problem by providing them with suitable
accommodation as they are unable to find a permanent home in the private
property market. Now the Government compares the rents of PRH with those in
the private property market, is it not contradicting its own policy? Hence the
Democratic Party is of the opinion that the Government should take into account
the income of households and the Consumer Price Index of the time when it is
determining the rents. Furthermore, as there are over 660 000 PRH units in the
territory, rent increases of PRH will fuel inflation. We therefore suggest that
rent increases of PRH be restricted to the annual inflation rate minus 2%, thereby
ensuring that the living standards of PRH tenants are safeguarded when inflation
rate exceeds the rate of wage increases. In addition, the level of rents of PRH
should be restricted to below 10% of the medium household income as this level
is closer to the current level of rents, and is also within the affordability of the
majority of tenants.
1424
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
This proposal has met with strong opposition from the Administration on
the grounds that it will incur deficits of the Housing Department. I have
previously mentioned that the high administrative costs of the Housing
Department have been incurred as a result of huge increases of overhead
expenses due to the exceedingly high salaries and the over-sized staff
establishment. For instance, the monthly salary and fringe benefits of a
Housing Manager is equivalent to the monthly median rent, that is, $96,000.
Let me repeat the figure, $96,000. It is believed that the administrative costs
will be significantly reduced if the Housing Department privatizes its housing
estate management service and enhances the productivity of its staff. The
substantial increase in maintenance costs of PRH estates also attributes to the
growing deficits. Within the short span of the past five years, there has been an
increase of 283% in such expenses. In addition to the ineffective supervision of
the contractors on the part of the Housing Department which has led to the
extremely poor quality of PRH buildings, the problem of concrete spalling of
older estates has also been a major cause of large-scale maintenance works,
which, in turn, have translated into substantial increase of maintenance expenses
of PRH estates. The extremely poor quality of the estates has been the direct
result of ineffective supervision on the contractors by the Housing Department.
However, the Housing Department not only failed to make an effort to review
their errors and to improve the supervisory mechanism of the contractors, but
also transferred the responsibilities of these expenses to the tenants. This is
unfair.
Mr President, I am going to provide some further information to illustrate
that the management and maintenance services of the Housing Department are
not cost-effective. The HA implemented the privatization of estate management
in 1996, with pilot schemes experimented in some estates. One of the pilot
schemes was conducted in Ming Tak Estate in Tseung Kwan O. According to
the information provided by the HA, the contractor awarded the contract had
only spent 65% of the total expenditure of the Housing Department, but was able
to take over the full responsibilities of the staff of the Department in managing
the same estate. The company could also make a profit. Let us consider this:
the company just made use of 65% of the total costs of the Housing Department,
but it has been able to run the same estate effectively as well as making a profit.
This example illustrates the extent of the problems in redundant staff and
overspending of the Housing Department. Mr President, I do not intend to
pursue further on the problem of expenditure. In my opinion, no matter which
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1425
motion under discussion is passed today, the Housing Department will have to
review its establishment to see if there is a large number of redundant staff, and
to assess if their practice on cost control has been ineffective.
Mr President, I so submit.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, the public officer who
may speak after me has just distributed to us a paper signed by Mr Marco WU,
the Deputy Director of Housing. When I am speaking now, I may respond to
the contents of the paper of Mr WU. But I am not sure whether the President
will allow me to respond to do so. As for the paper, it is the one which has just
been distributed by the Deputy Director to every Member.
Mr President, I do not know if this is the speech the Secretary for Housing
will deliver in a moment. But I would like to ignore this and speak on it first
and then let the President make his own judgement.
Mr President, this debate is about rent increases of public rental housing
(PRH) estates and I am in support of the Bill. I think we should review various
issues related to PRH: the causes for its construction, its origins and its service
target group.
The development of public housing began in 1954, with gradual
transformation of the original resettlement estates to the present housing estates.
As a matter of fact, the current tenants of PRH estates can be categorized into
four groups of people. I have broadly categorized them into four groups. The
first group comprises residents whose original accommodation was demolished
in clearance operations, including those rehoused in PRH due to the clearance of
their huts or squatter huts. The second group consists of households allocated
PRH units through the Waiting List and having passed the means test and
complied with income limits. The third group is composed of public housing
tenants who have been affected by the redevelopment of older existing blocks.
The fourth group is made up of people rehoused through the compassionate
rehousing programme. Such background information clearly indicates that the
majority of PRH households are low-income families. While tenants from
squatter areas and Temporary Housing Areas (THAs) are exempted from means
tests, a survey conducted by the Government on their income shows that
residents of squatter huts and THAs also belong to the low-income group.
1426
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
PRH estates have served a number of functions for the past several
decades. I am referring to their social functions which are directly attributable
to the low level of rents of PRH. Firstly, for PRH tenants, their living
environment has seen much improvement when compared with their
accommodation when they were waiting for allocation of PRH units, be they old
private buildings, huts to be cleared, or THAs. The designs of PRH estates,
even those of the older estates constructed 10 years ago, are much better than
those of private buildings in terms of population density, open spaces,
landscaping, recreational facilities for children and community facilities. It is
obvious that improvements in the living environment will directly upgrade the
residents' quality of living. However, the most important factor is that the PRH
rents have all along been kept at a low level, and substantial rent increases were
rare in the past. As I recall in my 20 years of community service in public
housing, except for the rent increase from 33% to 48% for the year 1983-84, the
biennial increase has always been maintained at about 20%. Hence, PRH has
always offered a kind of asylum for the lower and middle classes in respect of
housing. We have neither a well established social welfare system nor a sound
social security system in Hong Kong. At the time of economic downturns and
difficulties, the lower and middle classes, and especially the lower class, have
always borne the brunt and are the first batch to be cast out of employment. The
first sign of their distress comes in the form of underemployment and a meagre
sum to live on, with the subsequent blow of unemployment. Living in PRH
flats has sheltered them from the effects of problems of private housing brought
about by the policy of high premium. As a result, the overall stability of the
community can be maintained. Over the past two to three decades, even at the
time of economic recessions, such as the situations in 1972 and 1974, or even in
the 1980s, Hong Kong has not faced any serious problems and massive turmoil.
But how about the current rent policy? Basically the current rent policy
is formulated on the following basis: for the newly constructed estates, the rent
should not exceed a median rent-to-income ratio (MRIR) of 15% in respect of the
allocation of 5.5 sq m per person in a household; while the rent should not
exceed the MRIR of 18.5% in respect of the allocation of 7 sq m per person. I
myself have taken part in the review of the rent policy by the Housing Authority
(HA). As a matter of fact, when the HA set the above two ratios, there were no
scientific rationale indicating why 15% and 18.5% were appropriate while 20%,
13% or 10% were not. Mr WU stated in his letter that there were no particular
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1427
reasons in supporting the adoption of a MRIR of 10%. Similarly, there were
also no particular reasons for the adoption of 15% or 18.5%. The determination
of the percentages was solely an assessment made by the decision-making
authority on the affordability of the lower classes. In fact, what is the
appropriate percentage? I believe that at the time of setting the percentages, the
majority of the members of the HA believed that the two percentages I mentioned
were appropriate. Let us analyze the changes of PRH rents over the past 10
years. The MRIR of PRH was 4% 10 years ago, when the median rent stood at
$350. Over a span of 10 years, last year's MRIR, the most updated figure
provided by the Census and Statistics Department, stood at 8% instead of the 9%
as advised by the Deputy Director. As for the actual rent, the figure provided by
the Census and Statistics Department was $1,132, while the figure quoted by the
Deputy Director was $1,200. Let me assume that the difference between the
two is minimal. According to the information provided by the Census and
Statistics Department, the MRIR has increased from 4% to 8% over a span of 10
years, which has doubled the original figure. Meanwhile, the actual rent has
increased from $350 to $1,132, representing an increase of 3.2 times. Of all the
rent increases implemented over the past seven years in the 1990s, basically there
has not been a single average rent increase which is higher than the rate of
inflation. In other words, the experience of the past 10 years has indicated that
basically the HA can still operate smoothly and even record a surplus of $80
billion without implementing a rent increase higher than the level of inflation.
Some background information we have at hand is mentioned above. As
for the latest information, that is rents of new estates recently stipulated, it is
found that the MRIR of the households allocated PRH units in the recent three or
four years with an average space of 5.5 sq m per person is about 14.5%, which is
very close to the 15% ceiling set by the Government. For the households with
an average space of 7 sq m per person, the MRIR is about 17%. Take a
four-person household occupying a flat of usable area of 400 sq ft as an example,
the actual rent it pays is between $2,200 to $2,500. This is the present situation.
Six months ago, however, the Secretary for Housing once described such a rent
level as too low. He queried whether the MRIR of 9% at the time could be
raised to 15% or 18%. In fact, his proposal to raise the MRIR to 15% or 18%
would mean a rent increase of 60% to 100% over the current figure. In this
connection, I would like to ask the Secretary for Housing a question which I hope
he will answer later in the sitting. Why should he propose a rent increase of
60% to 100% over the current figure, and not a 200% increase or a 300% or
1428
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1000% increase? On the other hand, why does he not propose a reduction of
rents by 100% or 50%? Why does the Administration insist on adopting the
two percentages as the criteria for rent increases? The Deputy Director has
criticized us for not being scientific in our calculation. I would rather say that
we are all not being scientific.
Let me provide some new information which has just been faxed to me in a
letter from the Director of Census and Statistics Department. I would like the
Deputy Director to take down these figures and give an explanation on them later
in the sitting. According to the information provided by the Census and
Statistics Department, the median income of Hong Kong residents at the end of
the first quarter of 1997 is $20,000. The average monthly income of permanent
PRH tenants is $15,600 while the average monthly income of permanent private
housing tenants is $23,500. In other words, the monthly income of families
living in private housing is $7,900 higher than that of the average households in
PRH estates. I would like the Deputy Director to take down these two figures,
the use of which I will explain later. As the average income of PRH households
amounts only to $15,600, after paying the rent of $1,132, they are left with a
disposable amount of about $14,000 for other expenses such as clothing, food,
transportation, entertainment and savings. On the other hand, according to the
statistics provided by the Director of the Census and Statistics Department, the
current average rent for private housing is $4,300. Taking out this amount of
rent from the average income of private housing tenants of $23,500, the tenants
have a disposable amount of $18,000 for other expenses such as clothing, food,
transportation and savings. A comparison of the disposable amounts after
deducting the rent shows that the amount at the disposal of PRH tenants is lower
than that of private tenants. Of course, you may query the accuracy of the
figures I have just provided. However, I can assure the Secretary for Housing
that the figures are provided by the Census and Statistics Department. Why do
we consider 10% an appropriate figure? In fact, the figure is the result of some
calculation. The Secretary for Housing may consider this trivial and is not
worth the effort. But I still think that I need to let him know how the figure is
arrived at. If the MRIR of 8% provided by the Census and Statistics
Department is increased to our proposed ceiling of 10%, the monthly rent will be
increased from $1,100 to $1,500, allowing the Housing Department a revenue
increase of $428 from rent collection. If we take the case of a tenant earning
$15,600 as the basis for calculation, he will still have a disposable amount of
$14,000. If compared to the adoption of the MRIR of 8%, when the disposable
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1429
amount is $14,400, the difference is only $400. However, an adoption of the
MRIR of 15% as suggested by the Secretary for Housing will mean a rent
increase to the level of $2,122, with the scope of rent increase initiated by the
Housing Department reaching 9%. The disposable amount of a household will
then be reduced to $13,500. If the MRIR of 18.5% is adopted, the rent will be
increased to $2,600. The disposable amount of a household will be further
reduced to $13,000. In other words, a comparison of the adoption of 10% as
proposed by the members and the adoption of 15% or 18% as proposed by the
Secretary for Housing will find the reduction of a monthly disposable amount of
$1,000 to $1,400 for a four-person household, which can bring about a certain
degree of hardship for the tenants. The Secretary for Housing has frequently
mentioned rent increases over the past year and repeatedly referred to rent
increases of 60% to 100%. What I have been discussing above are just effects
of rent increases on the general PRH tenants. For well-off tenants, the proposal
will bring about a rent increase of as much as threefold to fourfold. In other
words, the adoption of the proposed ceiling of 18% by the Secretary for Housing
will bring about a rent increase of 100% for the general PRH tenants and a rent
increase of threefold to fourfold for well-off tenants. Do you not find such
increases horrifying?
Now I would like to turn to the second subject. Why do we think that
rent increases should not exceed the rate of inflation? We all know that the
calculation of the rate of inflation is based on the Consumer Price Index (A)
which reflects the consumption patterns of the lower classes. An upward trend
of the Consumer Price Index only indicates that consumers can afford to spend a
little more, while the reverse trend indicates that they have to spend less.
Moreover, if the Price Index is on the rise, even if the quality of living has not
been affected, it still means that consumers have to spend a little more.
Meanwhile, with the Consumer Price Index (A) on the rise, the HA will have to
shoulder a corresponding rise in wages, maintenance and management costs. if
the HA adopts the Consumer Price Index (A) as the basis for calculation of rent
increases, its rent increases should still be able to make up for the increased
expenditure . Furthermore, the adoption of the MRIR of 10% as the ceiling for
rent increases will allow tenants to have an adequate disposable income, while
the adoption of the Consumer Price Index (A) as the reference for the criterion of
rent increases will ensure that tenants can maintain their quality of living and
level of expenditure after each rent increase exercise. Hence, I believe the
1430
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
adoption of the Consumer Price Index (A) and the MRIR of 10% as the criteria
for rent increases is reasonable.
Finally, I would like to respond to a point mentioned in the letter of the
Deputy Director. According to the Deputy Director, when the MRIR exceeds
25%, the tenants are eligible to apply for rent reduction and the maximum
reduction can be as much as half of their rents. After all, we should not
encourage such a rent reduction. If a tenant applies for rent reduction, it means
that his level of income has remained stagnant while there are incessant increases
in rent to the extent that the rent has increased from 18% to 19% or 20% or even
up to 25% of their income. They have become poorer, not richer. Previously
some tenants were able to save up some money to ensure a sense of security after
meeting their basic expenses. But, with the adoption of the MRIR proposed by
the Housing Department, the incessant rent increases will force more tenants to
spend 25% of their income on their rents, causing the deterioration of quality of
living of PRH tenants. Hence, the adoption of the proposed MRIR should not
be encouraged. In adopting this MRIR, the Secretary for Housing will destroy
the function of PRH as the asylum sheltering the lower classes for the past 43
years from the government policies of high premium and rents since 1954. In
future, should any incidents cause panic among the people or create other
problems, this rent policy could be the catalyst.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I speak on behalf of
the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). Tonight, three colleagues
will propose amendments to the Member's Bill. The FTU supports the
amendments proposed by the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam on the grounds that
his amendments seek to restrict the median rent-to-income ratio (MRIR) of
public housing to 10%. The present MRIR set by the Government is slightly
over 8%. So, I think the 10% figure is rather high already.
Why do we support the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam?
While we appreciate the overall directions of the amendments proposed by other
colleagues, the FTU has always been advocating that the MRIR of public rental
housing (PRH) be set at 10%.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1431
Mr President, why has the FTU been advocating a cap of the MRIR at 10%
for PRH? We have reasons for supporting this percentage and our view has
remained the same over the past 10 years. The Honourable Frederick FUNG
has just mentioned that at one time the MRIR figure was about 4%. Even then
we had already advised that this figure should not be set too high. Subsequent
to the continual clearance of older estates and the construction of newer estates
such as the Harmony blocks, rent increases were drastic in the following years.
At that time we already proposed that the MRIR should be capped at 10%.
While the MRIR was set at 9% as part of the government policy, we had
proposed a ceiling of 10%. With the continual changes of the government
policy, the MRIR has been set at the present level of slightly above 8%.
Not too long ago, the FTU has conducted a large-scale survey on the Long
Term Housing Strategy (LTHS) put forward by the Government. Twenty three
estates were drawn randomly from the 160 public housing estates over the
territory as targets of the survey. Its interim report of has been released
recently. Mr President, the findings of the report on PRH happen to match the
MRIR ceiling of 10% all along advocated by the FTU.
A detailed study of the findings reveals that 32% of the PRH tenants
claimed they were stretching their means to pay their present rents. Most of
these tenants are elderly people or the unemployed. The total monthly income
of a family of four within this category of tenants is about $7,000 to $8,000. It
is indeed difficult for the grassroots with such a low level of income to pay the
present rents. Recently, the Government has reiterated in the LTHS that future
rents for PRH should be increased to a level at the MRIRs of 15%, and even
18.5%. Such a level has actually far exceeded the affordability of the tenants.
Mr President, the findings of the survey I have just mentioned indicate that
even at the present level, more than 30% of the tenants claimed that they had
some difficulties in coping with the rents. If the Government is to increase the
MRIR from the present 9% to 18.5%, it will be impossible for the tenants to pay
their rents. However, the present LTHS of the Government appears to suggest
that the finances of PRH tenants are not bad.
1432
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Some time ago, I organized some general meetings of PRH tenants to
discuss the LTHS. I have also mentioned such meetings on a number of
occasions in the Council. Every time, I made use of the same information. I
am furious whenever I read Paragraph Two of Part Six of the LTHS, in which the
Government considers the majority of PRH tenants no longer in need of low
rents to help them improve their living. I find this paragraph most disgusting.
Furthermore, the findings of the survey coincide with our observation, thus
confirm the accuracy of the latter.
Mr President, a review of the so-called resettlement estate and low-cost
housing policy of Hong Kong has just been given by the Honourable Frederick
FUNG. Although I have also mentioned such contents many times, I would like
to repeat them here. In fact that policy was implemented at a time when Hong
Kong was experiencing the worst period of poverty. It offered a solution to the
basic housing need of our community. I think it has served its most important
function in respect of the problem of housing. Other countries or regions have
earlier on followed our footsteps. However, having learned from Hong Kong,
these countries, including Singapore, have outperformed us.
The policy of low rents has indeed contributed to improving the living
conditions of the grassroots. But the changes in the policy since the 1980s have
resulted in a deviation from its original objectives.
Most of the estates in the districts I am familiar with will have to be
cleared. While the PRH tenants living in older districts are just paying several
hundred dollars on rents, their counterparts in new estates have to pay something
between over $1,000 to over $2,000. In other words, the same group of tenants
find themselves facing a sharp increase of rent which far exceeds the inflation of
the whole community in a short period.
To be frank, if the Government policy aims at taking care of the grassroots,
it has to review whether it has deviated from its original policy. But the
Government does not appear to think this way and has not stated clearly its
stance in the LTHS. We are, therefore, very disappointed.
The FTU is of the view that our observation of the situation of the
grassroots is very different from the Government's. We have, therefore,
conducted several surveys at the beginning of the year and also recently on the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1433
general situation of the PRH tenants, with a view to verifying the information
provided by the Government. The findings of the surveys are different from
what the Government has said.
Some time ago, I sent the FTU report to Mr Dominic WONG, the
Secretary for Housing, and Ms Rosanna WONG of the Housing Authority.
When I handed them the report, they said that they would study it seriously. It
is the plan of the FTU to further conduct a follow-up study in future on the 32%
tenants who indicated that they had difficulties in paying their rents at present.
We will send the report to the Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region in July.
I hope that the Government will face the real situation of the large number
of grassroots in our community. The quality of their living has not been
steadily improving as claimed by the Government. In fact, it just turns out to be
the contrary. I have mentioned on a number of occasions during the sittings in
this Chamber, and have raised my question to the Housing Department or the
Secretary for Housing over and over again: Has there been a radical improvement
in the living standard of the grassroots as a whole over the past few years so that
it justifies a change in the Government's existing policy in respect of public
housing rents? Is it easier for them to find jobs? Have their salaries been
increased substantially? Have there been rapid improvements in their living
standard? However, the answers to these questions seem to be in the negative.
According to the findings of our survey, the income of the majority of
PRH tenants is around $10,000 for a family of four. As for the poorer tenants
who have difficulties in paying their rents, their income ranges from $7,000 to
$8,000, which is lower than the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance
payment. Why does this happen? In the process of structural transformation
of the economy of Hong Kong, the wages of these unskilled workers with lower
level of education have dropped over the past few years. Their chances to
finding employment with higher income are minimal.
On top of this, with soaring prices in the territory, we find that their
situation is not what the Government estimates it to be. The Government
expects that they are able to cope with the situation easily and not in need of
Government assistance in terms of lower rents. Therefore, I think that the
overall direction of the Bill and the amendments moved by the colleagues are
1434
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
desirable. However, since the FTU has all along been monitoring the problem,
we consider the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam the most
appropriate among others. Maintaining the present ceiling at 9%, the
Government has set the MRIR at a little over 8%. It is my view that the MRIR
should not exceed 10% and should be maintained at this level without any further
increase. So, should the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam be
passed today, the policy put forward by the Government which proposes to
increase the MRIR of public housing estates to 15% or 18.5% should be
abandoned.
When lobbying us, the Government said, "Miss CHAN Yuen-han, this is
not feasible." I do not understand why this is not feasible. As a matter of fact,
the Government was increasing public housing rents in the past. It is the time
for us to adopt a pragmatic approach. In my speech, as well as those of other
colleagues, it is stated clearly that, up till today, the grassroots still need a
government policy of low rents to help them through the difficult times. And if
the Government approves of our views, it should be open-minded towards our
amendments or the Bill.
Mr President, the Government has always claimed that the rents collected
are not sufficient to cover maintenance costs. Last year the Administration
recorded a deficit of $6 billion. That is what the account shows on paper.
However, if the Government is determined to help the grassroots improve their
lives, just like what they were able to do in the past, it should find other means to
achieve the goal. For instance, there are many shopping centres, car parks and
other facilities in public housing estates. Although the operations of these
facilities rely on the patronage of the tenants, rents from these facilities have not
been included in the revenue of the estates. In my view, charges from these
markets, shopping centres and car parks should be calculated as part of the
revenue of public housing estates. I think there is no problem with such a
calculation method, but the Government does not agree.
Although I have mentioned several times in the sittings about the visits of
the FTU to Shanghai and Shenzhen, I would like to inform Honourable
colleagues that study missions to the abovementioned cities have been organized
by the FTU with the purpose of finding solutions to the housing problem, the
toughest problem in the territory. Later we will also visit Singapore. During
our visits to Shanghai and Shenzhen, the responsible officers admitted to us that
their housing programmes had been modelled on Hong Kong. Mr CHENG
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1435
Yiu-tong, the Executive Director of the FTU, Mr CHAN Wing-chan and I told
them not to follow our example. Subsequently we found that they had learned
from the operation of the Hong Kong programme, without copying the essence of
our policy. Shanghai, for example, has adopted the principle of "serving the
people". If the revenue from rents fails to meet the management expenses of the
blocks, the Government will lend a helping hand in an approach similar to the
assistance provided to the Land Development Corporation (LDC). When the
LDC had difficulties in paying for the recent redevelopment programmes, the
relevant planning department gave the LDC two great gifts (provision of funds)
to solve the problem.
As the Government has adopted the policy to help the LDC, why can it not
extend the same policy to PRH? Let us study how Shanghai tackles the
problem. When the revenue from rents collected from domestic units is
insufficient to meet other expenses, rents from commercial facilities such as
shopping centres, markets and car parks are allocated to pay the maintenance of
the estates. In addition to that, 46% of the total revenue from the sale of public
housing units is set aside for the maintenance fund. I consider the above policy
sound and effective. The same policy is also adopted in Shenzhen. Similar to
the approach adopted by the Hong Kong Government to help the LDC, the
Shenzhen Government will dispose more land for the construction of more
blocks when the revenue from rents is insufficient. In fact, I think Hong Kong
itself has set a good example. So the Government should neither intimidate us
nor advise tenants in private housing that PRH rents are low. I am most
unhappy with such actions. It appears that instead of examining the difficulties
encountered by PRH tenants and studying the questions raised by me, the
Government is inciting tenants of private housing to oppose PRH tenants.
Whenever there are proposals of rent increases put forward by the Housing
Department, tenants will demonstrate with their families in order to express their
discontent and anger in a vigorous manner in front of it headquarters. What are
the reasons behind these demonstrations? The Government should review the
problem and examine what has gone wrong with the policy of public housing
rents. It should not assume that PRH tenants do not have any difficulties and
can cope with ease, so they can be forced into paying higher rents. We advised
Mr TUNG chee-hwa, our Chief Executive, and Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, the
person responsible for reviewing future housing problems, that housing is like
the shell for a snail. If tenants are unable to protect their "shells", they will be
1436
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
forced to go against the authority. If the basic need of housing demand is not
satisfied, it will lead to turmoil in the community.
I object to the tactics adopted earlier by certain people in treating
government officials. But I think their actions have conveyed a clear message
that if the Government is adamant with the assumption that PRH tenants can
afford to pay higher rents, that they have become well-off, and that they are
depriving the people in Hong Kong of their resources, it will have to pay a high
price which may cause grave consequences in the territory.
Mr President, I have just mentioned that the FTU supports the rationale
behind Mr CHAN Kam-lam's proposal of an MRIR of 10%. With the recent
completion of the interim report on the study of the public housing policy, we
will follow-up with the study on the 32% tenants who have difficulties in paying
their present rents. There will be follow-up actions on this issue. As for
today's debate on the Member's Bill, we will support Mr CHAN Kam-lam's
amendments.
Thank you.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, among the three Members
who have spoken just now, the Honourable LEE Wing-tat and the Honourable
Frederick FUNG are surely experts in housing. The Honourable Miss CHAN
Yuen-han is probably another expert as she knows a lot about grassroots issues.
I had been a member of the Housing Authority (HA) for 10 years before I left it
last year. However, during my service with the HA, instead of handling matters
related to the determination of rents, I had mainly concentrated on the
construction aspect of public rental housing (PRH) flats.
I think we should look at the housing issue as a whole instead of just
looking at the issue of public housing. What Hong Kong is facing is an overall
housing problem in the territory. We have debated on the issue for a number of
times in the Legislative Council. Insufficient supply of land and inadequate
infrastructure have led to problems such as the shortage of PRH and excessively
high property prices. Even the supply of PRH is insufficient to meet the
demand. About 100 000 applicants registered on the General Waiting List are
still waiting for the allocation of PRH units. So, it is quite certain that there is a
housing problem in Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1437
First of all, I would like to respond to Miss CHAN Yuen-han's comments
which are still fresh in my memory. She has mentioned that there has been no
improvement in the standard of living for the grassroots tenants of public
housing. Her observation may not be accurate. In fact, the so-called
grassroots should include people living in private housing. The grassroots of
Hong Kong do not make up of PRH tenants only. Some of them are residing in
extremely poor conditions such as the "caged homes". We should also include
them in the comparison. In addition, there is a category whose income is above
the income limit and is therefore ineligible for allocation of PRH. Since these
people have to spend a higher percentage of their income on rents, the financial
burden they have to bear is even heavier than that of PRH tenants. According
to the findings of a survey, they could be spending 27% of their income on rents.
And in some cases, they may have to spend as much as 40% of their income on
this item. That is why I believe that the issue of rents should be examined from
the perspective of the whole community. Some Members may argue that high
rents are attributable to the Government's high land premium policy or the
inadequacy of infrastructure, as mentioned by me earlier. While tenants of
private housing are spending more on rents, it does not mean that PRH tenants
have to pay more as well. Miss CHAN Yuen-han have just talked about the
conditions in Shanghai and Shenzhen. But we all know that the social system
of China is totally different from that of Hong Kong, resulting in a different
approaches to tackle the issue of housing. Furthermore, income is an important
factor. As the people in Mainland China earn much less than the people in
Hong Kong, they would not be able to pay for the high rents. It is therefore
inevitable for the Chinese Government to adopt a different policy to help its
people solve the problem of housing. And they have found the solution in the
supply of low-cost housing accommodations.
As for Singapore, if we are to follow the example of this country, we will
have to study its tax system as well. Not only is the rate of tax in Singapore
higher than that of Hong Kong, every Singaporean has to contribute to the
mandatory central provident fund. I know our colleagues from the democratic
parties are against this policy. Yes, people in Singapore can borrow money
from the central provident fund for purchasing public housing flats. If we just
look at the housing aspect, we can say that everyone in Singapore is provided
with housing accommodation, with many of them owning the flats they are living
in. But there are many other problems in Singapore which we may not wish to
1438
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
have. And we may not wish to live in that country either. During the recent
visit of Mr LEE Kuan Yew to Hong Kong, some people in the territory said that
it would be nice if we could have Mr LEE become the Chief Executive. They
believe Mr LEE has the ability to ensure political stability and a good living
environment in the territory. I think many of our colleagues may not endorse
this view. We have our own way of life and we would like to maintain it in
future. So in learning from the experience of other countries, we have to take
into account their circumstances as well. I suggest the Democratic Alliance for
the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) to look further than China and Singapore
and learn from the experience of western countries when they examine the issue
of housing. There are many visitors from western countries in the gallery today.
I do not know if there are any reporters among them. Public housing
development in Hong Kong to date, in my opinion, has been a great achievement
and is an example many foreign countries would like to follow.
First of all, about half of our population is living in housing units
subsidized by the Government. Although not all of these people are living in
PRH flats - some of them are owners of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats.
The quality of PRH flats has been improving greatly over the years. In the
beginning, public housing projects were only intended to provide people with
basic accommodation, that is, just a roof to live under. Now many PRH flats are
self-contained, with larger space and building quality comparable to private
housing. While the Housing Authority (HA) has set a space allocation standard
of about 5.5 sq m to 7 sq m per person, some households with several members
are living in larger flats and may be enjoying a space allocation of up to 9 sq m
per person. When compared to tenants of private housing, they are actually
enjoying a much better living environment. That is why in examining the issue
of PRH rents, we should not only consider whether rent increases for PRH are
justifiable, but should also take into account the affordability of the tenants. I
have to admit that this is not a scientific approach. The Administration has
pointed out that the 10% ceiling proposed by some Members does not have a
scientific basis. Similarly I consider the 15% figure set by the HA not scientific
either. As far as I know, the median rent-to-income ratio (MRIR) of 15% has
been arrived at by making comparison, that is by comparing rents paid by tenants
of private housing and people in overseas countries and eventually working out
this so-called reasonably affordable figure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1439
Besides, as the HA has not yet increased the rents to reach MRIR of 15%
(current at 9% only), some members suggest that it should be capped at 10%.
Maybe we can put it that way. Judging from its past operation, the HA
obviously has tried to give an impression that it is not a harsh institution.
Despite the fact that there is a system which gives it the discretion, it would not
squeeze the last cent from the tenants. Therefore, is it necessary for us to make
downward adjustment to the ceiling of rent increase, or should we peg it with
inflation? The Liberal Party does not accept this policy on the grounds that we
believe people who receive public subsidies should be those in genuine need.
People who can afford to pay more should pay their share. This is the basis on
which we formulate the policy for the well-off tenants. The so-called well-off
tenants refer to those who own properties, or those whose assets have reached a
certain level that justifies the payment of market rents. The Liberal Party is the
only political party in the Legislative Council that supports a policy for well-off
tenants. All other political parties are against it. But I think the policy is very
fair. Why should we rely on Government subsidies if we are well off?
Dependence on subsidies is incompatible with the mentality of the Chinese
people. Believing in the values of self-sufficiency, the Chinese are reluctant to
rely on Government subsidies all the time. It is this mentality which forms the
foundation of achievement and holds the key to the success of Hong Kong. It
also highlights the difference between the values of our community and western
countries.
Then we come to another issue. Just as I have mentioned before, the
quality of PRH flats has greatly improved. As space allocation per person
increases, many tenants are willing to pay higher rents for larger flats. If we
worry whether tenants are able to spend a higher percentage of income on rents,
and then we request the HA to review the need for constructing larger public
housing flats in order to give tenants the option of living in smaller flats, or
suggest that larger flats are not required in new estates, I strongly oppose to such
a suggestion. When we build PRH, we are not aiming at providing
accommodation for a short span of five or 10 years. We are hoping that after
living in the estates for 10 to 20 years, tenants would still find the estates a good
and satisfactory living environment. Therefore we should not compromise on
the standards of public housing just for financial considerations. In other
words, we should not deliver smaller flats to tenants so that they can pay less in
rents. Of course, we are not constructing luxurious flats for people who are in
1440
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
need of subsidies. We have yet to reach this stage. In fact, we should not go
this far. This is also a factor for consideration.
Mr President, finally I would like to put forward some suggestions on the
issue of public housing. Firstly, if we want to solve the housing problem of
Hong Kong, we really need to implement investment programmes in
infrastructure and land supply. This will not only benefit PRH tenants but also
tenants of private housing. Secondly, we have been urging the HA and the
Government to sell PRH flats at reasonable prices for some time. We are
advocating that the prices of PRH flats should be calculated on the basis of
construction costs plus interests. We believe this would eliminate the need for
arguments about rent increases in future. If a person owns a property, he will
have to be responsible for its management and maintenance costs since the flat
will become his own asset. As his income and standard of living improve, he
will be able to afford buying a private housing flat with large space and better
quality, and then vacating his PRH flat for those who have more urgent needs.
All in all, PRH flats are financed by public funds and subsidized by tax payers.
So, such flats should be given to those in genuine need, and on top of that, such
people should be provided with reasonable subsidies.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the development of
public housing in Hong Kong started in the 1950s, and the Hong Kong Housing
Authority (HA) was established in 1973. The objective of public housing
development was very clear at that time, namely, to solve the housing problem of
the poor people, and to reduce the burden of their housing expenditure so as to
improve the quality of their living. Unfortunately, since the establishment of
the HA in 1973 up to the recent housing development trends, we feel that the
Administration is deliberately making use of the rent policy to penalize the
grassroots who have made some improvement to their own livelihood. The
most obvious example is the Well-off Tenants Policy as well as the Long Term
Housing Strategy Review Consultative Document (the Consultative Document).
The document proposes to increase rents for public rental housing (PRH)
drastically to achieve the median rent-to-income ratio (MRIR) of 15% to 18.5%
in 10 years. The Administration claims that the rent for public housing should
be increased progressively and better-off tenants should pay higher rents. On
this point, we agree to a certain extent, but we think there are some problems in
the implementation of the policy by the Administration.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1441
Mr President, I agree with the opinion of the Government that PRH rents
should be pegged with the affordability of the tenants. However, we think that
such a relation should be set at a level which the people are able to afford and is
reflecting the reasonable market rental values of the flats they are living in.
This policy should not aim at squeezing all the money out of the people once the
Administration finds that they have some improvement in their income. And
what is more, it should not set a target of generating any specific amount of
revenue for the HA through the collection of rents.
Mr President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong
(DAB) is strongly opposed to the proposals stated in the Consultative Document,
that is, to increase PRH rents to levels where the MRIRs reach 15% to 18.5% in
10 years, which was also strongly objected by the HA in a recent meeting. In
addition, we are also very dissatisfied with the Government, which makes rent
comparisons between PRH and private housing tenants.
Why are the rents for private housing so high? This is absolutely a result
of the high land premium policy of the Government. As most people cannot
afford the high rents for private housing, the Government have to provide them
with PRH. In addition, as there is a serious shortage of public housing, there
are over a hundred thousand families on the Waiting List awaiting allocation of
flats. These families have to spend 40% or more of their income on payment of
rents. Taking a family of four as an example, if it meets the income limit of
$14,700 and spends $7,000 on rent, there will be less than $2,000 left for use by
each person on non-housing items per month. The Government has neither
policy nor concrete measures to provide them with any rent subsidies. It even
adopts private housing rents as the comparison criterion for determining PRH
rents. We think this is absolutely unreasonable.
The DAB thinks that the MRIR for the average PRH tenant should not
exceed 10%. Recently, the Deputy Director of the Housing Department, Mr
Marco Wu, strongly criticized through the press four Members of the Council
who proposed amendments to the increase of PRH rents, and he had deliberately
distorted their proposals. We deeply regret about this incident and hope that
these are only personal opinions of Mr WU.
What dissatisfies us most is his criticism of our proposal. He criticized
our proposal to cap the MRIR at 10% as putting forward a random percentage.
1442
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
He also said that the Bill did not define how the MRIR should be set. Mr
President, the use of MRIR for determining PRH rents was absolutely not my
invention. It has been a criterion set by the Government and has been used for
years. The major difference now is that the percentage I propose is not the same
as the target percentage put forward by the Government. The Bills Committee
has requested the Housing Branch or the Housing Department several times
during the various meetings with the Administration to explain the method of
calculating the MRIR, but the Administration has never provided any detailed
information in this respect. Members had no choice but to specify in their
amendments that the method of calculating the MRIR is to be decided by the HA.
I think Mr WU's criticism on the Members is unfair.
As to capping the MRIR at 10%, the figure was not randomly set by the
Members either. Given that the average median income of a four-member
family living in public housing is about $13,000, the average rent they pay
should not be higher than $1,300. I think this figure is absolutely accurate.
The Honourable Frederick FUNG just now also calculated with his own method
the household incomes and standards of living of tenants living at private and
public housing in great detail.
Mr President, PRH tenants are on average paying rents at MRIRs of
between 8% and 9%. The several recent rent increases, however, were not only
higher than the inflation rates, for certain types of public housing, the increases
were even higher than the nominal accumulated salary increase. With the
completion of the redevelopment programmes of older estates as well as the
construction of a large number of new estates, it is estimated that even if the
current rate of rent increase is maintained all through the years, the MRIR for
public housing will only increase further after 2006. Therefore, we believe that
it is necessary to set a ceiling for MRIR now to avoid a sharp rise in rents going
beyond the affordability of the tenants.
In fact, the Bills Committee had repeatedly requested the Government to
explain the basis of arriving at the 15% and 18.5% it proposed, but it failed to do
so. If the Housing Department now criticizes the percentages proposed by the
Members as random figures, it is just like the pot calling the kettle black.
The Government stated recently that if Members succeed in restricting the
rent increase of PRH by this Bill, the HA will suffer a $30 billion loss in revenue
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1443
over the next ten years, and it will affect PRH production. Mr President, I think
there is still a very strong demand for public housing in Hong Kong. The
Government saying this at a time when 150,000 families are waiting for
allocation of public housing flats, contains, I would say, a threatening note. The
Government has always said PRH is being run in a deficit, but with some
calculation, we find that it is just a game of figures. According to the budget for
the year of 1997-1998, the Domestic Operating Account for PRH did show a
deficit of $1.78 billion, but the Non-Domestic Operating Account recorded a
surplus of $2.44 billion. So, actually there is a net surplus of $5.8 billion in the
budget for the year of 1997-1998.
Mr President, if public housing is subsidized in nature, the rents collected
by the HA should be set at a level affordable to the tenants. Naturally the HA
should not rely on rents collected from PRH as its major source of revenue and
funding for housing production. Instead, its major revenue should be derived
from rents collected from commercial units and sale of HOS flats. I think the
so-called large deficit of the HA is, to a large extent, due its mis-management and
its poor cost control. The recent privatisation of housing estate management,
for example, shows clearly that there is room for improvement in many aspects
such as maintenance and management by HA.
Mr President, finally, I would like to respond to the comments made by
some officials. They said that even if the Legislative Council passed the
amendments proposed by Members today, the decision on the final effective date
would still rest with the Housing Branch, which may propose further
amendments. I surely agree that the Government should possess this authority,
but I feel that if it really acts this way, it will possibly lead to another major
conflict between the Administration and the Legislature. Therefore, I really
hope that the Housing Branch will accept good advice from this amendment and
formulate a good policy for setting PRH rents.
Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Bill.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am a member of the Bills
Committee. I had also introduced a Private Bill, which I subsequently decided
to withdraw. I withdrew my Bill because both the Hong Kong Association for
Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) and I hope that the Legislative
1444
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Council will adopt a rent increase mechanism which is in the interests of both the
public housing tenants and the community as a whole.
First of all, we have to understand that public housing, low-rent public
housing in particular, serves a very important social function and bears a positive
impact on the community as a whole. Since half of the population in Hong
Kong is living in public rental housing (PRH) flats, the stabilizing effect
generated by public housing on the community is thus very desirable. It enables
Hong Kong to have a stable community. And it is under such a stable social
environment that the business sector, various professions and other trades are
able to contribute and invest, promoting the continuous growth of the community
as a result. How do we achieve this stable community? It is built on the sense
of security enjoyed by PRH tenants, who are the grassroots of the community.
Although some of these tenants are classified by the Housing Department as
well-off tenants, the majority of them belong to the grassroots.
We do not have many social benefits in Hong Kong. While our medical
services and the nine-year free education system that provides opportunities for
everyone to receive education are said to be our best social benefits, public
housing is the third on the list. It provides the grassroots of the community with
"borrowed shells" under the policy of low rents. Though they do not own the
flats in which they are living, the borrowed shells give them a sense of security
and a warm home, sheltering them from the worry of basic housing needs, so that
they can devote all their efforts to contributing to the community. No matter
what difficulties they face in the world, once they return home, they can count on
the borrowed shells to ease them of the worry of being left homeless. With the
security of a home, they can devote their efforts and contribute to the continuous
growth of Hong Kong. Thus, public housing serves an important social
function and embodies a social power which should be treasured by the
Government. Basing on this observation, we have been fighting for reasonable
and low rents for PRH. It is not a question of fairness, but an issue of great
importance to Hong Kong.
While I do not wish to repeat the large number of figures the Honourable
Frederick FUNG has just quoted, I would like to respond to the objections put
forward by the Government to the Bill we moved and the amendments proposed
by the three Members during the deliberations of the Bills Committee. The
major rationale behind the objections raised by the Government is that
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1445
affordability should be adopted as the only criterion to determine whether rents
are set at a reasonable level. No other factors should be considered. However,
how is affordability calculated? It is measured by a reasonable percentage of
the median rent-to-income ratio (MRIR). According to the Government, the
most reasonable percentage is 15%. Let us look at the figures of the past. The
ratio in question has been increased from the initial percentage of 4% to the
current percentage of 8%. In fact, this MRIR of 8% has already caused much
difficulties among PRH tenants. They complain that 8% is already on the high
side as their disposable income after paying the rent is insufficient to meet other
needs. It is clear that the MRIR set at 15% by the Government is arbitrary.
Since the percentage set by the Government was 8% in the past, we have
proposed the line to be drawn at 10%. It is true that 10% is arbitrary, but it has
been fixed at a reasonable level in accordance with the percentage set by the
Government. This is the first point.
The second reason given by the Government is that with the
implementation of the Bill, social resources will be wasted as they are used to
subsidize public housing tenants only, and such social resources should not be
used to subsidize those who are not in genuine need. But the Government
already has other policies in place to solve the problem, such as the policies of
double rent and means test, which ensure a fair allocation of resources, to be
imposed on those who are not in need of subsidies. However, the subject of our
debate today is the rent imposed on PRH tenants at large. The reason given by
the Government is therefore unconvincing.
As for the third point, the Government has all along insisted that there will
be difficulties in the implementation of the Bill. Recently it has revealed to the
media that, the Bill of the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung, if passed, will cause a
lot of trouble because it is unenforceable. The Government has even advised
that since the Bill is unenforceable, the commencement date will be deferred
indefinitely, which would appear that there has never been such a legislation.
We have in fact considered this situation as well. That is why we try to address
the concern by proposing amendments with a view to amending the Bill to such
an extent that it is workable and completely enforceable. Our amendments
include the adoption of the calculation method of the MRIR implemented by the
Housing Department, that is, the method all along used by the Administration.
For instance, if the Administration considers that it is not necessary to conduct on
a survey on the incomes of all PRH tenants, and that sample survey should
1446
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
suffice, we will accept this approach. This is our legislative intent which we
have reiterated during our deliberations.
The fourth reason put forward by the Administration is that there are many
legally doubtful points in the Bill. It has listed four such points which I would
like to address now. The first point suggests that the Bill has not clearly
explained how it will comply with the legal provisions, such as the definitions of
inflation and MRIR. Amendments of the Bill indicate that these will be defined
according to the data collected by the Housing Authority (HA), that is, they will
be "determined by the authority". With this provision, the problem is solved.
Secondly, the Administration alleges that our proposal is in breach of section
4(4) of the Housing Ordinance, which stipulates that the policy of the Authority
shall be directed to ensuring that the revenue accruing to it from the estates shall
be sufficient to meet its recurrent expenditure on its estates. This means the HA
must balance its budget and its revenue should not fall short of its expenditure
due to our proposal. It fact, it is this provision which indicates clearly that the
accumulative revenue of the HA must be able to meet its expenditure. And the
revenue refers to the revenue from all estates. According to the Interpretation in
the Ordinance, the HA is the owner of all units in the estates, including
commercial units and the Home Ownership Scheme flats. The so-called
accumulative revenue from the assets also include revenue from all these sources.
Hence, it is clear that even if there is a deficit in the revenue from the rented
units, the overall revenue of the HA will not be affected, since the HA itself has
admitted that it has an enormous amount of surplus, which has been mentioned
earlier.
The third point raised by the Administration is that section 11 of the
Housing Ordinance authorizes the HA to let land by virtue of a lease. With this
provision, it is possible that the current proposals in the Bill may violate the
contractual tenancy obligation. This argument can be easily refuted as section
16 of the Ordinance stipulates that the power to determine rents rests with the
HA. All rents are to be determined by the HA. Will tenants challenge the
power of the Administration to determine the level of rents? They may wish to
express their discontent by petitioning, but definitely they will not waste any
solicitor's fees on challenging the HA's power to determine rents in court. So
the Government's argument is again unconvincing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1447
Finally, the Administration queries whether our proposal will have any
effect on the HA in its implementation of other policies, such as the policies of
double rents and market rents. During the scrutiny of the Bill, we had stated
clearly that our legislative intent was that other existing policies would not be
affected. We are only handling the issue of how rents should be determined.
We do not wish to influence the policies of the double rents or the means test.
Regarding the four legal challenges alleged by the Government, in fact we have
already responded to each one of them during the deliberations of the Bills
Committee. The lobbying letter only repeats these old points once again. I
can only say that the Government is really very redundant in repeating itself, so I
have to take the trouble of spending a few minutes to refute the points one by
one.
These are my supplementary remarks. Thank you, Mr President.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr President, as the enactment
of any legislation could have a far-reaching effect on society, we ought to be
extremely careful in studying whether the legislation in question is fair, desirable
and feasible. Unfortunately, the Housing (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1996
proposed by the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung and the subsequent amendments
proposed by three other Members obviously go against the principle of fair and
reasonable distribution of resources in our society and will bring about many
negative legislative and financial impacts. The Bills Committee has identified a
number of critical problems during its scrutiny of the Bill. All of them remain
to be further studied and resolved. However, some Members have insisted that
this Bill be put to the vote in the Legislative Council Meeting today. The
Government strongly opposes such a move and I earnestly urge Members to be
extremely cautious when casting their votes and to take the responsibilities
expected of them as legislators and carefully consider the fairness and credibility
of the Bill. It will be a grave mistake to rush through a bill which will have
serious consequences.
The position of the Government is very clear. We are firmly against this
Bill and all the relevant amendments to it on the principle of fairness and
enforcement considerations. I must point out that the Bill and the proposed
amendments have made three fundamental mistakes in concepts. The first one
1448
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
is the proposal that the rate of the increase in rent be restricted to no more than
that of inflation. This proposal is unreasonable in three aspects.
Firstly, tenants' affordability is linked with their family income instead of
inflation. This is clearly known to many economists. It is also common
knowledge to the general public.
Secondly, some Members proposed to peg the rent with inflation through
legislation in the belief that the rate of inflation can reflect the affordability of
public housing tenants. During the time of high inflation, however, family
income may not necessarily increase at a corresponding rate and very often it
may increase at a rate lower than that of inflation. If the Housing Authority
adjusts the rent in accordance with the spirit of those Members' proposals, that is,
the increase in rent is kept in line with inflation, is this very unfair to public
housing tenants? I stress this is the spirit of those Members' proposals.
Finally, if legislation is made to provide that the Housing Authority (HA)
must use the rate of inflation as the only criterion in setting rents, the HA will not
be able to take into account other factors, such as the location of the housing
estate in question, its age, facilities and so on, when setting the rate of increase in
rent for individual housing estates. This indiscriminate use of inflation rate as
the only criterion for rent increase is extremely unfair to some tenants.
The second mistake is the restriction on the rate of increase in rent by
limiting the median rent to income ratio (MRIR) to no more than 10%.
Members use this percentage simply because it is close to the current ratio.
This has clearly proved that this percentage has been set at random regardless of
those families which are in genuine need of assistance. Many years ago, the HA
came up with the 15% or 18.5% MRIR ceiling by drawing reference to the figure
(that is, 13%) of households living in public housing and taking into account the
expenditure pattern of households living in private housing. At that time,
housing expenditure accounted for about a quarter of total expenditure for
households living in private housing. However, the percentage has since then
risen to 37% or 40%. Why do Members of this Council buck the trend by
proposing to lower the MRIR of households living in public housing to 10%?
We do not have the slightest idea as to why they have come up with such a
proposal.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1449
The third mistake is the proposal for restricting the rate of increase in rent
to no more than the inflation rate and reducing it by 2% each year thereafter, or a
total reduction of 4% in two years. Based on a three-year period, the total
reduction will be 6%. Such a proposal is illogical and groundless.
Moreover, some Members proposed that rent review should be conducted
once every three years. Such a proposal, when compared to the current policy
of reviewing the rent once every two years, brings no special benefits to either
the tenants or the Housing Authority. Nor is it necessary. One of the reasons
is that the present policy of reviewing the rent once every two years has been
implemented for over 20 years and public housing tenants have become
accustomed to this policy and accepted such an arrangement. What is more, if
rent-adjustment is made once every three years, one can image that the
accumulated rate of increase must be higher than that of a biennial adjustment.
Some tenants will find it more difficult to get used to it. In fact, when compared
with the current rent-adjustment policy, such a proposal will make life more
difficult for tenants.
Apart from the various problems which I have identified comprehensively
in connection with the Bill and the relevant amendments, and its various defects
on grounds of principle, the implementation of the Bill and the relevant
amendments will create more serious difficulties and undesirable consequences.
First, I will talk about the financial aspects. The domestic operating account of
the HA is an independent account and has been running at a deficit. Even if the
current rent-adjustment mechanism continues to be used, the HA expects that the
total deficit will be about $6 billion within a five-year period from 1996 to 2001.
If the rate of increase in rent is restricted to no more than that of inflation, or if
the rate is restricted to 2% below inflation, or if the MRIR ceiling is arbitrarily
set at 10%, all these three courses of action will cause the HA to suffer more
financial losses. In view of the increasing expenditure of the HA on public
housing construction and maintenance, the problem will soon come to light. It
will not be able to maintain the quality of management and service at current
levels by then, let alone improving the service or meeting various and higher
expectations from tenants. I believe that some Members will remember the
saying of "You cannot expect a horse to run fast without feeding him well,"
which I believe a few Members from the Democratic Party have made mention of
and some other Members have also used this saying at meetings during the past
few days.
1450
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Secondly, the Bill also poses practical difficulties. Members only
proposed to set a statutory median rent to income ratio ceiling but have not come
up with any legislative proposals to define how to comply with such a statutory
provision. It is a very difficult task to accurately assess the family income of
individual public housing tenants and I believe that all of us realize the
difficulties involved. The HA will have to allocate substantial resources to
carry out in-depth survey of individual households and, at the same time, require
every family to provide accurate information about their income at least three
times every year. Why three times are needed every year? It is because the
HA is currently responsible for the management of more than 660 000 public
housing units and it has divided all housing estates into seven groups to carry out
such a survey once every two years. Based on an average two-year period, at
least three or four surveys are required every year. Every time when the MRIR
is needed, the HA will have to carry out such a survey. In other words, it will
have to formally carry out seven surveys of the family income of households
living in public housing in a two-year period, or at least three times every year.
If this is the case, I would like to ask every Member whether they think public
housing tenants will welcome their proposal or prefer them to force the HA to
implement their proposal? Is this not an unnecessary harassment to the tenants?
I believe that the question about the public being subject to harassment is a
favourite topic for many Members, but what they are proposing is a genuine
harassment to the people. This may not be their original intention, but to be
honest, if the HA really implement this proposal and thus arousing widespread
discontent among the public, will those Members who today are in favour of this
Bill and the relevant amendments stand up and take the responsibility by telling
public housing tenants that the HA is required by the legislation which they have
passed to harass them frequently and ask for information about their income?
Mr President, the third question concerns a legal point of view. The Bill
and the relevant amendments will lead to many problems that are prone to legal
proceedings or litigation's. What I say is based on three reasons. Firstly, when
the MRIR becomes a statutory provision for the HA to follow while the
legislation itself does not define how the Authority should comply with the
provision, there is bound to be ambiguity. How can this be resolved? Will
there be many disputes or lawsuits?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1451
Secondly, Members insisted that inflation rate or the MRIR should be used
to restrict the increase in rent while no amendment is made to section 4(4) of the
Housing Ordinance, which requires the HA to direct its policy to ensure that the
revenue from its housing estates is sufficient to meet its recurrent expenditure.
Some Members think that the revenue should include all income from
commercial operations and the sale of Home Ownership Scheme flats. There
are bound to be different legal opinions about this. We are of the view that if
section 4(4) of the Housing Ordinance is inconsistent and incompatible in spirit
with the future amended version of section 16, the HA will be at a loss as to what
it should follow.
The third reason is that the purpose of the rental policy for better-off
tenants adopted by the HA is to ensure a fairer and more reasonable distribution
of public housing resources. This policy has been implemented for more than
one year and has been widely accepted and recognized in the community. The
current legislative proposals by some Members to restrict the rate of increase in
the rent of public housing estates lack flexibility and will in the future seriously
affect the implementation of the rental policy for better-off tenants.
Furthermore, I would like to respond to the questions raised by the
Honourable Miss CHAN Yuen-han and other Members concerning less well-off
tenants. If we really want to help these people get over their difficulties, we
should turn to the Rent Assistance Scheme operated by the HA. Under the
scheme, qualified households can apply for a reduction of up to 50% in rent,
which is quite a significant amount and will bring considerable relief to them.
The other option is the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme
operated by the Social Welfare Department. We should not tackle the problem
by turning to the overall operation and the level of rent.
Mr President, in conclusion, both the Bill and the relevant amendments are
inconsistent with the principle of fairness and will also harm the interests of the
public. They will subject public housing tenants to harassment and will also
pose various difficulties and potential worries to the HA. I want to reiterate that
the Bills Committee has not completed the scrutiny of the Bill and the relevant
problems have not been thoroughly considered and they remain to be solved.
But much to my regret, Members have decided against holding any more
meetings and given the impression that the work has been completed.
Therefore, I appeal to every Member to vote against this Bill and the relevant
amendments. I repeat that I oppose this Bill and the relevant amendments.
1452
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Thank you, Mr President.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, first of all, I would
like to thank the six Members who have spoken on the Bill.
In the course of deliberations of the Bills Committee, I was very surprised
to find that three colleagues have proposed three separate sets of amendments to
the Bill introduced by me earlier on. At first, I thought they were opposing my
proposal. But it was not the case. They are all heading towards the same
direction and endeavouring to improve on the current Bill in order to make it
better and more comprehensive. I hope it is clear to the Secretary for Housing
that various political parties and groups are all working on my Bill with a view to
perfecting it. Perhaps this has never occurred to the Secretary for Housing, and
this is an indication that the entire system of increasing rent is not good enough.
If this were not the case, the various political parties would not have put forward
their views all on this subject. This is the first point that the Secretary for
Housing has failed to realise.
Secondly, the Secretary said that the Bills Committee had not continued
with the meetings. In fact, I want to tell him that his colleagues failed to
provide new information for our discussion during the meetings of the Bills
Committee. They were repeating the same arguments all the time. Similarly,
in delivering his speech a moment ago, the Secretary for Housing has failed to
listen to the views of the Honourable Bruce LIU, Frederick FUNG, LEE
Wing-tat and CHAN Kam-lam. He did not listen to our views, just like what his
colleagues had done during meetings of the Bills Committee. So, we asked
ourselves why we should hold any further meetings. Since the Administration
did not listen to our views and just repeated theirs all the time, we did not want to
waste any more public funds or the time and effort of the civil servants. That is
why we thought further meetings were meaningless. However, when we said
we did not want to hold any further meetings, it did not mean that we had refused
to hold meetings. We said we did not want to hold any further meetings only
after we had held many meetings with the Administration. I hope the Secretary
for Housing could understand this.
Besides, one incident gave me a deeply regret. It was what the Secretary
for Housing said in the press release issued on the 26 June. It would have been
acceptable to me if the Administration had really discussed the merits of their
case and deliberated on the feasibility of the Bill. But unfortunately, what the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1453
Secretary for Housing said has caused much concern among us. It seems that
Hong Kong will be entering another dark age. Why do I say so? The
Secretary stated that if the Bill was enacted, he would try to use his authority to
delay the commencement date of the Bill when there were difficulties in its
implementation. Obviously, he is hoping to make use of the Provisional
Legislative Council to amend or repeal the legislation passed by the present
Legislative Council in order to prevent its implementation. I have originally
intended to denounce the move as "backward". However, as we have used
"backward" too often, it does not carry any significant meaning now because it
does not reflect the real issue of the situation. In fact, the situation leads us to
think that there is the possibility that legislation passed by the present elected
Council can be reversed by the Administration. By exercising its authority or
using its relationship with the future Provisional Legislative Council, it can bring
about a great change to what we have achieved through our previous efforts.
Such a change could make all our efforts go down the drain ─ a course of
action that would make us feel that it is plunging us into a dark age, instead of
allowing us to handle the problem in a pragmatic manner. Hence, I am very
dissatisfied with this.
Mr President, I wonder if the Secretary for Housing would like to clarify
on this.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Point of Order? If so, please stand up to speak.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to
seek your approval to raise a question.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions concerning a point of order should not
be put to a Member. Instead, if a Member breaches a rule or if there is a fire,
this is a question concerning a point of order.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG just now
mentioned some remarks which he said were made by me on the 26. This is not
true at all. I think it is contrary to the fact.
1454
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You can seek clarification at the end instead of
raising a question concerning a point of order. If he uses foul language, that
will be a question concerning a point of order. Mr LEUNG, please move on.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President. I was
not talking nonsense. What I said was based on a report of a newspaper, the
name of which I do not want to disclose. Yet, it did report clearly on 26 June
the remarks made by the Secretary for Housing. I do not want to waste any
more time on this issue.
Six Members have already given their speeches and five of them explain
how unsound the existing rent system is from different points of view. They
also explained from different points of view how feasible our Bill and the
Committee stage amendments are if they are implemented. Everything was
stated clearly and in great detail. However, the Secretary, like what his
colleagues did in the Bills Committee meetings, only has his own approach in
mind and does not listen to our opinions. As we do not speak the same
language, there can never be any consensus.
Mr Frederick FUNG has just quoted a lot of data in support of his
viewpoint, but the Secretary has not been able to respond to his queries. Our
legal expert, Mr Bruce LIU, has also explained from a legal point of view but the
Secretary does not listen to him either and only reiterates his previous views.
This is especially so when we come to the issue of section 4(4). We have
already told the Secretary many times in the Bills Committee meetings that, in
spite of the fact that section 4(4) stipulates that the Housing Department should
be responsible for ensuring a balance of revenue and expenditure, we have
reiterated many times to him that the Housing Department or the government
department concerned is just required to do it best to meet this target. If this
target is not met, the department will not be regarded as having violated the law.
I do not know whether the Housing Department has consulted any legal advisers,
but we have already done so and said many times that it is not illegal even if you
cannot meet the target as long as you have done your best. This viewpoint was
conveyed in the Bills Committee time and again, but the Administration did not
accept our opinion. There is really nothing more we can say.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1455
Actually, today we are debating on the issue of how to determine the level
of rents. This is very important and that is why we keep debating on it. But
right at the very beginning, the Secretary has said that it is only reasonable and
fair for rents to be determined on the basis of the tenants' affordability. I wish
to ask the Secretary, will it be absolutely reasonable and fair if rents are really
determined on the basis of affordability? Can he let us know his rationale for
this? I have been listening to him making his speech for about 20 minutes but
he did not explain at all why it will be reasonable and fair if rents are determined
on the basis of affordability. He does not explain but only says that the
Administration would determine the level of rents on the basis of affordability
and that it is unreasonable to peg rents with inflation. But he never explains
why the principle of affordability is definitely reasonable. This is a point I
doubt very much.
Of course, we may not be able to identify a perfect approach, but I do not
think the principle of affordability is the uniquely perfect, fair and impartial way.
In fact, even if we implement the rent policy by adopting the principle of
affordability as what he has said, there is still a possibility that the Housing
Authority will incur a deficit, especially in the expenditure on public rental
housing (PRH) estates. If that happens, what are we going to do? Will the
Secretary allow such a deficit to exist on a permanent basis?
Therefore, please do not say that our approach will generate a deficit.
The direction the Administration is moving towards, that is the adoption of the
principle of affordability as a criterion, may also lead to a huge deficit, just as
what the Secretary has mentioned a moment ago. Therefore, he should not have
told us that determining rents on the basis of affordability is the fairest and most
reasonable or the best operating method as there is no strong supporting
argument for this.
I do not know whether the Secretary has asked himself why there should
be such a huge deficit when he keeps saying that it is likely that a huge deficit
will be incurred. Mr LEE Wing-tat pointed out clearly that the current deficit
was actually caused by two major factors: management and maintenance. Mr
Lee has said that the performance of the Housing Department in maintenance and
management has been really disappointing. He has already quoted some
1456
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
examples, so I do not want to quote more. Regarding the maintenance issue, I
wish to add some points to Mr LEE's remarks, as he has not explained this point
in detail. What the Administration disappointed me most in maintenance and I
believe a lot of you who attend this meeting still remember, are the 26
problematic PRH blocks. They reflect the inadequacy of the Housing
Department and the government in supervising the contractors in constructing the
housing estates in the 1970s, which led to 'substandard blocks', the result of
jerry-building practices. Some buildings constructed in the 1970s still require a
lot of costly maintenance now. Why should tenants bear this kind of
consequences? I wish to tell the Secretary that this is not normal wear-and-tear
nor damages caused by the tenants; they are the consequences of inadequate
supervision by the Administration at the construction stage. To our surprise, he
wishes the tenants to bear the consequences of this kind of deficits. I believe
that we will never regard such practices as reasonable!
Moreover, a lot of tenants always complain about management issues. I
believe the Secretary must have conducted some inspection visits to the housing
estates. However, as all the staff concerned knew about his visit in advance,
they all acted as if they were working busily and industriously. But he may ask
the tenants about the normal attitude of the management staff, then he would
know the true picture. The Administration actually wasted a lot of human and
other resources in the whole operation. The Secretary once told me that he
thought that there were a lot of problems with the current management method of
the HA which require improvement. But he also said that despite this, rent
increase restriction should not be used to force the Administration to make
improvement.
However, I hold opposite views.
It was actually the
Administration which made us think of using the rent increase restriction as a
weapon. The Housing Department does not know how to make the best use of
the money it gets or has used it improperly. That is why I think we cannot go
on like this. We must find a way to impose restrictions on the Administration in
order to stop it from spending money unwisely.
On the other hand, the Secretary has just said that the different accounts
should be financially independent. If we look at the expenditure on estates,
there is a huge deficit. But I think as the society nowadays is becoming
diversified and the scope of management of the HA is no exception. It does not
just manage PRH estates but also commercial units and Home Ownership
Scheme (HOS) flats and so on. If this is the case, why should there be separate
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1457
accounts? Why can we not regard the accounts as a whole? A lot of my
colleagues have just pointed out that there is a huge surplus which we do not
know how to make use of. The Administration has even commissioned a
consultant to help it study how to spend this money so as to avoid wastage.
This is a fact. I have not got it wrong. This is a fact repeatedly conveyed to us
by press reports. I think if we have a large surplus, we should identify another
rent system. We should not just say, "let us base our rents on affordability" and
stop at that. I think the most important thing is how to make the overall
operations of the Housing Authority or the Housing Department more efficient
and to identify a better operating method for their actual expenditure.
The Bill we propose today covers two parts. One is on inflation and the
other is the cap of MRIR for PRH rents. Pegging rent increases with inflation is
a very good approach indeed. We do not mean to stop the Administration from
increasing rents. We just hope that the extent of the increase can be kept at a
reasonable level so that the tenants can cope with it. To make it simple, if
everything worked smoothly the previous year and there was no problem with the
operation of the last rent increase, we can take account of the rate of inflation and
then we can use it as an indicator for the next rent increase. In this way the
problem is solved. However, the Secretary says that adopting the rate of
inflation as the indicator will not address many actual problems. For example,
factors such as the facilities and locations of the buildings cannot be reflected
when the rents are determined. He therefore says this approach is not fair and
unreasonable.
I hope that the Secretary can take a good look at the Bill. What we
propose is to cap rent increases at the rate of inflation, which does not mean that
every rent increase has to reach this maximum point. Instead, it means there can
be several ranges below this ceiling which may vary according to the districts
and facilities. In this respect, we can also satisfy the Administration's
requirements.
Mr President, I do not think we have not given careful consideration to the
Bill we are proposing now. The Secretary accuses us of proposing a Bill which
is a totally non-feasible, undesirable, unfair and unreasonable way of allocating
resources without giving careful consideration to it. In fact, contrary to what he
has said, we, consisting of several organizations, have all given careful
1458
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
consideration to the Bill and are of the opinion that it is a feasible, desirable, fair
and reasonable way of allocating resources.
Mr President, finally, I would like to discuss the triennial rent review.
Why we propose three years? The Secretary always says that the current
biennial review has been working well and if the triennial rent review is adopted,
the accumulated increases in each revision exercise will be larger. The
Secretary has this concept because there is a constant belief on his mind, that is,
the current method of rent increase will continue to be used. If so, the extent of
the rent increase after three years must be very substantial. But in the triennial
rent review proposed by us, the current method of rent increase is not to be used
again. Instead, if the approach proposed by us is adopted, the extent of the
increase will not be too high and the tenants will not find the change too
substantial and sudden for them to bear. We actually did the calculation
ourselves, so we hope the Secretary will not criticise this. The logic is simple.
We now quote a random example. Usually the annual inflation is around 8%.
The accumulated inflation for three years will be around 24%. This means that
the maximum rent increase will only be 24%. But the average rent increase
under the current biennial rent review cycle is already slightly higher than 24%.
In other words, even if the triennial rent increase cycle is implemented as
suggested by us, the increase will only be as much as the average increase under
the biennial review. Furthermore, my calculation was based on the maximum
increase. In reality, the actual increase can be lower. Therefore, why will
tenants find it difficult to accept? I think the Secretary should consider
carefully all the details of our Bill and should not just extract a certain part from
it and apply it to the current system. If he really did so, a lot of problems would
arise, rendering the system difficult to implement.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Housing, you wish to clarify that you
have in act never made the remark he said you had made. Therefore, you are
asking him to clarify on what basis he made such a remark.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr President, the Honourable
LEUNG Yiu-Chung has just accused me wrongly. He says on 26 June, I ......
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1459
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Housing, you may only ask for
clarification. You cannot take this opportunity to make a speech.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr President, I request that Mr
LEUNG Yiu-Chung make a clarification. He said the Secretary for Housing
had mentioned on 26 June that even if the legislation was passed, he might
choose not to implement it or repeal it. I would like to ask Mr LEUNG to tell us
when and where the Secretary had said this, basing on all the information he has.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I read this from a newspaper. If
the press report was inaccurate, there is nothing I can do. If the Secretary said
he had not said this, it does not matter. Maybe it was just a mistake made by the
newspaper.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Under such circumstances, I would like to ask you
which newspaper it was.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): The Apple Daily.
The
Government was reported to have warned that even if the legislation restricting
the rent increase of PRH estates was passed, there would be difficulties in
implementing it, or the Government might repeal it.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-Chung.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): The Honourable SZETO Wah has
mentioned that most of us, Legislative Councillors, are very firm with our
stances, and that our voting decisions will not be changed by the speeches of
other councillors.
1460
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHIM Pui-chung, it is not the time for you to
speak (Laughter), as now we have come to the time for the mover to make the
reply. I thought you were rising to a point of order. I am sorry.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): My personal view is, be it the time for
the reply or some other situations, I ......
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The time for the reply is over. There should be
no more speeches made by Members. I now put the question to you.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Will the remarks just made by the
Honourable CHIM Pui-chung be included in the Official Record of Proceedings
of the Sitting?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SZETO Wah, let us forget it. He has just
spoken a few words.
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): If they will be included in the Official
Record, I would like to ask him to clarify at what exact time and date I made that
remark, or in which newspaper he had read a report on that remark. (Laughter)
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put.
Voice vote taken.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council shall proceed to a division.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1461
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that when the
division bell rings, it is still meeting time. So I hope you would behave
yourselves even if you are chatting. Now, I would like to remind Members that
they are now called upon to vote on the question that the HOUSING
(AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996 be read the Second time.
Will Members please register your presence by pressing the top button and
then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese) : Before I declare the result, Members may wish to
check their votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong,
Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU,
Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG
Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr
CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG
Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU
Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr
LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen,
Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG
and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward HO, Mr
Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Dr
Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Mr James TIEN, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr
CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Ambrose LAU,
Mr LO Suk-ching and Miss Margaret NG voted against the motion.
Dr LEONG Che-hung abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 36 votes in favour of the motion
and 18 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
1462
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Bill read the Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order
43(1).
Committee stage of Bill
Council went into Committee.
HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
Clause 1
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that Clause 1
be amended by the addition of the Chinese text as set out in the paper
circularized to Members.
Mr Chairman, Clause 1 of the Bill tabled by me today is to specify the
commencement of the Bill. I hope Members will support and pass the Bill.
Proposed amendment
Clause 1 (see Annex XXVI)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Clause 1 is about the commencement of the Bill,
but what do you wish to amend? Is it the Chinese text that you wish to amend?
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to
reiterate the Government's position. As the Chinese version will be added,
which is tantamount to adding the spirit of the entire Bill, I therefore want to
reiterate the Government's position that we strongly oppose the Bill and all the
relevant amendments on the principle of fairness and enforcement
considerations. I beg all Members to vote against the Bill and the relevant
amendments.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1463
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): We are now discussing the question
about the Chinese version, are we not? It seems to me that the Secretary for
Housing is not speaking on the Chinese version.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Yes. I am raising a question
about the Chinese version.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, you have mastered the rules for
answering questions. (Laughter)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Housing, when I mentioned the
Chinese version just now, my intention was to invite you to speak on this subject,
which is the Chinese version, but you have spoken on the entire Bill. A few
words are not a big deal, though.
MR MARTIN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, if we can speak Chinese on
the English text, we may speak English on the Chinese text as well.
CHAIRMAN: I think I had better conduct the rest of the business in English?
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
Question on clause 1, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause 2
1464
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
CHAIRMAN: Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr Bruce LIU have
separately given notices to move amendments to the proposed section 16(1A)(a)
in clause 2.
I propose that the amendments to the proposed section 16(1A)(a) in clause
2, proposed separately by Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr Bruce
LIU, be debated together in a joint debate.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall debate the amendments, proposed separately by
Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr Bruce LIU, in a joint debate.
I will first call upon Mr LEE Wing-tat to move his amendment by virtue of his
seniority.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that section 16
(1A)(a) under clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to
Members.
The amendment involves the rent increase cycle. In fact, this amendment
is a technical amendment to the proposal of the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung.
Mr LEUNG put forward a proposal to increase rent once every three years when
he spoke just a while ago. I agree that this proposal will give tenants a longer
break between two rent increase exercises. In addition to that, I would like to
supplement my proposal by drawing your attention to the fact that rents may have
been substantially increased for those tenants who have moved to newly
constructed estates or old estates that have undergone redevelopment. The rents
may be increased from $700 - $800 for units in old estates to $2,500 - $3,000 for
units in new estates. If the interval between two rent increase exercises can be
extended to a longer period, they will be given sufficient time for adapting to the
rent increases.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2 (see Annex XXVI)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1465
CHAIRMAN: I will call upon Mr CHAN Kam-lam first to speak on Mr LEE
Wing-tat's motion and his own amendment, as well as the amendment proposed
by Mr Bruce LIU. After Mr CHAN Kam-lam has spoken, I will call upon Mr
Bruce LIU to speak. However, no motion may be moved by Mr CHAN
Kam-lam or Mr Bruce LIU at this stage.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think there are major
problems with the proposals contained in the amendments moved respectively by
the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung and the Honourable LEE Wing-tat.
They consider that the rent review cycle of public housing tenants should
be the same as that of commercial tenants, that is, a triennial rent review cycle, so
that tenants may have a longer adaptation period which would relieve them of the
pressure from rent increases. In my opinion, a triennial rent increase would not
bring about a relief period for tenants. Instead, it would exert greater pressure
on them at every rent increase exercise. Take a rent of $2,400 as an example,
with a triennial rent increase, the amount increased could be quite large, probably
as much as $800 to $1,000. Hence, I think such a practice will only subject
tenants to greater pressure at every rent increase. On the other hand, tenants
who have just moved to new estates may have to face enormous pressure as well
as large increases at every rent increase.
I hope our colleagues will understand that, be it triennial or biennial rent
increase, the total amount of rent increases, when added together, is almost the
same. Furthermore, the current practice of biennial review has been in place for
a long time to such an extent that all the parties have got accustomed to it. If
the practice is changed from a biennial to a triennial review, tenants may not
necessarily be able to get any benefit from it. I hope that Members will object
to the amendments proposed by MR LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr LEE Wing-tat.
Thank you.
1466
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, my views have been expressed
by Mr CHAN Kam-lam just now. There is nothing I would like to add at the
moment.
CHAIRMAN: Members may now debate the amendment moved by Mr LEE
Wing-tat as well as the respective amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Kam-lam
and Mr Bruce LIU.
Secretary for Housing, do you wish to speak? This is the meat of the
entire Bill, only two clauses.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, under normal
circumstances, the rent of public housing is currently reviewed once every two
years. As I said during the Second Reading debate, this arrangement has been
implemented for more than 20 years and proved effective. The review will
gradually adjust the rent to a level which is both realistic and affordable for
public housing tenants.
I would like to reiterate that some Members' proposal for at least a
three-year rent review cycle is unnecessary for tenants and the Housing Authority
alike. This is because tenants have already accepted and adapted to the
two-year rent review cycle. The cumulative increase of a three-year rent review
cycle will be bigger than that under a two-year cycle, which will be more difficult
for some tenants to adapt to. Therefore, the Government opposes the relevant
amendments. I also urge Members to vote against those amendments.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, as I have mentioned
a moment ago, it all depends on the calculation method to be adopted. If the
method of calculation we proposed is adopted, the level of rent will not be too
high. It will be within the affordability of tenants. In addition to that, I would
like to provide some information. Some of the commercial tenants of the
Housing Authority are currently under the practice of a triennial rent review. So
we are only asking the Housing Authority to bring the rent review system of
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1467
residential tenants in line with that for commercial tenants, so that there will only
be one system, instead of two, under the Housing Authority. I hope Members
will support this proposal for a triennial rent review.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, in both the response
given by the Secretary just now and the letter distributed to us by the Deputy
Director, it was mentioned that if rent increases were calculated on the basis of a
median rent-to-income ratio (MRIR) of 10%, income surveys of tenants would
have to be conducted in each rent increase exercise. According to the current
practice of a biennial rent increase for different groups of estates, if surveys have
to be conducted for each increase, altogether seven surveys would have to be
conducted.
As the number of surveys, seven, is just arbitrary, why can we not reduce it
to two or three? The number of surveys is determined by the Housing
Department. But why should rent increases be implemented separately? Why
should we have two rent increase exercises for Group A estates, two for Group B
estates, and then a separate one for former Housing Authority estates, and a
further one for the Harmony blocks of public housing? As a matter of fact, the
number of Group B estates is steadily diminishing. By the year 2005, they will
no longer exist. Besides, there are only four former Housing Authority estates,
with a total number of flats not exceeding 20 000. Meanwhile, the number of
Harmony blocks is on the rise. If Group B estates are to be grouped with former
Housing Authority estates into Group A1 or Group A2, while the Harmony
blocks remain a separate group, three surveys should be enough to cover all these
estates. Instead of conducting seven surveys in two years, it is possible to
conduct only three, a practice which will not cause so much inconvenience to
tenants as suggested by the Administration.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Before I put Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion to the Committee for a
vote, I would advise Members that if Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion is agreed, that
will by implication mean that the respective amendments proposed by Mr CHAN
Kam-lam and Mr Bruce LIU are not approved. If Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion is
negatived, I will call on Mr CHAN Kam-lam to move his amendment. Whether
1468
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
or not Mr Bruce LIU will be able to move his amendment will depend on the
Committee's decision on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's motion.
Question on Mr LEE Wing-tat's amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr Bruce LIU and Mr CHAN Kam-lam claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to
vote on the question that the amendment moved by Mr LEE Wing-tat be
approved. Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top
button and then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their
votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong,
Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU,
Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG
Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr
Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong,
Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan,
Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG
and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward HO, Mr
Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1469
Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine
LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN
Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung,
Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr
LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 29 votes in favour of the
amendment and 25 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment
was carried.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr LEE wing-tat's amendment has been
agreed, it is not possible for Mr CHAN Kam-lam or Mr Bruce LIU to move their
respective amendments, as they are inconsistent with the decision already taken.
CHAIRMAN: Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr Bruce LIU have
separately given notices to move amendments to the proposed section 16(1A)(b)
in clause 2.
I propose that the amendments to the proposed section 16(1A)(b) in clause
2, proposed separately by Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr Bruce
LIU, be debated together in a joint debate.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall debate the amendments, proposed separately by
Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Mr Bruce LIU, in a joint debate.
I will first call upon Mr LEE Wing-tat to move his amendment by virtue of his
seniority.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I have to pull myself
together as I have yet to score a comprehensive victory. We have only won the
part related to the rent increase cycle. Now we come to the "core" of the Bill.
We had spent a lot of time on deliberating whether rent increases should be
determined on the basis of affordability or the rate of inflation, or whether it
1470
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
should be set at the levels of median rent-to-income ratio (MRIR) of 15%, 18.5%
or 10% when we resumed Second Reading of the Bill. Now I would just like to
put forward several points, and wish that the Secretary for Housing would
respond to them if he has the time.
Firstly, he had produced a lot of information when he spoke. As it has
already been recorded on tapes, I only hope that I have heard correctly. He said
that the Domestic Operating Account of the Housing Authority (HA) "all along
has incurred deficits". This is obviously inaccurate as surpluses were recorded
from the years 1988 to 1992. Hence, this remark is incorrect.
Secondly, we raised a number of questions at the meetings of the Bills
Committee, but he had never responded to them. It is no exception today.
Questions left unanswered include why it was sufficient for a private contractor
to spend only 65% of the total expenditure of the Housing Department in
managing the same housing estate and was even able to achieve a surplus in
doing so. Why had the number of staff of the Housing Department grown from
13 000 to the present 15 000 over the past 10 years when it had already
contracted out many of its services including maintenance, cleaning, management
of car-parks in housing estates, and even security to private contractors? A
number of our colleagues have already pointed out that the crux of the issue is
the absence of a cost control awareness on the part of the Housing Department.
I do not wish to elaborate on this point again. Many of our colleagues, two of
them in particular, have expressed skepticism in the feasibility of our proposal.
As a matter of fact, it is feasible. Through effective reforms and cost control on
the part of the HA and the Housing Department, not only can we succeed in
reducing the deficits of the account of the entire housing estate, we would also be
able to achieve a surplus. Furthermore, many of our colleagues have shown
their support for setting rents at the level of the MRIR of 10%.
Mr Chairman, I am not going to repeat my views expressed during the
resumption of Second Reading debate of the Bill. I only wish that Members
will support this amendment. Thank you, Mr President.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2 (see Annex XXVI)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1471
CHAIRMAN: I will call upon Mr CHAN Kam-lam first to speak on Mr LEE
Wing-tat's motion and his own amendment, as well as the amendment proposed
by Mr Bruce LIU. After Mr CHAN Kam-lam has spoken, I will call upon Mr
Bruce LIU to speak. However, no motion may be moved by Mr CHAN
Kam-lam or Mr Bruce LIU at this stage.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, many of our colleagues
in this Council like to adopt inflation as the benchmark when discussing issues
such as increases in rents or fares. It seems that such increases are a matter of
course as long as they do not go beyond the inflation rate; if they are higher than
inflation, they must be disapproved of. Increases in fares for bus and ferry
services and public housing rents are typical examples. I think this is because
we rely too much on the inflation rate as the benchmark and ignore other factors.
Mr Chairman, both the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung and the
Honourable Bruce LIU have proposed that the increase in public housing rents
should not be higher than the accumulated inflation rate since the last increase.
But if we use inflation as the sole determining factor, and if the inflation rate is
higher than the salary growth of the tenants and the rent increase introduced
really reaches the ceiling of the inflation rate, the new rents would be beyond the
affordability of the people. For example, the Consumer Price Index A(CPI A)
in 1992 and 1996 showed higher increases than the salary growth. If it is
stipulated that future increases of public housing rents are capped at the inflation
rate, the tenants' spending on non-housing items will be reduced.
In fact, the Honourable LEE Wing-tat also thinks that the problems I have
just mentioned may arise if we just adopt the inflation rate as the benchmark for
rent increases. That is why he proposes to cap rent increases at 2% below
inflation. The DAB thinks that this figure, as pointed out by Mr Marco Wu , is
arbitrary. Mr LEE did not explain why it should be inflation minus 2%, instead
of minus 3%, or like increases of telephone charges, minus 4%. Nevertheless, if
the inflation rate is higher than the salary growth, and if the difference is greater
than 2%, Mr LEE Wing-tat's proposal will face the same problem as Mr LEUNG
Yiu-chung's amendment.
1472
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr Chairman, the proposal to restrict public housing rent increase to a
MRIR of 10% is in line with the principles of the current policy of the Housing
Authority (HA) in determining rents, and the affordability of public housing
tenants is taken as the criterion. We do not agree to setting higher percentages
for rent increases such as 15% or 18.5%. The Government thinks that fixing the
percentage at 10% would deprive the rent increase mechanism of flexibility, so
that even financially well-off tenants are only required to pay relatively lower
rents. We would never accept this allegation because it misleads the public.
First, we must emphasize that the amendment of restricting public housing rent
increase to a MRIR of 10% would not affect other polices of the HA such as the
policy for well-off tenants, which we oppose all the time, or the market rent
policy which ensures reasonable allocation of public housing resources.
Although the DAB is strongly opposed to these policies, the HA will still be able
to impose 150%, 200% rents or even market rents on the tenants even if our
amendment is passed. On the mind of the Government, these tenants have
sufficient resources to pay the rents they are charged. In fact, under the present
policies, some of the tenants are already paying very high rents due to the
constraints imposed on them by the relevant policies of the HA.
Mr Chairman, in short, the DAB opposes pegging the increases of public
housing rent to inflation, so we oppose the amendment of Mr LEE Wing-tat.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I would like to
respond to and refute the points contained in the written reply we have just
received from Mr Marco Wu, Deputy Director of Housing Department, as well as
those contained in the speech delivered by the Secretary for Housing on this
issue.
First of all, both of them stress that if the increase in family income of
some tenants is lower than the inflation rate, it will be unfair to these tenants if
we put a cap on rent increases at 10% of the MRIR and the inflation rate. This
argument is not supported by any data at all, or maybe they are not good at
mathematics. Why do I say so? If the family income of these tenants in these
two years is lower than before, 10% of the median income will see a downward
adjustment. For example, if the median income of this year is $15,600 and if
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1473
people's salaries in the next two years remain unchanged, 10% of the median
income will still be calculated on the basis of $15,600. The amount arrived at
by 10% will not change. Even if the annual inflation rate is 10% and the total
inflation rate for two years are 20%, the rent increase will still be capped at 10%
of the median income, that is, $15,600. Also, even though rent increases are
capped at the inflation rate, the Administration could just increase rents by 3% to
4% if the salaries of tenants only increase by 3% to 4% while the inflation rate is
10%, and it is not necessary to increase rents by exactly 10%. It would be
illogical if we insist on increasing rents by 10% just because rent increases are
capped at 10%. Of course, the Secretary still has the discretion to determine the
increase of rents. It will be up to him to decide whether the above methods
would be adopted for determining rent increases.
Secondly, both the Secretary and the Deputy Director have mentioned that
as the locations, ages and facilities of different housing estates may vary, the rent
increases for different estates need not be the same, and eventually the objective
of the Bill cannot be fulfilled. I think they say this because they do not
understand the policy of the Housing Authority on increasing rents. Under the
existing policy, the HA group all housing estates into several districts during
each rent increase exercise. Urban areas like Shatin and Tsuen Wan are put into
the same district, areas in the New Territories such as Tai Po and Sheung Shui
are categorized into another district, while outlying islands are grouped into a
separate district. So, public housing estates are classified into different groups
for the purpose of implementing different rates of rent increases, with more or
less the same increase for estates in the same group. I would describe this as a
"same group same increase" policy. For example, all urban residential units
will have their rents increased by $3 per square foot. I have joined the HA for
12 years, during which no one has ever queried during rent adjustment exercises
whether the rent increase for Nam Shan Estate is higher than that for other
estates, despite the fact that Shep Kip Mei Estate is 25 years old while Nam Shan
Estate is only 10 years of age. No one would ask why there should be
differences in their rent increases because this is not the way for deciding the
differences. All Group A estates would have their rents increased by the same
amount, while all Harmony blocks would have a different amount of rent
increase. We determine rent increases by such a grouping method. So the
differences are not substantial. In fact, the impact of the different grouping of
housing estates does not occur when rent increases are introduced, but rather at
the very beginning when the rents were determined. For instance, if the rent for
1474
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
urban housing estates is fixed at $10 per square foot and that of housing estates
in the New Territories is $5 per square foot, the rents for both kinds of estates
will be very different. With the same size, residential units in the urban areas
will be rented at $1,200 but those in the New Territories will be rented at $600
only. The present Bill proposes to increase rents once every three years. But
the fact is that the initial rents are already different: one is $600 while the other is
$1,200. The initial rents will be taken as the base rents for calculating further
increases. The Administration has already taken into account such factors as
location, age and facilities of housing estates when the rents are first determined.
Future rent increases will not be affected by such factors any more. What we
are discussing is the increase of rents, not the determination of rents. I hope
that the Secretary can see the difference.
The third argument I would like to raise is the Well-off Tenants Policy.
The Administration has just mentioned that some tenants are better off but they
are paying the same rents as others. So the proposed rent policy is not fair
enough because it will affect the existing Well-off Tenants Policy now imposed
on relatively well off tenants. Of course, we are opposed to the Well-off
Tenants Policy, but we have to let the Secretary know that this policy will not be
affected. Why? According to the figures provided by the Census and
Statistics Department, although I do not know whether the figures in the Long
Term Housing Strategy Review are the same as those from the Census and
Statistics Department, the rents of public housing estates in 1996 were 8% of the
MRIR, which has already included the income of well-off tenants. In other
words, for both well-off and ordinary tenants, the overall percentage is 8%,
which is the median rent-to-income ratio. The 8% figure is calculated this way,
unless the Secretary Housing tells me that the figures from the Census and
Statistics Department are incorrect. Even if this is the case, I can still do
nothing because I have believed in the information supplied by the Department
and think that they are accurate. However, I am still presuming that these
figures are accurate. Therefore I believe that the present proposal will not affect
the Well-off Tenants Policy or any other policies.
Last of all, I would like to refute the allegation made by the Administration
that the expenditure of the Housing Department will keep on increasing. In
fact, it will not. I completely agree with Mr LEE Wing-tat's opinion: there are a
lot of redundancies in the Housing Department and whether certain facilities are
being abused. All these factors may lead to increases in expenditure of the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1475
Housing Department. I believe that the reasons I put forward now should be
sufficient to answer the questions raised by the Secretary.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
SECRETARY FOR HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I would like to
stress again that the amendments proposed by three Members are neither fair,
desirable nor feasible for the following reasons.
Firstly, these proposals are conceptually wrong in that they have
completely neglected the basic principle that public housing rent must be linked
to the affordability of tenants.
Secondly, the amendments, if passed, will certainly affect the income of
the Housing Authority and the resultant financial losses will make it impossible
for the Authority to maintain its present management and service quality. Some
Members have suggested the losses could be offset through subsidies from other
sources of income. This of course is another way of looking at the matter.
However, a prudent financial policy should be one that strikes as far as possible a
balance in principle between income and expenditure of any individual account.
Thirdly, the Housing Authority will find it technically very difficult to
implement the Bill. As I said earlier, public housing tenants may even be
subject to harassment, something which I do not think Members will wish to see.
Fourthly, the relevant amendments also have legal ambiguities, which will
not only affect the implementation of the widely accepted rental policies
applying to better-off tenants, but also expose the Housing Authority to legal
challenges. Some Members are of the view that the two ways of calculations
under the current amendments will not affect the rental policies applying to
better-off tenants. I take exception to this view. In fact, the impacts of the
amendments on this policy are far too obvious. The implementation of these
amendments or the new Bill will deal a serious blow to the policies applying to
better-off tenants and shatter the principle of equal distribution of scarce public
resources.
1476
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr Chairman, on the whole, all of these amendments go against the
principle of fairness and are not in the interests of the public. They will subject
public housing tenants to various kinds of harassment. On the other hand, they
will also bring many difficulties and potential worries to the Housing Authority.
I would like to stress again that the Bills Committee has not formally
completed the scrutiny of the Bill. As for the accusations made by some
Members that the Government has withheld information from them, in fact, the
Government has been providing a lot of relevant information to them while at the
same time has requested to continue discussions with them. However, Members
and the Chairman of the Bills Committee have made the final decision to put an
end to all the discussions and the scrutiny of the Bill by the Bills Committee so
that the Bill and the amendments can be brought back to the Legislative Council.
The reasons for putting the Bill and the amendments to the vote in this Council
are that the Council will soon be in recess. In my opinion, such a course of
action is a big mistake and goes against the spirit of legislation.
I appeal again to every Member to be extremely cautious and not to rush
through this Bill and the relevant amendments.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, the Liberal Party does not
support any amendments, and just now I have pointed out that we advocated in
principle that public housing rent should be determined on the basis of tenants'
affordability.
First, we should look at the issue of public housing rent from the
perspective of the entire community. Obviously, public housing tenants would
think that it is better not to introduce any rent increase at all, or may even think
that the present rents are already too high. But on the other hand, people who
have never enjoyed the benefit of living in public housing would surely say: The
Government has already heavily subsidized public housing tenants, but why
should we, who also have financial difficulties like them, pay such high rents
which take up a large portion of our income? Therefore, I think the opinions of
these two groups of people should be considered.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1477
Secondly, some Members say that if we make use of other revenues from
housing estates to subsidize public housing rents, the rents paid by tenants can be
lower. But why can we not do that? I think we should not consider the issue
this way. If the Housing Authority (HA) is able to generate profits from its
commercial complexes, Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) projects or other
sources, the HA would be able to make use of such profits to develop public
housing projects in future without seeking funding from the Government, or
without borrowing from the Government. This is surely something to be
applauded. The profits generated from commercial complexes built on land
granted by the Government need not be used to further subsidize tenants already
living in public housing flats. The issues we are discussing are: at which level
we should fix public housing rents, and how much we should subsidize public
housing. Of course, some people suggest that the rents should be fixed at a
MRIR of 10%. But we think public housing rents need not be as low as that.
Besides, there are also some Members who raised questions about the
management of housing estates or queried whether the operating costs of the
Housing Department are too high. They wonder if improvement can be made in
certain areas so as to enhance the cost-effectiveness of the department. I am
completely in favour of this suggestion. I think the Housing Department should
by all means improve its productivity and cut down its operating costs. They
may go as far as privatizing some of its services, that is, to contract out certain
services to private contractors. For example, in the past the Government
operated the major tunnels in the territory which proved to be unprofitable and
had incurred losses. However, after handing over these tunnels to private
operators, they have been able to make a profit without introducing increases in
tunnel fares. Therefore, I think this is an approach we should try out. But it
does not necessarily mean that the money we can save from certain aspects
should be used to further subsidize public housing tenants. This is illogical. If
we all think that public housing rent is taking up too large a portion of the
income of tenants, we should of course consider at which level we should set the
rents. But I would like to reiterate that when we approach this issue, we must
also consider the housing and non-housing expenditures of non-public housing
tenants. Only in this way would we be able to ensure a fair allocation of social
resources.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
1478
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I support the
amendment proposed by the Honourable LEE Wing-tat, and hope that other
colleagues will also support it. Just now we have taken our first step, that is, we
have successfully changed the rent review cycle from two years into three years.
If we do not change the present system, we will, as said by the Secretary, put the
tenants into great trouble, although our intention is to improve the system for
increasing rents. This is the first point.
Secondly, I hope my colleagues would not compare public housing with
private housing which is now operating under an unreasonable mechanism. The
high land price policy has made the present private housing mechanism a very
unfair one. So I hope we would not draw any comparison between private and
public housing because such a comparison would be unfair and unreasonable.
Mr Chairman, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment of Mr
LEE Wing-tat.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, just now I have said that
there are a lot of problems if we use the inflation rate as a criterion for setting
rent increases. This is because when the Housing Authority (HA) and the
Housing Department prepare their respective annual budgets, that is, when they
are drafting up the estimation of salaries of their staff, maintenance costs and
other expenditures, such items may not bear any direct relationship with
inflation. Besides, if we adopt the proposal of the Honourable LEE Wing-tat,
that is, setting rent increases at inflation less 2%, it will reduce substantially the
flexibility of the HA in the management of its financial resources. Furthermore,
I have also questioned why rent increases should be restricted at the inflation rate
minus 2%, and not minus 3%, 4% or 1%. So, this proposal does not contain any
reasonable arguments that are convincing to others.
On the other hand, when we are discussing public housing rents, many
members of the public may question whether we are really speaking for public
housing tenants, or whether we are speaking for the purpose of courting votes or
other reasons. However, I really hope that the public know that when we are
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1479
discussing public housing rents, we take a most impartial stance. We consider
public housing a kind of resources belonging to the community as a whole.
Public housing tenants are people who the public consider should be provided
with assistance. That is why we should set rents at a reasonable level which is
acceptable to the community as a whole. If we set the rents too low, I think the
Hong Kong people would find them unreasonable. I think increases in public
housing rents have a very significant relevance to the general public. I believe
the HA would accept this as well. They have recently held a meeting to discuss
the issue of increases in public housing rents in the context of the Long Term
Housing Strategy Review Consultative Document released by the Government.
They are also of the opinion that public housing rents should be linked up with
the affordability of tenants. Unfortunately, due to the expiry of their term of
office, they are unable to set the criteria for assessing the affordability of tenants.
Therefore, I really hope that I can move my amendment which proposes to
restrict rent increases to the MRIR of 10%. I think this should be the most ideal
proposal at the moment. I hope Members will vote against the amendment of
Mr Lee Wing-tat, so that I can move my amendment.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I was a member of the
Housing Authority (HA) in the 1980s. Due to my own career commitments, I
left the HA subsequently. However, my service with the HA at that time
enabled me to learn a lot about public housing issues.
During my service with the HA, I participated in fighting for the
appointment of some public opinion representatives into the HA. The
representatives so appointed included the Honourable LEE Wing-tat, the
Honourable Frederick FUNG and the Honourable WONG Wai-yin, now
Members of this Council. These are the facts. At that time, both Sir David
ACKER-JONES and me believed that if they could participate in the
management of the HA, they would understand how the HA considered various
issues in an overall perspective, and then they would not look at the public
housing issue from the perspective of pressure groups only. Unfortunately,
their performance in the debate today has illustrated how wrong I was at that
time. I am sure they know how the HA operates and manages its financial
resources with a view to benefiting more people with housing needs in the
1480
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
territory. Despite their knowledge of all these, they are still adopting the
approach of pressure groups in addressing the issue of housing. Assuming the
dual roles as Legislative Councillors and members or even leaders of political
parties, they can now use their votes in this Council to legislate and pass laws
that will become "superlaws" overriding the authority of the HA, thereby
controlling the finance of the HA. This development is really beyond my
expectation.
I can never believe that having served on the HA for such a long time, they
do not realize that the HA has to take into account of and strike a balance among
the interests of various parties, as they are men with intelligence and wisdom.
But I do not understand why they insist on amending the Bill just for the purpose
of enabling public housing tenants to pay cheaper rents. I do not dispute the
fact that some public housing tenants are financially poor, but I do not believe
that all public housing tenants are financially poor.
We should realize that a large number of public housing tenants have been
living in public housing for many years. As they are not as heavily burdened
with housing expenditures as private housing tenants, their financial difficulties
have gradually been alleviated. As their children have grown up and started to
work, their family income has naturally increased. Yet, the rents these tenants
pay remain at a reasonable and even low level when compared to the rents paid
by private housing tenants. Public housing tenants therefore can save up more
money than private housing tenants. Under such circumstances, if we continue
to cut down rent expenditures for tenants who have already lived in public
housing for a long time and subsequently made improvement to their financial
conditions, eventually the HA will not have sufficient resources to help those in
genuine need. I think it is wrong to allow this to take place.
Mr Dominic WONG, the Secretary for Housing, often says that the present
housing issue has been politicized. I think it is a basic issue. Half of the
population in Hong Kong are public housing tenants who have benefited from
the housing policy. As the beneficiaries, they will not object to other people
fighting for more benefits for them. However, I do not believe that all public
housing tenants would like to see this relatively unfair resource allocation system
continue to operate. Some of them are willing to pay more on rents. We have
half of the population living in public housing. To be frank, I have heard some
Members say that fighting for the benefits of tenants living in several public
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1481
housing blocks would suffice. This is a true reflection of what they think at the
time of election. It's 100% true. Are these Members wrong in thinking this
way? No, it is not their fault. Whoever stands for a direct election will act and
think along such a line since every candidate has to fight for the best benefits of
the electors whom they represent. Hence, this is basically the result of a lack of
foresight on the part of the Government.
Based on the current situation, I think Members who have not been elected
through popular or direct election will inevitably be accused of not fighting for
the interests of public housing tenants. When these Members take part in the
discussion on public housing, they will encounter a lot of opposition and
resistance. Does this mean that we have not striven for the interests of Hong
Kong? Of course not. As pointed out by the Honourable Edward HO just
now, we have to consider the interests of various parties as well as the overall
interests of Hong Kong, both in the long term and short term. Some Members
may refute my argument later in the Sitting. Indeed I hope they will do so, so
that I may have the opportunity to get to know their rationale. It is my belief
that the current situation is partly attributable to the fact that half of the
population of the territory are living in public housing flats. And with popular
and direct election in place, Members have no other option but to continue with
their fight for cheaper rents for public housing tenants. I think this is wrong,
but unfortunately we cannot do anything about it. That is why I think we
should think carefully about it and draw a clearer picture of the whole situation.
The enormous efforts contributed to meeting the housing needs of the general
public should not be allowed to bring about divisive effects on our community.
I hope that Members will consider the related issues carefully and I also
hope that Members will think carefully about how the issue of public housing
rents can be handled in a fair manner, so as to enable the HA to carry on with its
work to maintain its past success. We must not create a legislation that is in
effect a "superlaw" restricting the development of the HA. After all, the HA is
not a profit-making organization, and its only function is to do its best to serve
those with limited financial resources and in genuine need.
1482
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, I had not actually intended to speak
on this debate, but I was listening to my colleagues sitting in the ante-chamber
and I just wondered whether some of the bare facts have been actually laid before
this Council tonight.
Perhaps some of my colleagues who are much more knowledgeable in the
matter of public housing, be it for rental or be it ownership, would know these
facts far more intimately than I would, but I thought that at least as a Member of
this Council I ought to perhaps remind them that in terms of the housing policy
of the Hong Kong Government, despite all the efforts of Mr Dominic WONG,
the Secretary for Housing, over the last few years, obviously as politicians we are
never completely and totally happy with anything that the Government does,
however well they do it.
But I think fair is fair, in terms of the Hong Kong Government, over the
past years, public housing in Hong Kong actually houses, as I recall, just over
50% percent of our community. In terms of public rental housing, if I am
correct, there are about 660 000 units and of these units, all of which are rental
and I think there are a couple of 100 000 Home Ownership Scheme or Private
Sector Participation Scheme through which the occupiers of houses actually buy
the home at a fairly subsidised rate, but coming back to public housing on a
rental basis because that is what this particular Bill is all about, about a third of
them are new units and about two-thirds of them are old units.
And in terms of the rent that is charged, my understanding is that the
overall average for the MRIR is about 8.7, so call it 9%. For the new premises
it is 14%, whereas for the old it is somewhere between four and a half and 5%.
Now, why do I particularly want to bring out these particular statistics? It
is actually quite simple, because we always press the Government to improve the
living conditions of the less fortunate in Hong Kong, and I daresay that some of
our housing tenants certainly would fall, without any doubt, within the definition
that I have just made, the less fortunate. But having said that, some of them
also fall within the more fortunate. We actually have tenants living in our
public housing units driving Mercedes Benz. All you need to do is go and look
at the car park, you'll see it. We have multi-millionaires as public housing
tenants.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1483
I notice I got some reaction from the Gallery. If my comments surprise
you, but that unfortunately is the policy that our Government has decided that if
you are a public housing tenant basically ......
CHAIRMAN: Mr Ronald ARCULLI, may I remind you that you are not
supposed to address the gallery.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: My apology, Mr Chairman, I just cannot help
noticing some reactions from the gallery. I was not addressing the gallery, I
would not do the Chair that disrespect, and I do apologize.
But some of our public housing tenants are actually multi-millionaires.
Where in the world, what country in the world, I ask, would you find
multi-millionaires? But the reason for that is because of a policy that was
decided some years ago by the Hong Kong Government, and that policy was
simply this.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Ronald ARCULLI, please speak to the question.
question is on section 16(1A)(b) in clause 2.
The
MR MARTIN LEE: Is Standing Orders against filibusters, Mr Chairman?
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, obviously my Honourable colleague,
Martin LEE, realizes that the longer he keeps me on my feet the longer I would,
in his words, filibuster, but I am not seeking a filibuster.
But, as I said, Mr Chairman, coming back to the point, in terms of
resources that we have in Hong Kong, in terms of wanting to improve the
housing quality and housing standards, a lot of our old units need to be ─ and I
do not say "need" in a frivolous way ─ need to be demolished, rebuilt ......
1484
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
CHAIRMAN: Mr Ronald ARCULLI, we are on section 16(1A)(b) which is
about the determination of rent.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr Chairman, if you would bear with me, I pointed
out earlier that in terms of the rent for new premises, it was 14%. In terms of
the rent for old premises it was 5% of the MRIR. The point that I am seeking to
address Members, and indeed you, Mr Chairman, is that if we have to redevelop
the old units and rebuild new units the 5%, which is two thirds of our existing
public rental housing units, the 5% will no longer apply.
So, if let us say we redevelop half of the old units, Mr Chairman, we would
then still have a third of our public housing rental units paying 5%, but the new
units would be paying 14% of the MRIR. Now, if that is so the average that I
drew your attention to earlier, Mr Chairman, of 8.7% or indeed, say rounded up
to 9%, would far exceed the limit that is sought and has been, sort of, agreed to
by some colleagues here in the Honourable LEE Wing-tat's amendment.
So, basically what I am saying is that if we want to have, to improve the
quality of housing and ultimately redevelop the entire two thirds of the old units
then the rent, even if we kept the percentage of MRIR at 14%, it would certainly
far exceed the limit that is set by Mr LEE Wing-tat's amendment.
My spies tell me that if that happened in 10 years' time, the Housing
Authority, who all of us are under the impression right now, is totally flush with
cash, will have a $30 billion deficit. Where does that leave us? Is that what
we want to see? It does not matter whether it is in five years' time or five days'
time or five months' time. I think what we do owe our community is decent
housing at an affordable price and I think as far as the current policy is
concerned, part of which is set out, Mr Chairman, as you realise in the Long
Term Housing Strategy Review, and part of which is quite controversial, I think
we owe it to the community to come to a rational and a fair decision. And on
that basis, Mr Chairman, I would say that Members should not support the
particular clause in question. Thank you.
MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, Members of this Council
are all very concerned that the affordability of tenants should be taken into
account in implementing increases in public housing rents. But the crux of the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1485
issue is that the proposals of the Bill or its amendments are basically confusing
the roles of the Legislature and the Executive. It is the role of the Legislature to
monitor the work of the Executive. If the Executive has implemented measures
which lead to injustice or situations adversely affecting or endangering the
livelihood of the people, then we have the responsibility to rectify such problems.
As we all know, Hong Kong's economy is developing fast, and we also
enjoy rapid developments in many other aspects. If a three-year interval of rent
increase for public housing is imposed, it will undoubtedly bring about great
impact on the policy implementation as well as the source of revenue of the Hong
Kong Government.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I cannot put up with this
any more because many colleagues are just repeating the same points without
speaking specifically on the question. The topic we are discussing is the setting
of rent at the MRIR of 10% or at the rate of inflation minus 2%. But the
Honourable Ambrose LAU is speaking on the constitutional system and the
triennial rent increase, which has nothing to do with the question itself. Mr
Chairman, I think you have to determine whether this debate is fair, and whether
there are Members deliberately delaying the passage of the amendment. If this
is the case, I will be very much saddened. If this situation is allowed to
continue, the voting will probably be delayed to 6 o'clock this morning.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Ambrose LAU, please speak to the question.
MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, if you can be a little more
patient, you will understand the purpose of my speech. The purpose of my
speech is to assess whether the current proposal of limiting the amount of rent is
a rational and fair practice in the best interests of the whole community.
I think it is against the interests of the community of Hong Kong as a
whole if the Legislature is going to instruct the Government on what it should do
in future. We are all concerned about the interests of public housing tenants.
But the important point is: we have to take the overall interests of the community
as the major concern and the guiding principle of our measures. If the
1486
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Legislature takes the place of the Executive in discharging its duties, or instructs
the Executive on what it should do, under the guiding principle I mentioned
earlier, it will, without any justifiable grounds, impose restrictions and prescribe
limits on the functions and responsibilities of the Executive. Hence, I think the
Legislative Council should not make a decision that will restrict the increases in
public housing rents to be implemented by the Government in future.
As we all understand, we should not assume that any measures
implemented by the present Hong Kong Government and the future Government
of the Special Administrative Region will have adverse effects on the interests of
public housing tenants. We cannot make such an assumption. As we cannot
make such an assumption, there are no grounds for us to restrict any decisions to
be made by the future Executive by way of our legislative decision.
Furthermore, if there are really some unjust circumstances, the Legislative
Council can still rely on its capacity and authority to impose restrictions on the
Government. We can then exert our pressure on the Government through a
number of means, such as moving motion debates ......
CHAIRMAN: Mr Ambrose LAU, please speak to the question.
MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, regarding the issue of rent
increases and the restrictions imposed on rent increases to be introduced by the
Government, I think since we have this mechanism in place at the moment, we
can also use it to impose restrictions on the Government in future. That is why I
do not think we should prescribe strict stipulations on rent increases at this stage.
I hope that Members will consider carefully whether this measure is definitely in
the interests of public housing tenants. I think we should consider seriously the
overall interests of the community before making a decision.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I so submit.
CHAIRMAN: Before I put Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion to the Committee for a
vote, I would advise Members that if Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion is agreed, that
will by implication mean that the respective amendments proposed by Mr CHAN
Kam-lam and Mr Bruce LIU are not approved. If Mr LEE Wing-tat's motion is
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1487
negatived, I will call on Mr CHAN Kam-lam to move his amendment. Whether
or not Mr Bruce LIU will be able to move his amendment will depend on the
Committee's decision on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's motion.
Question on Mr LEE Wing-tat's amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam claimed a division.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to
vote on the question that the amendment to section 16(1A)(b) moved by Mr LEE
Wing-tat be approved.
Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and
then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their
votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong,
Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU,
Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG
Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr
Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr
LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr
1488
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling
voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward
HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM
Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard
YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN
Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr
CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him,
Mr Ambrose LAU, Mr LO Suk-ching, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN
Kam-chuen voted against the amendment.
Dr LAW Cheung-kwok abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 28 votes in favour of the
amendment and 28 votes against it.
CHAIRMAN: In accordance with the principle set down by Speaker DENISON
in 1867, I exercise my casting vote in the negative. The amendment is
negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the amendment moved by Mr LEE Wing-tat
has been negatived, I now call upon Mr CHAN Kam-lam to move his
amendment.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that the proposed
section 16(1A)(b) in clause 2 be amended as set out in the paper circularized to
Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2 (see Annex XXVI)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1489
Question on Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment put.
Voice vote taken.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to
vote on the question that the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Kam-lam be
approved.
Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and
then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their
votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong,
Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG
Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr
YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam,
Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr Paul
CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG
Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr Albert HO, Mr IP
Kwok-him, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong,
Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan,
Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John
TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr Edward HO, Mr Ronald
ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry
TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr
1490
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Ambrose LAU, Mr LO Suk-ching and Miss Margaret NG voted against the
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 40 votes in favour of the
amendment and 15 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment
was carried.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit complained that his voting machine did not work.
CHAIRMAN: When there is a complaint, first of all, the Clerk will test the unit
again. Does it work? We will test the unit again.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I wish to clarify whether this
is a testing of the unit, or a revoting.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): How many Members voted just now? Were there
56 Members? It seems that there is one short of head count, because there are
57 Members now. I will now take head count.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I did not vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): It does not matter.
CHAIRMAN : It is a very big margin, 40 for the "Ayes" and 15 for the "Noes".
It does not affect the result at all.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As Mr CHAN Kam-lam's amendment has been
agreed, it is not possible for Mr Bruce LIU to move his amendment, as it is
inconsistent with the decision already taken.
Question on clause 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1491
Long title
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that the long
title be amended by the addition of its Chinese text as set out in the paper
circularized to Members.
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bill
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG reported that the
HOUSING (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 1996
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading
of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed and put.
Voice vote taken.
Dr YEUNG Sum and Mr SZETO Wah claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to
vote on the Third Reading of the Housing (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1996.
Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and
then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
1492
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their
votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Man-kwong,
Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU,
Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG
Wai-yin, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr CHAN Wing-chan, Miss
CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Andrew CHENG, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Dr Anthony
CHEUNG, Mr CHEUNG Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr
Albert HO, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr
LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr
MOK Ying-fan, Mr NGAN Kam-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG
Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for
the motion.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Dr David LI, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr Edward
HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr CHIM
Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr Henry TANG, Dr Philip WONG, Mr Howard
YOUNG, Miss Christine LOH, Mr James TIEN, Mr Paul CHENG, Mr Ambrose
LAU, Mr LO Suk-ching and Miss Margaret NG voted against the motion.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 38 votes in favour of the motion
and 19 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bill
INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 April
1997
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, Section 14 of the Hong Kong
Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO) provides that, "No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1493
correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or
attacks." This provision is the same as Article 17 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and is similar to Article 8 of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
However, under the existing laws of Hong Kong, if public interest so
requires, the Governor may authorize any public officer to intercept
communications under section 33 of the Telecommunication Ordinance (TO),
without giving any reasons. Section 13 of the Post Office Ordinance (POO)
also empowers the Chief Secretary to authorize the Postmaster General or any
officer of the Post Office to open any specified postal packet or all postal packets
of whatever class.
The Ordinances have not clearly provided for the situations under which
such powers can be exercised or the nature of offences they seek to deal with.
Also, there is no restriction in the Ordinances in respect of the usage of the
intercepted information or who can obtain such information and to whom such
information can be divulged. Although the Ordinances provide that the power
must be exercised in the interest of the public, there is no express provision on
the meaning of public interest. The Democratic Party considers that the powers
conferred by these Ordinances are too broad and not properly circumscribed.
As a result, the provisions will easily be subjected to abuse, seriously undermine
personal privacy and go against the right of personal privacy protected by
Section 14 of the BORO.
The United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) has made the
following comments on the provisions of Article 17 of the ICCPR, that is the
same as Section 14 of the BORO, which safeguard the right of personal privacy:
"The provisions should ensure that this right be guaranteed against all
interference, whether they emanate from state authorities or legal
persons."; "Relevant legislation must specify in detail the exact
circumstances in which such interference may be permitted. A decision
to permit such authorized interference must be made only by the authority
1494
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
designated under the law, and on a case-by-case basis. The signatories
should provide its own legislative framework prohibiting such acts."
From a number of cases of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),
we have concluded that there are some elements which are vital to that legal
framework. Such elements include specifying the persons against whom and
the types of offence for which an authorized interception warrant may be issued,
the valid period of the authorized interception warrant, the detailed procedures
for extracting sections of intercepted conversations and safeguards for erasing or
destroying the tapes containing intercepted messages, so that the scope of such
discretion conferred to government authorities and the ways in which such power
is to be exercised are stated in reasonably clear terms.
Furthermore, the law must be sufficiently clear to the public as to the
circumstances and conditions under which government authorities would be
empowered to intercept communications.
Such conditions include the
following: (1) there must be a "bona fide serious" crime; (2) normal investigation
methods must have been tried but subsequently failed; and (3) there must be
good reasons to believe that the interception of communications will most likely
lead to the arrest and conviction of criminals.
If the law is unclear, even if it has been enacted, it will still be criticized by
the ECHR as breaching the relevant convention. The United Kingdom has been
criticized by the ECHR for breaching the ICCPR because it failed to specify
clearly the scope of the discretion conferred to government authorities and how
such discretion can be exercised. The ECHR also held that the public lacked
the minimum legal protection which should have been provided for in a society
that is ruled by law.
In view of the above cases, the Privacy Sub-Committee of the Hong Kong
Law Reform Commission (LRC) had examined the provisions of the TO and
POO, and concluded that such provisions had similarly failed to specify the
scope of such discretion and the ways in which such power should be exercised
when the executive authorities are empowered to intercept communications. It
also failed to tell the public clearly the circumstances under which interception of
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1495
communications is permitted. As such, the provisions are inconsistent with
Section 14 of the BORO.
Obviously, as a responsible administration that lives up to its obligations,
the Hong Kong Government should have provided the relevant legal framework
as soon as possible in order to regulate the power of the executive authorities to
intercept communications, to protect personal privacy and to bring the laws of
Hong Kong in line with the BORO and ICCPR.
However, the Hong Kong Government has always taken a "lay back"
attitude and tried to use "delaying" tactics. It was not until being urged
repeatedly by human rights organizations and Legislative Council Members from
the Democratic Party that the Government came up with a white bill, which has
so far not been presented to this Council. Even now, the Hong Kong
Government still resorts to the argument that the Member's Bill proposed by the
Honourable James TO is unworkable from an administrative point of view and
tries to lobby Members of this Council to vote against the regulation of the
interception of communications by legislation. At this time when the British
Administration of Hong Kong is soon leaving the colony, on the one hand, it tells
the world that it has carried out its obligations under the ICCPR, and on the other
hand, it acts in the way I have just mentioned. I would like to ask the
Government how it can be accountable to our people, and how it can explain
itself to the UNHRC. At present, when the change of sovereignty over Hong
Kong is just around the corner, there are still many pieces of legislation in Hong
Kong that are inconsistent with the BORO and other international covenants on
human rights. But the Government is still turning a blind eye on these matters
and we think this is very regrettable indeed.
This Bill, the Second Reading of which the Democratic Party now seeks to
resume, aims at enacting the Interception of Communications Ordinance that can
fulfil the above requirements and conditions under the BORO. It provides that
law-enforcement officers can only apply for a warrant to intercept
communications under specified conditions and with sufficient reasons. This is
in line with the spirit of existing legislation that requires a law-enforcement
officer to apply to court for a warrant before entering a premise to conduct any
search.
The original version of the Bill proposed by Mr James TO seeks to restrict
the application by law enforcement officers for such warrant to the greatest
1496
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
extent possible in order to protect personal privacy. However, after discussions
with the relevant panel of the Legislative Council as well as other organizations
and Members, Mr James TO and we have taken on board the views that have
been expressed and are willing to make certain amendments. Later on, I shall
move on behalf of the Democratic Party some less drastic amendments, which
have accommodated the advice of the Government to amend the term "serious
crime" to the effect that it only means any offence punishable by a maximum
period of imprisonment of not less than seven years, as well as accepted our
colleagues' proposal in order that a warrant granted under each application shall
be valid for 90 days, and can be extended for another 90 days.
Moreover, the amendments that I am going to propose in my personal
capacity also include the procedures for destroying the intercepted materials and
permitting authorized persons to request in writing to the court objecting to the
destruction of the intercepted materials.
Mr President, with these remarks, I urge Members to support the Second
Reading of this Bill, as well as the amendments to be proposed by the
Democratic Party.
1.05 am
THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, DR LEONG CHE-HUNG, took the Chair.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I speak in support of the
Second Reading of the Interception of Communications Bill introduced by the
Honourable James TO.
As the Honourable Albert HO has just said, under section 33 of the
Telecommunication Ordinance (TO), the Governor may authorize a law
enforcement officer to interfere or intercept any communications in the interest
of the public. Also, in accordance with section 13 of the Post Office Ordinance
(POO), a warrant may be granted by the Chief Secretary to open or delay any
postal packets. The criterion of public interest is not even mentioned in the
latter ordinance. The Law Reform Commission (LRC) has commented that
these two ordinances are in contravention of Article 17 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Section 14 of the Bill of
Rights Ordinance (BORO). These two provisions stipulate that no one shall be
subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy or
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1497
correspondence, and that everyone has the right to the protection of the law
against such interference.
Mr Deputy, the Privacy Sub-Committee of the LRC issued a consultation
paper on the regulation of interception of communications by legislation in the
middle of last year and the LRC had completed its report by the end of the year.
Therefore, public opinion on the matter is already very clear and the Government
should have proceeded with legislation much earlier. But sadly, the Security
Branch subsequently issued another consultation paper on the Interception of
Communications Bill in February this year, "forcing" for another one-month
consultation exercise. This was but a trick to delay legislation. By the end of
the exercise, the Government said that it had received 14 submissions. Given
the consistently high efficiency of the Civil Service, in particular the Security
Branch under Mr Peter LAI, I believe that had the Government wished so, it
would no doubt have sufficient time to prepare the required bill and introduce it
to the Council.
However, Mr LAI would not bother to come to discuss the matter with
Members of the Council. He just sent his deputies to attend the joint meeting of
the Panels on Information Policy and Security, and these officials came up with
the excuse that the bill was not gazetted for the consideration of the Council
because the Government was not certain whether there would be enough votes
for its passage. I believe that all colleagues who were present at that joint
meeting, perhaps with the exception of the Honourable IP Kwok-him, were as
angry as I was about the way in which the Government handled the matter. Has
anyone ever heard that a bill would only be introduced to this Council when it is
certain that there will be enough supporting votes? Of course, the Secretary for
Security would say, "Why should it not be the case? It was really a hard blow
last time when the Crimes Bill was introduced!". I do not think it is fair to say
so. The most important thing is that, even the LRC considered that interception
of communications was in contravention of human rights conventions. And
who would have thought that the Secretary for Security would put up the excuse
of being not sure whether there was enough supporting votes? This is
unacceptable indeed.
Moreover, our Governor, Mr Chris PATTEN, who will leave his office in
just two days, should be very ashamed. I am sure Mr Deputy will recall that,
when he first took up his office, he said that he would review all laws concerning
1498
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
freedom of press and that he would definitely repeal or amend any legislation
that obstructed the freedom of press or ran against the BORO or the ICCPR.
The TO was one of the laws on the list he gave us. However, despite strong
criticisms of prominent human rights organizations all over the world, he dared
not, and would not, amend this ordinance. Therefore, I very much support this
Member's Bill introduced by Mr James TO.
It is proposed in the Bill that a law enforcement officer must obtain a
warrant from the court for tapping or intercepting communications. I support
the implementation of this court warrant system to replace the existing system
whereby the tapping or interception of communications is only allowed with the
authorization of the Governor or the Chief Secretary. Only in this way can
better protection be provided to the public in respect of their right to privacy.
Finally, Mr Deputy, I would like to mention that, in the consultation paper
issued by the Secretary for Security, nothing has been said about the regulation
of communications transmitted through the computer network. Experts in this
field, especially those from the Hong Kong University, are extremely annoyed by
this omission. The Government has explained that section 27A of the TO has
already had sufficient safeguard built in. However, if we look at section 27A of
the TO more carefully, we will see that it only regulates unauthorized access to
computer systems, which means hacking. This provision cannot possibly
safeguard the messages transmitted through the computer network and ensure
that such messages will be not be arbitrarily or unlawfully intercepted by law
enforcement officers. This matter should have been dealt with in Mr James
TO's Bill and I am going to give the Bill my support.
Of course, we feel sorry that we do not have enough time to study the Bill.
But I do not think the Legislative Council should be held responsible for it, rather
it is because of the Government's repeated procrastination that left us no time to
do the job. Even though the Government knows very well that the two
ordinances are in contravention of the ICCPR and BORO, it just turns a blind eye
on the matter and takes no action at all, thereby making the same mistake again
and again. It is hard to understand how the Hong Kong Government, which
always takes pride in being a government that respects human rights and the rule
of law, can actually tolerate this grave situation for so many years and completely
ignores its existence. It has intentionally delayed action and gives us the
excuses of insufficient time and insufficient supporting votes only at the very last
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1499
minute. It seems that the Government does not care about the matter at all. I
am very angry about this and I do not think it is an attitude that a responsible
government should have.
With this remarks, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, ever since the enactment and
commencement of the Bill of Rights Ordinance (BORO), many pieces of
legislation that were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights previously have been
amended and a set of laws aiming at protecting the individual's right to privacy
has been in place. The Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance is one of such
examples. After years of efforts by the Government, there is only one area, that
is the interception of communications, which still lacks an effective statutory
regulatory framework.
At the end of last year, the Law Reform Commission (LRC) issued a report
on the regulation of interception of communications and proposed the
introduction of a court warrant system to replace the existing system under which
the authorization of the Governor or the Chief Secretary is required for the issue
of a warrant.
I believe that the Interception of Communications Bill now proposed by
Mr James TO for the consideration of this Council is modelled on the major
recommendations contained in the LRC report, and its purpose is to protect
individual privacy and prevent it from any unnecessary interference. This
principle is desirable. But at present, law enforcement authorities have been
relying heavily on the interception of communications to obtain important clues
for the detection and prevention of serious crimes. It is necessary if Hong Kong
is to preserve its high crime detection rate and maintain good law and order.
Mr Deputy, as far as the privacy of individuals and the law and order of
Hong Kong are concerned, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong
Kong (DAB) is of the view that any relevant legislation must be drawn up after
thorough deliberation and wide consultation of the public and all law
enforcement authorities, so that a balanced proposal may be made. This is the
kind of attitude that we legislators should have. If controversial or disputable
laws were rushed through without detailed discussions, unimaginable
1500
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
consequences might arise, resulting in the situation where "bad things are done
out of good intentions". It is certainly something that we do not want to see.
Moreover, the Government has already issued a white bill earlier on and the
related consultation exercise has concluded. I think Mr TO also admits that the
mechanism proposed by the Government in regulating the issue of warrant is
better, and the treatment of intercepted materials and the establishment of an
appeal mechanism are more preferable. On the contrary, in respect of the
operation of law enforcement authorities, the present Bill has imposed many
restrictions against which the Government has raised its objections in various
aspects.
Mr Deputy, given the far-reaching implications of the Bill and the absence
of adequate consultation with and discussions by interested parties, the DAB has
reservations about the hasty passage of the Bill at this stage. At the same time, I
hope the future SAR Government will introduce the relevant legislation to the
SAR legislature for consideration as soon as possible so as to make up for the
shortcomings of the existing system.
Mr Deputy, with these remarks, I object to the amendment of the
ordinances.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I speak on behalf of the Hong
Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL). The
existing Telecommunication Ordinance (TO) empowers the Governor to order
interception of communications if he considers that public interest so requires.
The Post Office Ordinance (POO) also gives similar authority to the Chief
Secretary or the Postmaster to inspect postal packets.
I was asked whether Members in this Chamber had experienced such
interceptions by the Hong Kong Government, or rather, the Governor? Mr
Deputy, has your medical clinic ever been intercepted with in terms of
communications? How about the headquarters of political parties to which
Members in this Council belong? Have those telephone lines ever been tapped?
Is it usual that telephone or communications are intercepted? I cannot provide
an answer to this question. But the Honourable LAU Chin-shek at one point
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1501
disclosed in the press and magazines that, in the place he works, that is, the office
of the Christian Industrial Committee, tapping apparatus could be found all over
and he had hired people to conduct demonstration on anti-tapping there.
I believe that interception by the Administration is quite a prevailing
matter. But why do I see it that way? It is because the LRC has made an
interesting comments in its report on privacy. Although the question that how
many tappings the Government actually made in the past has been asked many
times, according to our record, Mr Gilbert LEUNG first asked that question on
11 November 1992. The answer provided by the Administration at that time
was that it could not disclose the details due to security reasons. This model
answer has been adopted so far and it is not known whether the Administration
has made tapping or not, let alone the numbers. Recently, however, there are
indications that tapping is increasing because it is reported in the press that the
Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has installed extra
equipment and hired ten more staff members to enhance its tapping capability
from 50 to 80 lines. The ICAC alone can already tap 80 telephone lines and it is
not known how many lines can be tapped by other government departments. In
fact, we all know that this situation exists.
I think that it makes sense if tapping is for public safety, the security of
Hong Kong and some other security reasons. That is to say, there must be good
reasons such as the three major reasons mentioned by Mr Albert HO just now.
Yet it is not so in reality. Apart from those reasons such as for the investigation
of serious crimes, there are many other reasons, including political
considerations. Given the Hong Kong situation, the existing practice is not
desirable. The LRC has concluded that such actions are in violation of the
ICCPR, the detailed provisions of which I shall repeat no more as they have just
been mentioned by other Members. The LRC states in its report that, at present,
section 33 of the TO and section 13 of the POO have suffered nine drawbacks
due to the absence of a good regulatory framework. I shall briefly talk about
these nine drawbacks which are the very reasons why legislation is needed.
First, the provisions do not specify the grounds on which an interception
may be carried out. Second, neither the Governor nor the Chief Secretary is
required to have any grounds for suspicion when authorizing an interception, that
is, no reasons need to be provided when making such application. Third, the
authorizing officer is not required to be satisfied that the information sought by
1502
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
the applicant cannot reasonably be obtained by other less intrusive means.
Fourth, the provisions do not impose any restrictions as to the duration of the
warrant. Fifth, the provisions make no requirements on the contents of an order,
that is, no remarks are made for the contents. Sixth, they are not monitored by
an independent body on a regular basis. Seventh, the officer issuing the order
or warrant is not accountable to the public at large. Eighth, the provisions do
not provide for any means by which the legality of an interception can be
reviewed by a judicial or administrative body. Lastly, the provisions do not
provide for any judicial or administrative remedies for an individual who suffers
damage by reason of an interception which has been improperly authorized.
Actually, these nine points are already good reasons for us to seek
legislation. Hence the LRC concludes that it is clear that the two ordinances do
not provide sufficient protection against unlawful or arbitrary interference with
the individual's right to privacy and freedom of communication. Therefore,
legislation must be put in place to regulate the interception of communications.
It is a very clear conclusion that the best party to draft the legislation is the
Administration because bills drafted by the Government normally involve
experts and are therefore more specific and can have charging effect. It is for
these reasons that the white bills drafted by the Government contain more details.
If the Government does not take the initiative to draft, it is the duty of Members
to introduce a Member's Bill. However, there is a restriction that a Member's
Bill may not have a charging effect. Thus, we must apply certain skills when
drafting such bills.
Regarding Mr James TO's Bill, I have gone through it in great detail in
order to see whether it is workable. The Government says that a few things
contained in the Bill are not workable and therefore it should not be supported.
I would like to comment and respond to this. Firstly, the Bill proposed to
remove "the security of Hong Kong" as a ground for issuing an interception
warrant. In this connection, I think the ground "the security of Hong Kong"
should be added back and I have discussed this with Mr James TO. I think this
point should be supported at the Committee stage.
Secondly, it says that the scope of this ordinance is too broad because oral
conversations will also be included and amounted to interception of
communications. For instance, if I said something to the Honourable MOK
Ying-fan and it was overheard and recorded, it will also amount to an
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1503
interception. Mr James TO is agreeable to this and he has deleted oral
interception from his Bill. Therefore, we need not worry about this.
Thirdly, at present, the duration of an interception warrant is 30 days and
renewable for another 30 days. It is not operational if its duration is so short.
In this regard, we have to see and compare the situations in other countries and
then we will see the problem regarding the duration and renewal of a warrant.
The duration of a warrant in the United States is 30 days, in New Zealand it is
also 30 days and these are the shortest. In Canada and the United Kingdom, the
duration of a warrant is 60 days, whereas in Australia it is 90 days. If a warrant
is to be extended, it will be of a similar duration. Mr TO has opted for the
shortest duration of 30 days in his Bill; yet he will move an amendment. The
Honourable Albert HO is going to move amendment too. In order to allay the
worry of the Administration, we may give a warrant the longest duration to allow
for more working time. Therefore, I am in support of Mr Albert HO's proposal
that the duration should be extended to up to 90 days and renewable for another
90 days. As such, the duration of a warrant will amount to six months
altogether and this should be feasible.
There is a further point I would like to make. The power to issue warrant
should be taken away from the Governor and put into the hand of a High Court
Judge. The Administration of course wants things to remain unchanged.
However, the LRC has indicated that Hong Kong should separately provide an
independent mechanism under which the relevant decision would be made by the
Judiciary. This is to avoid the so-called conflict of roles. The warrant system
under the Judiciary is meant to strike a balance in case there are conflicts
between the individual's rights and the Government's interest. As interception
of communications involves certain sensitive issues, the monitoring of the
Government by an independent authority is important in maintaining public
confidence in the warrant issuing system. This cannot be achieved just by a
senior Government official granting permission to application referred to by a
government department. The best way is to appoint a judge as an arbitrator to
determine whether it is really necessary to intercept communications.
It is believed that after the amendments, the Bill will be enforceable and
consistent with the BORO. I think the LRC and the public are keen to see
expeditious enactment of the Bill. As such, the ADPL will support the Bill.
Lastly, as a Member's Bill may not have any charging effect, the only deficiency
1504
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
in Mr TO's Bill is that it lacks a so-called monitoring authority or the
establishment of another monitoring body to directly channel such complaints to
that authority. It is hoped that the Administration will introduce amendments at
appropriate time to ensure the presence of a regulating authority. In that case,
there will be a two tier system which will in fact enhance the enforceability of the
Bill.
Mr Deputy, with these remarks, I support the Second and Third Readings
of the Bill.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, I speak on behalf of the
Liberal Party to spell out our views on the Honourable James TO's Interception
of Communications Bill. We very much respect Mr TO for introducing this
Bill. We also agree in principle that this Bill is really necessary. Anyhow, we
feel regret and pity because the Government has in fact delayed the matter and in
this regard, Mr TO had expressed to us his grievance. We also understand and
recognize his feeling because we are of the opinion that it is really necessary to
legislate and conduct studies as early as possible with regard to such an
important Bill which provides protection to individual's privacy as well as human
rights.
However, we do have some comments on the present way of legislation.
Although some consultation papers are drawn up, there has not been detailed
examination or appropriate time to complete the necessary work as far as
deliberation of the Bill is concerned. We consider that, after all, the work has
been done too hastily. Therefore, although the Liberal Party raises no objection
to the Bill, we will abstain from voting. We hope Mr James TO can understand
and respect our way of thinking. The most important thing is that we are
worried that the Bill might impose unnecessary restrictions on law enforcement
and as a result, a price has to be paid at the expense of law and order. As we are
not fully satisfied that the passage of the Bill will not cause such a consequence,
we cannot support the Bill, but we will not vote against it.
Thank you, Mr Deputy.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1505
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY: Mr Deputy, the Administration strongly
opposes the Honourable James TO's Members' Bill.
Having carefully studied Committee stage amendments proposed by Mr
James TO and the Honourable Albert HO, we find that the Bill, with or without
the Committee stage amendments, would pose serious operational difficulties to
our law enforcement agencies.
The proposals in the Bill and the Committee stage amendments have been
drawn up without prior consultation with our law enforcement agencies. The
implementation of the Bill would be prejudicial to the security of Hong Kong and
would bring no benefit other than to criminals who will benefit from its flaws.
Some of the proposals in the Bill will increase privacy risks and they run
against the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in its report on
privacy.
It is important that we should not rush into enacting a Bill in this area
without the most extensive consultation of affected parties and careful scrutiny
by a Bills committee of this Council.
Let me now set out for Honourable Members the main defects of this Bill
and the proposed Committee stage amendments. First, Mr James TO has
proposed a Committee stage amendment to remove "security of Hong Kong" as a
ground for issuing an interception warrant. This would have serious and
adverse consequences detrimental to the security of Hong Kong. Interception
of communications is an important means for our law enforcement agencies to
keep track of and take necessary preventive measures against activities which
might pose a threat to the security of Hong Kong, such as the activities of
terrorist groups.
In many overseas jurisdictions like Canada, the United States, Australia
and New Zealand, security is one of the grounds for granting an interception
warrant. It is also one of the grounds recognized under Article 8 of the
European Convention on Human Rights, and Article 30 of the Basic Law which
justifies interference by the relevant authorities with the exercise of the right to
privacy.
1506
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Removing "security of Hong Kong" as a ground for interception will
deprive our law enforcement agencies of an important tool to safeguard the
security of Hong Kong.
Secondly, although Mr James TO has proposed Committee stage
amendments to exclude from the Bill surveillance aspects, that is to say the
recording of oral communication, it would still pose operational difficulties to
law enforcement. The Bill does not provide exemption to cater for the
operational need of law enforcement agencies to intercept certain radio
communications for which it is impossible to specify the target and the radio
spectrum, for example, for the purpose of detecting smuggling cases where
criminals invariably use unlicensed telecommunications equipment. Neither
does the Bill provide exemption for the routine operation of the
Telecommunications Authority to intercept radio communication for detecting
unlawful interference, some of which could affect the safety of life, for example,
interference of aeronautical and navigation or landing aids.
Thirdly, by allowing only one renewal of an interception warrant, the Bill
also poses practical difficulties to law enforcement. Although Mr James TO has
proposed to extend the duration of warrant from 30 days to 60 days and Mr
Albert HO has proposed to extend this to 90 days, the restriction allowing for
only one renewal of the same duration will still affect long-term investigations
into, for example, organized and serious crimes, where the interception
operations are by their very nature necessarily protracted. It would mean that
even if the continuance of an interception operation could yield crucial
information leading to the detection of a serious crime, it has to stop on the
expiry of the warrant if it has been renewed once.
Fourthly, apart from posing operational difficulties to law enforcement, the
Bill also increases privacy risks in two important aspects. It allows intercepted
material to be used as court evidence. This will entail public dissemination of
personal information and is recommended against by the Law Reform
Commission. It will, of course, also have the undesirable effect of revealing our
law enforcement capabilities to intended criminals.
Although the Committee stage amendments proposed by Mr Albert HO
would remove the privacy risk arising from the original proposal to notify the
target of interception following the termination of an interception operation, Mr
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1507
James TO has proposed to introduce a new clause on remedies to allow persons
aggrieved by an unlawful interception to apply for remedies through court
proceedings. The Law Reform Commission has examined this issue and
concluded that this is not a preferable course of action. For one thing, the
aggrieved person would invariably have an impossible task to secure enough
evidence to prove that he has been a victim to an unlawful interception.
Moreover such civil proceedings would inevitably involve the disclosure of
sensitive information related to the interception operation, thereby increasing
privacy risks, just as in the case of admitting intercepted material as evidence in
criminal proceedings.
In order to provide effective remedies for aggrieved persons, the Law
Reform Commission recommends the setting up of an independent supervisory
authority who may award compensation and at the same time help maintain
public confidence in the system by keeping the warrant system under regular
review. This course of action is not adopted in the Bill.
It is clear from the above that it is not in the public interest to pass this
Bill. While the Administration fully acknowledges that the regulation of
interception of
communications is an area of understandable public concern, it must be
recognized that this is a complicated area with wide-ranging implications. It is
important to ensure that legislation on this area strikes the right balance between
the protection of privacy and the justifiable needs of law enforcement agencies
for
an effective tool to combat crime and to safeguard the security of Hong Kong.
To this end, we are working hard to examine the various issues raised in
response to our consultation exercise on the Administration's White Bill on the
Interception of Communications in February this year. We believe the proper
way forward is for the Administration to press ahead with its work with a view to
resolving all the outstanding issues as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, it would
not be practicable to introduce a Bill into the current Legislative Council.
Mr James TO's Members' Bill, drawn up without prior consultation with
the law enforcement agencies, is entirely unworkable and the Administration will
not be able to bring it into operation. It would be irresponsible to rush through
legislation on this area especially since the change to an entirely new system is
1508
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
involved. In other jurisdictions, changes of this nature take years to work out
and to reach a broad consensus on the sensitive aspect of law enforcement. It
would be reckless to pass legislation which would deprive our law enforcement
agencies of a useful tool to safeguard the security of Hong Kong.
Nor would it be helpful to introduce changes hastily if the result was that
our law enforcement capability against serious crimes, such as drugs trafficking,
kidnapping and money laundering, were seriously jeopardized. The effect of
Mr James TO's Members' Bill would be detrimental to the security of Hong
Kong. It would also have an adverse impact on our common efforts to maintain
Hong Kong as one of the safest cities in the world with an enviably high
detection rate.
For these reasons, we urge Honourable Members to vote against the Bill.
Let me make one last point abundantly clear. If the Bill were passed
today, the Administration will have no option but to seek to repeal it as soon as
possible thereafter. Thank you, Mr Deputy.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, how much time have I left?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT: 15 Minutes. You do not have to use all your 15
minutes.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Deputy, first of all, I would like to thank
colleagues for their careful scrutiny of the Bill, including those who cannot
render their support or those who will abstain from voting. In fact, I know that
they have studied the Bill in great detail before arriving at their conclusions.
The Secretary for Security started by saying that the Administration would
require full consultation with various departments. I am really shocked at such
a statement coming from the Administration. In fact, as far as consultation is
concerned, the Administration has received many comments on its white bill.
As for Government departments, they have been sending us submissions when
the issue was taken up by the LRC. There are representatives from the police in
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1509
the Subcommittee of the LRC as well. Actually, comments such as whether the
proposals are workable and where the point of balance should lie have been dealt
with in the LRC report. I believe that the Administration has conducted
consultations and has found the ideas enforceable before introducing its white
bill. Many of my points are in fact similar or even identical to the ideas of the
Administration, except those areas where public money cannot be used, such as
the monitoring aspects mentioned by the Administration or a second level of
monitoring proposed by the Honourable Bruce LIU. In fact, it is because of the
need to avoid the charging effect that I proposed the provision on compensation
to be awarded to victims in accordance with court decisions. But then, the
Administration argued that nothing could be done if one did not know that he
was being tapped. In fact, if such situation exists, there will be compensations.
The matter is whether it is easy to obtain compensation and I think it is not.
However, I believe that, if the Administration really acts in good faith to deal
with the problem, after my amendments, it should amend rather than repeal the
provision as it has said so irresponsibly. For instance, it could introduce a
regulatory mechanism, a second level monitoring mechanism and the awarding
of compensations.
Furthermore, if the Administration says that there has been no full
consultation in relation to the Bill, it is wrong. Why? It is because the
Administration has already expressed its views during our meetings with the
Panel on Security. I believe that, at the time when the Government criticized
my Bill, it would not do so without consulting the police or the related law
enforcing departments. If the white bill was drafted by an Administrative
Officer on his own without consultation, I would be really surprised. It is
definitely not the case. No matter how he did the drafting and no matter how
his department conducted the consultation, the Bill should have contained all
information available and should have everything written down. I can only
assume that the bill proposed by the Administration is exhaustive because the
Administration is in a much better position than I am in terms of manpower and
resources. Therefore, it should have written down everything they can put up.
Now I would like to respond to the comments made by the Administration.
First of all, it said that I deleted the reference of the security of Hong Kong from
the definition. In this connection, the Honourable Bruce LIU has been helpful
in saying that the Honourable Albert HO's amendment will retain the reference of
the security of Hong Kong as well. Later on, I hope to seek permission from the
1510
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
President for separate voting to be taken on the Committee stage amendments
(CSA) in respect of section 4B. In fact, I will urge Members to vote against my
amendment so that the reference to the security of Hong Kong can be retained.
Perhaps I shall explain why I change my position from proposing the deletion of
the "security of Hong Kong" to asking for your objection to my amendment so
that my proposed deletion can be retained. I really think that the scope of
"security of Hong Kong" is too broad and in response to requests made by the
Bar Association, I would like to narrow it down so as to make it more specific.
In this connection, the "security of Hong Kong" already covers the terrorists
mentioned by the Administration just now. If this is the case, they are already
included in offences punishable by a maximum period of imprisonment of not
less than 7 years. If the terrorists and terrorism it mentioned refer to activities in
connection with bombing, poison gases, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons and
so on, the terms of punishment for such offences all exceed the aforesaid
sentence and can basically be dealt with by interception of communications.
We have also taken into account whether the so-called "anti-government
activities" have ever been considered by the Administration and what such
activities are. In fact, I originally included in my amendment the newly passed
offence of espionage, such as spying provided in the Official Secrets Act and the
related offences. Moreover, offences like treason, sedition and subversion are
also included in my Bill. As court permission is required, I hope to narrow
down the scope instead of looking for what constitutes the security of Hong
Kong other than such crimes. We note that national security is included in the
legal provisions of many western countries or democratic countries. We now
have similar provisions in our laws and that the permission will ultimately be
given by a court. In the light of the abovementioned situation and that all
members of the LRC seem to agree to this view, I think that such a viewpoint can
be taken and retained as a principle for the time being. And that is what I am
going to do.
Regarding the interception of oral communications, in response to
Members' requests and after careful considerations, I have decided to withdraw
such requirements and will propose amendments at the Committee stage. As
the LRC will later issue a report in this regard, I hope the Administration will
consider the problems in detail then.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1511
As regards the renewal of warrants, that is, the maximum period of
extension and duration of a warrant, I want to thank Mr Bruce LIU for citing
examples of other countries, that is, the countries in which the duration of a
warrant is 30 days, 60 days, 90 days and so on. In fact, all the countries or
territories I mentioned just now apply those standards even for uncovering spying
activities, matters concerning national security or anti-intelligence operations.
In another word, I really think that 90 days plus another 90 days is the maximum
and can be extended no more. Therefore, if you go for 60 days plus 60 days,
please give me your support. If you go for 90 days plus another 90 days, then
please support Mr Albert HO. The choice merely represents certain ideology or
certain viewpoints that relaxation is wanted. If you say that the six-month
duration referred in the Administration's white bill can be extended indefinitely, I
really cannot imagine what the situation will be. You go to a court to apply for
a warrant every half a year and then the Administration argues that some of the
cases are long-term investigations. To be honest, it is just like the kind of
fishing strategy extending every half a year and it will go on for a long time. If
this is the case, where is the point of balance with regard to the so-called
individual's right to privacy? How can we agree to provisions like these?
On the other hand, in other countries, reference is made by comparing the
manpower with the law enforcing efficiency. For example, in the interception
of communications, no matter how advanced the equipment used is, it is still
necessary to deploy lots of manpower and resources. It is like a situation where
you had intercepted certain communications for 90 days, that is, three months,
and you still said that it was not long enough and you made another application
for a further three months. After six months, you still got nothing. In such
case, you had deployed manpower and resources that were not commensurate
with the efficiency as you originally stated. Given our limited police strength,
we just cannot deploy our human resources like that for half a year. Many
countries have concluded that this method is not cost effective and it is
impossible for the law enforcing departments to apply this kind of fishing
strategy. Moreover, if, for instance, the duration of a warrant is 90 days and
during which you have found some crucial information, you can in fact make a
new application. Reasons? It is because you have obtained additional
evidence with which you will soon solve the case. Why is it so? It is because
within that 180 days or 90 days, the so-called target should have begun to contact
other people on secret codes, to talk about the places of transaction as well as
1512
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
how to hide the money, how to conduct the robbery and how to make
arrangement for firearms. As crucial information will soon be obtained, the
court will be convinced to grant another 90 days. This is quite reasonable and
the court will easily be convinced. Therefore, it does not sound reasonable
when you say it is not known whether this can be done or not.
The Administration argues that, under certain circumstances, if law
enforcing officers really have to produce materials to be used as court evidence,
it may reveal the so-called law enforcement capabilities.
I think there will always be such a contradiction. For instance, if an
"undercover agent" is deployed to collect information on a long term basis, his
identity should not be revealed in courts for testification. Why? It is because
if it is the case, the identity of the undercover agent will be known to all and the
line through which crucial information is collected will be broken. The
common saying for that situation is that the line " has turned yellow" and that
means the line is broken. The evidence can only be used for prosecution on that
charge. You may say that it is not the case. The undercover agent might not
have to appear in court and other evidence might be resorted to. Thus, the
undercover agent would not have to show himself and could continue his
undercover assignment. But from the point of prosecution, the problem is that it
is not known whether it is sufficient to initiate a charge without the evidence of
the undercover agent. Therefore, this argument is basically unacceptable
because, even though other methods are available, you still have to decide
whether to reveal the method or continue to collect evidence by that method.
Also, some of the so-called advanced technology can in fact be used more than
once.
Mr Deputy, I would like to quote a recent article which is quite interesting.
The writer of that article is the Chairman of Better Hong Kong Foundation, Mr
CHAN Kai-chung, who has written an article criticizing the Governor, Mr Chris
PATTEN. His first criticism is on democracy. As soon as the Governor issues
a warrant, anyone can intercept telephone lines. He very much believes that
many people in the business community who are not in the same line with the
Governor are having their telephone lines tapped. It is interesting that this
criticism comes from Mr CHAN Kai-chung because he always criticizes the
Governor and he knows a lot about the business community. I think this
reflects part of the situation and it is natural for most members of the business
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1513
community and even everyone to feel anxious. Given that intelligence
information can be collected at any time "in the interests of Hong Kong" with no
grounds being given, how should such a line be drawn? It is impossible and it
will be a very loose line. In fact, everyone can strike his economic rivals or
political rivals and do everything they like.
Recently, the World Bank also issued a report praising the efficiency of the
ICAC that they have done well in terms of their powers, all of which are vital
assets to anti-corruption operations in the future. But we must be watchful at
the same time that we need to have a more efficient, more independent
mechanism capable of monitoring the ICAC that is so powerful and efficient.
Otherwise, should the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region really wants to abuse his power, he can turn the ICAC, the Commercial
Crime Bureau, the Securities and Futures Commission, the Inland Revenue
Department and so on, into his personal political instruments against his political
and economic rivals. If this were the case, it would be very dreadful and one of
such means was to know what his rivals have got. This could be done easily by
creating a file on matters of ambiguous nature. The present legislation is even
worse that any interception of communications would be justified "in the
interests of Hong Kong" and it is highly likely that it will lead to abuse of power.
Therefore, I urge Members to support this Bill, especially at the Committee stage
after its Second Reading. In fact, I have offered a number of options which will
reflect Members' ideology, degree of concerns and allow them to choose the
point of balance that they think appropriate. Mr Albert HO will make a number
of mild concessions for me. If you think his amendments are better, it is all
right with me. I also hope to get a majority consensus so as to urge the
Administration to immediately rectify this piece of legislation that is inconsistent
with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.
Thank you.
1.55 am
THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair.
Question on the Second Reading of the Bill put and agreed to.
Bill read the Second time.
1514
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole Council pursuant to Standing Order
43(1).
Committee stage of Bill
Council went into Committee.
INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS BILL
Clauses 1 and 3
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 1 and 3 be
amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
Mr Chairman, my amendment is mainly about the deletion of oral
communications. That is to say, if Members support this amendment, it will
only regulates communications in the form of telephone, telegraph and post.
Oral conversation, that is, oral communications intercepted in the air will not be
part of the Bill.
I also believe that the Administration will agree to this amendment because
it is one of the criticism put forth by the Government.
Proposed amendments
Clause 1 (see Annex XXVII)
Clause 3 (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 1 and 3, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause 4
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1515
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, the amendment to clause 4(1) is
a related amendment to clause 1(3), which deletes the "interception of oral
communications" so that it will not stand part of the Bill.
Proposed amendment
Clause 4(1) (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
Clause 4(2)
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clause 4(2) be
amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
As I have said just now, originally, I hoped to delete the "security of Hong
Kong" as a ground for applying for a warrant and replace it with "serious crime".
However, as I said during the Second Reading of the Bill, I will urge Members to
vote against my original amendment. If you think the "security of Hong Kong"
is within the definition of serious crime, you should vote for it. If you hope to
retain the "security of Hong Kong" as a ground for applying for a warrant, you
should vote against it. For the time being, I just hope that the whole Bill will be
passed and enacted. I also hope, as I explained, that my proposal be opposed.
Mr Chairman, actually, can I withdraw my amendment?
Proposed amendment
Clause 4(2) (see Annex XXVII)
CHAIRMAN: If you do not move the amendment, then there will be no
amendment on the floor.
1516
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I am sorry. Anyway, I now call on Members
to vote against my amendment.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, The Hong Kong Association
for Democracy and People's Livelihood considers that the "security of Hong
Kong" should be retained as one of the grounds for the application of a warrant.
Therefore, I call on Members to vote against the Honourable James TO's
amendment.
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
Question on clause 4, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clauses 5, 8, 9, 11 and 14
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 5, 8 9, 11
and 14 be amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
Now let me explain the relevant amendments. The amendment to clause
8 is a consequential amendment to the amendments to clauses 1, 3 and 4(1), that
is, "oral communications" should be deleted so that it will not stand part of the
Bill.
The amendment to clause 14 is purely a technical amendment. In my
original proposal, I have repeated one phrase, namely, the "Communication
Ordinance". Actually, in the heading of clause 14, the term "Communication
Ordinance" has already been referred to. However, in the main text,
"Communication Ordinance" is mentioned again. Thus, the term has been
repeated. Both the Legal Adviser and I consider that the repetition of the term
makes the text look less agreeable. As such, I hereby propose a textual
amendment instead of a substantial amendment.
Proposed amendments
Clause 5 (see Annex XXVII)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1517
Clause 8 (see Annex XXVII)
Clause 9 (see Annex XXVII)
Clause 11 (see Annex XXVII)
Clause 14 (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the amendments put and agreed to.
Question on clauses 5, 8, 9, 11 and 14, as amended, put and agreed to.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO and Mr Albert HO have separately
given notices to move amendments to clause 6(4) and clause 6(8).
I suggest that the amendments to clause 6(4) and clause 6(8) proposed
separately Mr James TO and Mr Albert HO be debated together in a joint debate.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Committee shall debate the amendments to
clause 6(4) and clause 6(8) proposed separately by Mr James TO and Mr Albert
HO in a joint debate. I first call upon Mr James TO to move his amendment as
he is the Member in charge of the Bill.
Clause 6
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 6(4) and 6(8)
be amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
Mr Chairman, this motion is about the duration of a warrant. Originally, I
proposed a period of 30 days plus 30 days, that is, it could be renewed once with
the same duration. I have also taken on board comments made by some
1518
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Members as well as the opinions contained in the submissions forwarded to me,
which pointed out that a duration of 30 days might be too short and that, in other
places, the duration of a warrant might be 30 days, 60 days and 90 days and so
on. As such, they urged me to compromise and make the duration to 60 days,
which is thought to be more appropriate. After considerations, I took on this
view and proposed to change the number of days from 30 to 60, that is, from 30
days plus 30 days to 60 days plus 60 days.
It is nature that we all have our own ideology. Later on, the Honourable
Albert HO will propose his amendments which will put forth a period of 90 days
plus 90 days. If you support his amendments, you must vote against my
amendment. I really think that 60 days plus 60 days is appropriate at this stage
and it is already a compromise. Although it might look like shopping around to
compare prices, it is necessary to consider the various needs for law enforcement
and make reference to the comments made by the Secretary for Security. After
taking into account of all the views expressed, I think that 60 days plus 60 days is
the most appropriate option.
I hope that everyone will vote according to his or her own understanding
and wish. The Democratic Party will vote for a period of 60 days plus 60 days.
Proposed amendment
Clause 6 (see Annex XXVII)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Albert HO to speak on the
amendment proposed by Mr James TO as well as his own proposed amendment.
But I would not call upon Mr HO to move his amendment unless Mr TO's
amendment has been negatived. If Mr TO's amendment is agreed, that would
by implication mean that Mr HO's proposed amendment is not approved.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I urge Members to make a
choice between Mr James TO's amendment, my amendment and the original
proposal. All these proposals are good ones.
Thank you.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1519
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, the Hong Kong Association for
Democracy and People's Livelihood urges Members to support a period of 90
days plus 90 days for two main reasons.
Firstly, we will later move an amendment to the effect that serious crime
be made one of the grounds for the application of a warrant. It is because it
really takes a longer time to investigate serious crimes. Hence, it is necessary to
apply for a longer period to intercept communications. We have also included
the "security of Hong Kong" as one of such grounds in the event that security of
Hong Kong is involved and longer period for investigation is required.
Secondly, the matter has already been discussed by the Law Reform
Commission (LRC). It concludes and recommends that 90 days should suffice
for both crime and public security. A similar period should govern extension.
So, the conclusion of the LRC is that 90 days is appropriate and adequate.
However, the Administration criticized that 30 days would not be good enough.
In order to make a compromise with the Administration, we have opted for a
longer period. Actually, we have the strongest point in this regard and I
therefore urge Members to vote against Mr James TO's amendment and support
Mr Albert HO's amendment. In this case, the Government could not argue that
the proposed period was too short and that it was recommended against the
conclusions of the LRC. Otherwise, our arguments would be weakened.
Therefore, I urge Members to vote against Mr James TO's amendment and
support Mr Albert HO's amendment.
Thank you.
Question on the amendment put and negatived.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As the amendment to clauses 6(4) and 6(8)
proposed by Mr James TO has been negatived, I now call upon Mr Albert HO to
move his amendments to clauses 6(4) and 6(8).
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 6(4) and
6(8) be amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
1520
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Proposed amendment
Clause 6 (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clause 6 be further
amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
Proposed amendment
Clause 6 (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
Question on clause 6, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause 7
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO and Mr Albert HO have separately
given notices to move amendments to clauses 7(3),(5),(6) and (7).
I suggest that the amendments to clauses 7(3), (5), (6) and (7) proposed
separately by Mr James TO and Mr Albert HO be debated together in a joint
debate.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Committee shall debate the amendments to
clauses 7(3), (5), (6) and (7) proposed separately by Mr James TO and Mr Albert
HO in a joint debate. I first call upon Mr James TO to move his amendment as
he is the Member in charge of the Bill.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1521
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clauses 7(3), (5), (6)
and (7) be amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
Let me first explain my original proposal. My original proposal is that, if
intercepted materials are not used for prosecution or otherwise within 90 days,
they should be withdrawn or destroyed. Also, the intercepted party would be
informed of the fact that he had been intercepted and how long he had been
intercepted.
My present amendment has taken into account the comments made by
some Members as well as representations made by some delegations. It is
considered that the police sometimes need not destroy the intercepted materials at
once because such materials may be used for future investigation on related
cases. Also, those evidences may need to be kept for some time to supplement
other investigations. On the other hand, as the Administration pointed out, after
the intercepted party is informed, there may be other related cases for which
interception of communications is still required. This time, however, it might
not be that person but his accomplice who is being investigated. In which case,
the target would know that the police is investigating certain cases and would
inform his accomplice. If so, further interception of communications would
serve no avail. Therefore, the law enforcement officers may have to apply to
the court for not to destroy immediately the evidences obtained by interception
and not to inform the intercepted party that he had been intercepted so that
further action can be taken. This is why I move this amendment.
Perhaps I need to give an explanation on the Honourable Albert HO's
amendment as well. The amendment proposed by Mr Albert HO will delete the
procedure to notify the intercepted party. That is to say, no matter what, if you
support Mr Albert HO's amendment, the intercepted party will not be informed
that he has been intercepted under this provision. As regards whether or not the
intercepted materials should be destroyed, Mr Albert HO will also move an
amendment to enable law enforcement officers to have time to apply to the court
for keeping the intercepted communications. The court will specify a time
during which the materials will be destroyed or otherwise. For instance, the
court may specify that, upon the completion of a case, the related
communications will have to be destroyed. It can also specify a certain months
or years after which the materials will be destroyed. Of course, it depends on
how the law enforcement officer is going to convince the court which will then
1522
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
balance the privacy of the individual with the operational need of law
enforcement officers before arriving at a decision.
I have just explained the two options in the hope that they can serve as
useful reference to Members. On behalf of the Democratic Party, I tend to think
that the requirement under which the intercepted party shall be notified is more
appropriate. Why? It is because in the course of the proceedings to inform the
intercepted party, the law enforcement officer is able to raise objection and apply
to the court as to the reasons why the intercepted party need not be informed.
This would in fact be a point of balance, that is, a law enforcement officer will
have to convince the court if indeed, the intercepted party should not be notify.
I shall later propose a mechanism for civil remedy in addition to the notification
requirement.
If the intercepted party feels aggrieved because of the
interception, he will need some evidence to serve as a trigger point from which
he can institute legal proceedings. This is also the criticism made by the
Administration or the Law Reform Commission. If there is a mechanism to
institute legal proceedings but the intercepted party simply does not know that he
has been intercepted or he is unable to obtain evidence to prove that he has been
intercepted, there is no way to institute proceedings. Therefore, the civil
remedy proceedings will serve no purpose.
To suit the purpose stated above, I urge Members to support this
amendment.
Proposed amendment
Clause 7 (see Annex XXVII)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese) : I now call upon Mr Albert HO to speak on the
amendment proposed by Mr James TO as well as his own proposed amendments.
But I would not ask Mr Albert HO to move his amendments unless Mr James
TO's amendment has been negatived. If Mr TO's amendment is agreed, that
would by implication mean that Mr HO's proposed amendments are not
approved.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1523
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): The Honourable James TO has just explained
the substance of my amendments and I therefore would not have them repeated.
Colleagues who cannot support Mr James TO's amendment please support mine.
Thank you.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, the Hong Kong Association for
Democracy and People's Livelihood urges Members to object to the Honourable
James TO's amendment and support the Honourable Albert HO's amendment. It
is because there are now two major grounds for the application of a warrant: one
of which is for the investigation and prevention of serious crime and the other is
for the security of Hong Kong. If the relevant authority wants to apply for a
warrant, the warrant would be issued by a High Court judge after considering all
the factors. Hence the interception of communications will also be for the
interests of Hong Kong and the targets of such interception are generally people
whose actions would put public order and security of Hong Kong into jeopardy.
Should the target, that is, the person who is being intercepted, be informed
after he has been intercepted? Well, in theory, the person has the right to know
that he is being intercepted and he should therefore be informed. However,
such notification will alert this person and his accomplice will be able to know
that the Government is taking certain investigations. If they embark on other
activities, they can avoid actions taken by the police or law enforcement officers
and thus weaken the ability of the law enforcement officers to maintain the law
and order of Hong Kong.
Under such circumstances, I urge Members to make a balance which will
take into account the above factors and support the option of not informing the
target person. Such consideration is also a judgement of balance.
I hope Members will find my explanation reasonable and that you will vote
against Mr James TO's amendment and support Mr Albert HO's amendment.
Thank you.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I would like to make a brief
response here. Actually, we do not have to worry about the point raised just
now by the Honourable Bruce LIU. Why? It is because, in my amendment,
1524
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
there is already a mechanism whereby, before the court notifies the intercepted
person, the law enforcement officers will have already been informed and they
will be the first to make an application. In other words, the law enforcement
officers would have already convinced the court why the target should not be
informed before the target came to know about the interception. For instance,
we may have reasons to believe that the target is not guilty of any offence this
time but we may also have very solid grounds to believe that, the court will be
convinced on the surface of our evidence that the target is a member of terrorists.
Hence, the scenario that the target will be alerted cannot be established. In fact,
the court could decide not to notify the subject for those reasons. I can say that,
this step is provided for in the justice system of the United States, that is, there is
a requirement that the target should be informed. However, the court has the
discretion not to notify the subject after considering the grounds listed in the
application. This is also a matter of finding a right balance.
Question on Mr James TO's amendment to clause 7(3), (5), (6) and (7) put.
Voice vote taken.
THE CHAIRMAN said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
CHAIRMAN: Committee shall proceed to a division.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to
vote on the question that the amendment to clause 7(3), (5), (6) and (7) moved by
Mr James TO be approved.
Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and
then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
CHAIRMAN: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their
votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr
CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Miss Emily
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1525
LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr YEUNG Sum, Mr
WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Andrew
CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU Chin-shek, Mr LAW
Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing,
Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr YUM Sin-ling voted for the
amendment.
Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Eric LI, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr
CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG
Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose
LAU, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr LO
Suk-ching, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen
voted against the amendment.
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr
Edward HO, Mr Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU and Mr Howard YOUNG
abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 26 votes in favour of the
amendment and 19 votes against it. He therefore declared that the amendment
was carried.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clause 7 be further
amended as set out in the papers circularized to Members.
Mr Chairman, I just need to make a very brief explanation. This
amendment is really a technical one. The original wording is that "evidence
must be relied on". However, the Bar Association has commented that
"evidence must be relied on" or "evidence must be used" is not clear enough and
it is better to change it to "the evidence is required to be admitted in court for
criminal proceedings". Therefore, this is a technical amendment, the purpose of
which is to make improvement. Obviously, it applies to criminal proceedings,
not civil proceedings.
Mr Chairman, these are my remarks.
1526
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Proposed amendment
Clause 7 (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
Question on clause 7, as amended, put and agreed to.
Clause 2
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that clause 2 with the
exception of the definition of serious crime be amended as set out in the papers
circularized to Members. This amendment is related to clauses 1, 3 and 4(1)
mentioned earlier. They are all about the deletion of oral communications so
that it will not stand part of the Bill.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2 (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that the definition of
"serious crime" in clause 2 be amended as set out in the papers circularized to
Members.
Mr Chairman, this amendment is to define "serious crime" in the original
Bill as the offence listed in the Schedule of the Organized and Serious Crimes
Ordinance, and to add into it the ground of "security of Hong Kong". What will
these two changes bring about? The changes will be that anyone who commits
an offence will be sentenced a term of imprisonment of not less than seven years
on conviction.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1527
The amended definition is actually the same as contained in the White Bill
put forth by the Administration. I urge Members to support my amendment. If
my amendment is defeated, I hope you will support the original version of the
Bill.
Proposed amendment
Clause 2 (see Annex XXVII)
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I hope that Members can support
the Honourable Albert HO's amendment. Perhaps I should explain why I
change my position from proposing an offence under the schedule of the
Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance to asking you to support Mr Albert
HO's proposal of making those offences punishable of a term of imprisonment of
not less than seven years.
In fact, I consider that the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance gives
the Administration a very special power of investigation. I believe that many
Members in this Chamber have participated in those long meetings which took
more than two years to examine that Ordinance. We have studied such
organized and serious crimes one by one and really considered that extra powers
of investigation are required.
In my view, interception of communications is really a very special and
important power of investigation. If the same Schedule is used, it is in fact a
good foundation. Of course, there is the reference of imprisonment of not less
than seven years in the definition of the white bill of the Government. After
clause by clause examination, it is founded that the scope of the Government bill
is much narrower in terms of imprisonment of not less than seven years. In
other words, if Mr Albert HO's proposal is agreed to, the definition will in fact be
narrowed down. Why? It is because some the offences listed in the Schedule
of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance are not punishable for
imprisonment of seven years or more.
If asked about my ideology, I tend to think that the imprisonment of not
less than seven years is necessary as far as the subject matter is concerned. But
at the same time, we do not have to worry because of the requirement of the
1528
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
"security of Hong Kong". Interception of communications will be allowed if
certain offences are really have something to do with the security of Hong Kong.
My earlier amendment to clause 4(2) has been negatived and I also urge
Members to vote against this amendment so that the part on "security of Hong
Kong" can be retained. Hence, there is no need to worry that once the
imprisonment of seven years is established, the scope of the Bill will be narrowed
to the extent that law enforcement officers are deprived of means to carry out
their operations and the security of Hong Kong will be jeopardized. In reality,
this situation will not happen.
Therefore, I suggest that Members support Mr Albert HO's amendments.
If his amendments are opposed, that would mean by implication that the original
version of the Bill will be endorsed. Members might find it even more difficult
to accept.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, the Hong Kong Association for
Democracy and People's Livelihood supports the amendments proposed by the
Honourable Albert HO to define serious crimes as those punishable by a seven
year sentence. The approach proposed by the Honourable James TO in
connection with the Organised and Serious Crime Ordinance draws reference
from the approach adopted in the United States of America and Canada. The
Law Reform Commission has discussed this issue and it concluded that "as this
approach requires frequent addition or removal of the offences to be listed in
order to reflect the contemporary situation, we have no intention to adopt such
approach." It has given the issue very thorough consideration and has grave
concern about it. Hence it has drawn such conclusion in its report. The final
suggestion is that "serious crimes should be defined by the maximum sentence of
the crime." The Government proposes in its white bill that it should be defined
as an offence punishable by imprisonment of seven years.
Up to this day, we can see that no formal Bills Committee has been formed
to study the Bill yet. To avoid arguing over the same point with the
Government, we have adopted the Government's definition. Hence the
Government can say nothing more and this enhances our argument. Therefore, I
urge everyone to support Mr Albert HO.
Thank you.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1529
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
Question on clause 2, as amended, put and agreed to.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, as Mr Albert HO's amendment to
the definition of "serious crime" in clause 2 has been agreed, that means by
implication that clause 10 and the schedule, which are related to the original
definition of "serious crime", are not agreed. Clause 10 and the schedule will
therefore be deleted from the bill." You may not therefore move amendments to
clause 10 and the schedule.
Part IVA Heading
New clause 7A
Safeguards for Intercepted Material
Safeguards
Part VA Heading
New clause 8A
Remedies
Remedies
Heading before New clause 13A
New clause 13A
Post Office Regulations
Regulation amended
New clause 13B
Penalty for contravention of order
under section 33
Clauses read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading
pursuant to Standing Order 46(6).
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that Part IVA Heading
before new clause 7A, new clause 7A, Part VA Heading before new clause 8A,
new clause 8A, Heading before new clause 13A, new clauses 13A and 13B as set
out in the paper circularized to Members be read the Second time.
1530
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr Chairman, I have a few points to make here, and I shall make it simple.
Firstly, Part IVA is about safeguards for intercepted material. In other words,
how should the interest of the intercepted person be safeguarded in the process of
interception. I am quoting the white bill of the Government here. Due to the
sequence of gazetting, my Bill was published first, followed by the white bill of
the Government. However, I find that this part of the Government bill is quite
good. In the first place, it tells you whether consideration has been given to the
so-called principle of minimum extent when the relevant material is used, which
means the principle of limiting to the minimum the intercepted material to be
disclosed and the number of persons with access to the material, such as, only the
responsible police officers can have access to the material. The minimum
extent is to obtain the material, by means of copying or making a few
photocopies. Furthermore, if the material concerned is no longer required for
its intended purpose, such as for criminal proceedings or investigation, the
minimum extent means to limit the number of copies to be passed round or
circulated to the minimum, and to destroy the intercepted material as soon as
practicable. I reiterate that my amendments are copied from the white bill of the
Government.
Moreover, the heading of Part VA mentions remedies. As I just said, if
someone really thinks that his right has been infringed, he can bring the case to
court and take civil proceedings, which include claiming the interception of
communication in question to be unlawful, requesting for remedial relief, and
prohibiting further eavesdropping by means of an injunction. The proceedings,
however, must be taken within six years of discovering the eavesdropping. I
draw reference from the Australian law in this respect. As for the Heading
before Section 13A, some technical amendments have been made to 13A and
13B.
These are my remarks.
Question on the Second Reading of the clauses proposed, put and agreed to.
Clauses read the Second time.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1531
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that Part IVA Heading
before new clause 7A, new clause 7A, Part VA Heading before new clause 8A,
new clause 8A, Heading before new clause 13A, new clauses 13A and 13B be
added to the Bill.
Proposed additions
Part IVA Heading and new clause 7A (see Annex XXVII)
Part VA Heading and new clause 8A (see Annex XXVII)
Heading before new clause 13A and new clause 13A (see Annex XXVII)
New clause 13B (see Annex XXVII)
Question on the addition of the Part IVA Heading before new clause 7A, new
clause 7A, Part VA Heading before new clause 8A, new clause 8A, Heading
before new clause 13A, new clauses 13A and 13B proposed, put and agreed to.
Long title
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Mr Chairman, I move that the long title be
amended by adding the Chinese text as set out in the paper circularized to
Members.
Proposed amendment
Long title (see Annex XXVII)
1532
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Question on the amendment put and agreed to.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bill
MR JAMES TO reported that the
INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS BILL
had passed through Committee with amendments. He moved the Third Reading
of the Bill.
Question on the Third Reading of the Bill proposed and put.
Voice vote taken.
THE PRESIDENT said he thought the "Ayes" had it.
Mr IP Kwok-him claimed a division.
PRESIDENT: Council shall proceed to a division. Next time, yell.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG.
MR FEDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): I hear that you have made the ruling.
PRESIDENT: I am ordering a division.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1533
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the last Bill and there is no another time, so
a division makes no difference but a good record. (Laughter)
PRESIDENT: As I said, when you want to claim a division, you have to stand
up and yell.
PRESIDENT: I would like to remind Members that they are now called upon to
vote on the Third Reading of the Interception of Communications Bill be
approved.
Will Members please register their presence by pressing the top button and
then proceed to vote by choosing one of the three buttons below?
PRESIDENT: Before I declare the result, Members may wish to check their
votes. Are there any queries? The result will now be displayed.
Mr Martin LEE, Mr SZETO Wah, Dr LEONG Che-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr
CHEUNG Man-kwong, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Michael HO, Dr HUANG
Chen-ya, Miss Emily LAU, Mr LEE Wing-tat, Mr Fred LI, Mr James TO, Dr
YEUNG Sum, Mr WONG Wai-yin, Miss Christine LOH, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan,
Mr Andrew CHENG, Dr Anthony CHEUNG, Mr Albert HO, Mr LAU
Chin-shek, Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, Mr LAW Chi-kwong, Mr LEUNG
Yiu-chung, Mr Bruce LIU, Mr MOK Ying-fan, Miss Margaret NG, Mr SIN
Chung-kai, Mr TSANG Kin-shing, Dr John TSE, Mrs Elizabeth WONG and Mr
YUM Sin-ling voted for the motion.
Mr NGAI Shiu-kit, Mr CHIM Pui-chung, Mr Eric LI, Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr
CHAN Wing-chan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr CHENG Yiu-tong, Mr CHEUNG
Hon-chung, Mr CHOY Kan-pui, Mr David CHU, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Ambrose
LAU, Mr LEE Kai-ming, Mr LO Suk-ching and Mr NGAN Kam-chuen voted
against the motion.
1534
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr Allen LEE, Mrs Selina CHOW, Mr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Edward HO, Mr
Ronald ARCULLI, Mrs Miriam LAU and Mr Howard YOUNG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 31 votes in favour of the motion
and 15 votes against it. He therefore declared that the motion was carried.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
VALEDICTORY MOTION
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Valedictory Motion. I will remind Members that
in accordance with the House Committee's recommendation which I have
accepted, the usual time limits on speeches for motion debates also apply to this
debate, that is 15 minutes for the mover of the motion including his reply and
seven minutes for each Member speaking.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG to move the following motion:
"That this Council bids farewell to the British Government and wishes the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region continued stability and
prosperity."
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Mr President, I move the motion under my name as
printed in the Order Paper.
In a few days' time, Hong Kong will face an unprecedented change which
no other place has witnessed before ─ the end of colonial rule; not a return to
self government but a transfer of sovereignty. The Union Jack will be replaced
by the Chinese national flag. To the majority of Hong Kong people, it is time
for jubilation, for as Chinese, few would not be glad of returning to the
motherland. To some, there is still a sense of gloom, the uncertainty of a
capitalist system operating within a communist rule will not be dismissed with
the glamour of the fireworks on 1 July.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1535
To this Council, today marks the last session of a legislature under a
colonial government of more than 150 years. It is an emotional session.
Emotional not only because it means an end of an era, but it is also a time to bid
farewell to some of our colleagues who could not ride the through train ─ they
are victims of the Sino-British squabble. Let us hope that they will continue to
speak for the people of Hong Kong. Let us hope that they will return to join the
ranks in this Chamber in the nearest possible future.
Emotional aside, Mr President, we bid adieu to the British Government, as
representative of the Hong Kong people, it is not only a time for reminiscence,
but also a time to take stock of the past, the do's and do not's of the 150-plus
years of history. It is a time to gather our experience and plan for the prosperity
and stability of the new government ahead.
Mr President, as the Chairman of the House Committee, I am grateful for
the privilege of moving this motion. I would therefore like to kick off this
motion in the following directions: the trials and tribulations of British rule;
valedictory remarks of Members and others related to this Council; and finally
trains of thought of the best way for the future.
Legacy left by the British Rule
Mr President, it is no magic that Hong Kong was transformed from a
barren rock to one of the most advanced metropolis. Much owes to the
ingenuity of the people of Hong Kong. Much owes to the opportunities offered
by the changes and development of our motherland. Yet the contributions and
the tribulations of the British to Hong Kong in nurturing it through the last
150-plus years must not be forgotten and dismissed!
The active non-interventional policy within a framework of rule of law
forms perhaps the best basin for culturing the economic success that Hong Kong
enjoys today.
The rule of law in Hong Kong as executed by a second to none
independent judiciary underpins the confidence of not only local but
international investors. All these the colonial government plays no small part.
1536
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Basic Livelihood Issues
Mr President, in any developing territory, the provisions of adequate
housing, an efficient welfare scheme and a comprehensive health system are
essential to keep the public satisfied.
Yes, the public housing policy may be said to be forced onto the
Administration after the massive influx of migrants from China and the
disastrous Shek Kip Mei fire in the 1950s when some 50 000 are left homeless.
Yes, the Government still lags behind in the development of adequate public
housing. Yet few could dispute that the policy and the development so far
deserve a good pass.
Yes, the public is still calling for a higher, a more comprehensive welfare
deal for the elderly. Yet even in the presence of an enormous financial surplus,
one has to accept a proper balance between what is welfare and what is a welfare
state.
It would be difficult for me not to say a few words on health. From a
rock heavily infested with all sorts of infectious diseases to a port free of
epidemic is no easy matter when over 6.5 million people are concentrated in a
few parts of this just over 1 000 sq km in this territory. My praise goes to the
forefathers in health care for their efforts and foresight. Yet with civilization
comes the health problems of social advancement. Much therefore needs to be
done. We are grateful that the British brought in the science and technology of
western medicine on which we can build our health blocks.
Pitfalls in the British Rule
But are there no pitfalls in the British rule? Could the British have done
better?
Mr President, it has frequently been said that Hong Kong people are
politically inert. This may well be so, but how much is this the result of the
colonial style of education that the Government has imparted to the people of
Hong Kong; an education which produces perhaps good, law abiding citizens, no
doubt but also an education system that dampens the mind for independent
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1537
thinking; an education system that imparts the gospel of "the Government knows
best, do not question it".
Regrettably, Hong Kong people have never been given the taste of
administrative participation. For more than 100 years, the concept of
democracy, the concept of having people with the public's mandate to decide on
policies for themselves, has never been put into the Hong Kong soil. And if it is
not for the imminent transfer of sovereignty, Hong Kong people may still be in
the era of "father knows best". Yet, regrettably, even with the chance some 10
years ago for granting Hong Kong people a faster step towards representative
government, this was truncated. Should history be re-written otherwise, we
would now have perhaps a smoother road towards Hong Kong people ruling
Hong Kong.
Efficient Civil Service
Perhaps the greatest legacy that the British rule have left for Hong Kong is
a system of civil service. Nevertheless, it takes both a song and a singer to
make things work.
Mr President, few would doubt that we have an unsurpassable civil service
in this world ─ efficient, politically neutral. On behalf of the House, I salute
them. In the last few years, life has not been easy for them ─ they have to
take full responsibility without the public's mandate; they have to remain
apolitical yet having to continuously lobby and satisfy the unsatisfiable needs of
the Members of this Council.
My praise in particular goes to the head of the civil service, but
unfortunately she is not here tonight, the Honourable Mrs Anson CHAN. For
some two years, I have worked closely with her acting as a bridge between the
Administration and this legislature. The initial feeling was that of an iron lady
who could not be budged. I was wrong, for under the no nonsense look is a
devoted Hong Kong belonger who is willing to listen, yet firm on her
commitment, and more importantly, who delivers what she agrees.
Valedictory to Legislative Council Colleagues
1538
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Talking about the legislature, Mr President, brings me home to this
Chamber and this body.
Mr President, time would not allow me to sing in praise of each and every
colleague although I would have gladly done so. Mr President, suffice it to say
that I have the fullest respect to all of them. Many have neglected their personal
work, their family and their health to dedicate to the work of this Council. The
many bills that we have gone through, the areas we have diligently monitored
government policies so bear witness.
Mr President, I was asked which Member I would like to work with most.
With no intention of "scratching your back", Mr President, I have voted you.
As the first elected member to be elected President, you have done a job that
commands full marks. You have been fair, unbiased and adhered strictly to the
rules that your position demands of you. But it is on the same reason I stated
that you, Mr President, is the person that I hate to work with most. You know
the rules too well, and you smoke too much to the detriment of your own health
and the health of those in this Council.
The Honourable Ronald ARCULLI, my Vice Chairman of the House
deserves my special praise, for he is the kingpin behind the many bills we have
gone through and in particular the many and heavy subsidiary legislations that
have been perpetually loaded on his shoulder.
Mr President, this House would not have done its duty if we have not
saluted the Secretariat. They are the unsung heroes, the bumble bees that
supported our work and you, Mr President, as Queen Bee. I would have called
you King Bee, but there is no such term.
What about our last Governor? Well, he is not exactly a Member of this
Council, although he has been a frequent visitor at his pleasure and to our
delight. As I said in his last Question Time, whether he has done good or
otherwise to Hong Kong, history will be a witness. Yet no doubt he has brought
in a new culture as the Chief Executive of Hong Kong and he has instigated a
more open and transparent government. These must be commitment to the
people of Hong Kong to which we should be grateful. This Council bids him
and his family bon voyage.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1539
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, no banquet in the
world will go on forever. The last sitting of the Legislative Council under the
British rule is drawing to an end. In less than three days, it will be 1 July.
This day marks not only the end of one era, but also more importantly, the dawn
of another era for the people of Hong Kong and China. I believe that to the
overwhelming majority of the Chinese in Hong Kong, the reunification with the
motherland and casting off the role of obedient citizens under the colonial rule to
become masters of our own house bring about a moment of great excitement.
With the election of the Chief Executive (CE) of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region (SAR) and the CE's subsequent recommendation made to
the Central Government to retain all senior officials with Chinese nationality, the
system of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" has already taken shape. Of
course, quite a number of Hong Kong people, including my colleagues in this
Council, also wish to see all Members of this Council in the current session ride
the through train to 1997 and become part of the team of the "Hong Kong people
ruling Hong Kong". Regrettably, things do not turn out as the way we want
them to. Still, it is a comfort that more than half of my colleagues in this
Council will continue to serve in the ensuing legislature. For those colleagues
who will be leaving us, I shall miss their friendship, their eloquence in this
Chamber, and even the time when we were having heated arguments. Without
their rich experience, this Council will definitely suffer a great loss. I hope that
you will come back and join us again in the near future.
Yes, there will be a change of sovereignty and Government in Hong Kong
on 1 July. But whether it is before or after 1 July, the same group of Hong
Kong people still live on this piece of land, which is barely over 1 000 sq km in
area. They have high hopes for their future. They have long been enjoying a
life of freedom, rule of law and stability. So the future SAR Government and
my colleagues who will continue to serve in the legislature should learn from the
history of the development of Hong Kong during the past hundred years and
make every endeavour to serve the people of Hong Kong.
While we feel glad for the reunification with the motherland, our worry
and anxiety brought about by the transition from an era to another and the
uncertainty caused by changes can neither be removed by the exciting celebration
activities nor by the glamorous fireworks. In order to clear up all these
uncertainties, to seize the turning point in the history of Hong Kong and to run
1540
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
the SAR successfully, the people of Hong Kong should make concerted efforts to
materialize the concept of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong".
Here, Mr President, I wish the SAR continued stability and prosperity.
And I hope that our motherland will also move towards democracy, stability and
prosperity.
With these remarks, I beg to move.
Question on the motion proposed.
MR ALLEN LEE (in Cantonese): Mr President, when I was appointed by the
then Governor Lord Murray MACLEHOSE in 1978, I would not have imagined I
could work in this Council for 19 years. At that time, all Members were
appointed for a six-year term. Upon completion of the six-year appointment by
the Governor, Members would be conferred titles and then they had to bid
farewell to this Council. In the past 19 years, I witnessed various changes in
Hong Kong. As far as this Council is concerned, the all-appointed legislature
has already transformed into an all-elected Council. This is a very significant
change. In addition, meetings of the House Committee and Finance Committee
of this Council, which used to be held in closed sessions, are now open to the
public. As a result, the transparency of the Legislative Council is greatly
enhanced. Such changes also brought about a Government machinery which is
more accountable to the public in its policies.
I remember that in the early 1980s, Members moved a motion demanding
that the Government disclose the schemes of control applicable to the two
electric companies. At the time, the Government exerted a lot of pressure on
me. Some of the more senior Members dissuaded me from moving motions of
this kind as the Government disapproved of such motions. They said even if I
moved such motion debates, the Government would not disclose the schemes. I
was also told that I would not be appointed for another term. Yet, as the
schemes of control were concluded by the Government with the electric
companies on behalf of the general public, I believed that the people of Hong
Kong should have the right to know the contents of those schemes. Why did
the electric companies have to increase their charges every year? As expected,
the then Financial Secretary, Sir Philip HADDEN-CAVE, took a very firm stance
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1541
and refuted me with the Standing Orders several times. After that motion
debate, however, the Government eventually disclosed the schemes of control.
Mr President, I also witnessed the negotiations over the future of Hong
Kong, which was an issue of wide concern among the people of Hong Kong.
Before the negotiations took place, I went to the Xinhua News Agency and
expressed my wish to form a delegation to visit Beijing, for the purpose of
reflecting the concerns of the people of Hong Kong to the leaders of China. Not
until 2 May 1983 could I form a delegation to visit Beijing. Members of the
delegation included the Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW, the Honourable Martin
LEE, the Honourable Edward HO, the current Chief Justice of the Court of Final
Appeal Mr Andrew LI and a good friend of mine, the late Honourable Stephen
CHEUNG. Without any fear, we related the opinions of the people of Hong
Kong on the future of the territory to the leaders of China. The Sino-British
negotiations over the future of Hong started in July that year. I cannot recall
how many times I had been to London and Beijing during the course of the
negotiations. Even though Members of the Legislative Council were not
recognized by the Beijing authorities and were insulted in London on a number
of occasions by the British authorities, I still thought that we had the
responsibility to reflect the truth to the Chinese and British Governments.
Over the past 19 years, I have also witnessed various changes in China.
When I visited China for the first time, the Cultural Revolution was just over.
Seeing what was happening in China, I felt very sad as an ethnic Chinese. Not
only was China poor, it was extremely backward too. I was very disappointed
with the situation in China. Yet after that visit, I had lots of opportunities to
visit China again. I saw changes take place in China. I saw continuous
imporovement in the livelihood of the people in China. I believe that the 21st
century will be the century for China to prove itself. Living in Hong Kong will
give us an unprecedented opportunity to participate in the future development of
China and to contribute to the four aspects of modernization in China.
Mr President, I cannot forget the June 4 Incident in 1989 which took place
while I was the Senior Member of this Council. The efforts made by the
Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils on the future of Hong Kong
will be imprinted in my mind forever. Today, I still keep a T-shirt with the
slogan of "Hong Kong is my home" made by the two Councils.
1542
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr President, although the British Government is about to withdraw from
Hong Kong, we cannot deny the contributions of Britain to Hong Kong. Hong
Kong has the tradition of rule of law and the people of Hong Kong are living in a
free society. Only with the laissez-faire economic policy and the diligence of
our people can we perform such an economic miracle in this world. We should
cherish all these. Regrettably, there is no through train for this Council and
some of my colleagues in this Council can no longer serve the people of Hong
Kong. Nevertheless, the election of the first legislature of the Special
Administrative Region will be held very soon. I am sure that my colleagues in
this Council will participate actively in the election and make contributions once
again to the future of Hong Kong.
MR MARTIN LEE: Mr President, of course we are all thinking "back", so let
me begin with one of Shakespeare's sonnets. "When to the sessions of sweet
silent thought ...... I summon up remembrance of things past, I sigh the lack of
many a thing I sought ─ democracy, and with old woes new wail, my dear,
time's waste."
Government.
The time is wasted when Bills were withdrawn by the
I wonder what our friends up in China will think of this session, the
marathon session, when the last Government Bill was entitled "Dogs and Cats
Bill", or "Dogs and Cats (Amendment) Bill 1996". I am sure our Chinese
friends will say, "there you are, the Governor is always thinking of his dogs."
Mr Speaker, you always try to be fair and keep the proceedings going like
a good referee should, but of course, some of us will not agree with some of your
decisions, when you ruled on points of order, for example, or when you gave a
red card to the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung for having insulted some
unidentified grass in an unidentified vase. But, Mr President, I think we shall
miss you because Mr Speaker, you will soon be succeeded by Madam Talker.
We are going to miss our friends in the Liberal Party. Whenever we
voted together, 19 plus 10, we won every vote, did we not, Allen? I shall miss
the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU for having exempted the Honourable Ronald
ARCULLI from the party line and allowing him to speak up for the Bar
regarding honorary Queen's Counsels. I am sure our Party Whip, the
Honourable SZETO Wah, would not have been so generous with me. But, we
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1543
also saw some specimens tonight, or this morning, of poor filibustering on some
of the Members' part, so I shall award them with the Worst Filibustering Party
Award.
As for the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong, they had
some teething problems in the beginning but they soon matured very quickly into
a well-organized party. The Honourable IP Kwok-him, of course, gained
himself a reputation amongst civil servants of being the most feared chairman of
any committee of enquiry. Even the Chief Secretary had to back down before
him, so I award them with the Most Improved Party Award.
I now come to the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood.
They never had it so good, Mr President, as in the last two weeks. The Gang of
Four controlled every vote. I still cannot figure out why their four is greater
than my 19. In 1998, in those elections, I shall aim at having only four seats,
but I shall try to get four seats or four Members to vote together and not three
Members plus one abstention. I would award them with the Most Influential
Small Party Award.
I now come to the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, with two Members.
The Honourable Ambrose LAU is always so serious and on any division is
always voting against me, although we came from the same school. As for the
Honourable David CHU, he is the proud owner of a Ferrari sports car and a
Harley Davidson motorbike.
The guy loves speed, Mr President, and
excitement in everything except when it comes to democracy when he finds even
a snail's pace to be too fast, and indeed he would eat the democratic snail as an
escargot. I will award the Hong Kong Progressive Party by naming it the Least
Progressive Party Award.
PRESIDENT: They have three members, Mr LEE, he is Mr CHOY Kan-pui.
MR MARTIN LEE: Ah, I beg your pardon. The Citizen's Party has been
newly formed, but the question is, where are the citizens? There is only one the
Honourable Miss Christine LOH, but how much was achieved by the party of
one. I think we should look at the Victoria Harbour 10 years from now, it
should be the same. So, I would give it the Most Powerful Party of One Award.
1544
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Of course the Honourable Miss Margaret NG is not a party, otherwise I would
have given it to her.
Now, I come to the Frontiers. Well, they do not call themselves a
political party and I understand why. It is neither a party of five who could
follow any party line, nor five parties of one each. But who cares so long as
they keep voting with us? I am sorry, they will say, "no, we're voting with
them." I will give them this award, the Party with the Largest Number of
Leaders Award.
Now, Mr President, I will tell something which is true, but I shall avoid
breaking the rule of using non-parliamentary language.
PRESIDENT: Unparliamentary.
MR MARTIN LEE: Unparliamentary. Some time ago the former British
Ambassador to China, Sir Robin MCLAREN, came back to Hong Kong and I
heard him over the radio saying "the Hong Kong people should wake up and be
prepared to sacrifice 3% of their freedom so as to keep the other 97", and I got
furious because I said "well, by that logic, I would have to sacrifice 50% of my
freedom to keep the other 50, or even to sacrifice 97 of my freedom to keep the
other three." When I repeated this the following day to a lunch meeting, there
was this Englishman who heard me, and then he said, "b-lls". He said, "well,
b-lls constitute 3% of my body weight and I am not going to sacrifice them for
anything."
With that happy note, Mr President, I say goodbye to you, Mr President,
and all my friends. God speed.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Mr President and dear colleague of this
Council, after days of arduous struggle, we have eventually finished all the
legislative work for the current session. This motion debate will be the last
chance for Members to make speeches in this session of this Council. I would
like to quote a Chinese cliche here, which says, "Even the longest feast must
break up at last," to describe exactly how I feel now. And I find a double
meaning in it. Firstly, Hong Kong will soon reunite with China. Three days
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1545
later, the relationship between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong, which has
been that of a suzerain state and a colony for 156 years, will be over. This
Council, which derives its authority from the Letters Patent and the Royal
Instructions, will be dissolved along with the change of the sovereignty over
Hong Kong. Perhaps some colleagues do not feel the same as I do. At any
rate, we have worked together for over a year. Wherever we are, whatever
positions we take up, we all should work for and contribute to the future Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region. In the Opium War in 1842, the corrupted
Ching Government was forced to sign the first unequal treaty ─
Nanjing
Treaty. As a result, Hong Kong was ceded to Britain and became a British
colony. It cannot be denied that for the past 150 years, Hong Kong has
developed from a small fishing port into an important financial and shipping
centre in the Asian Pacific region. Its economy is prospering. In these years,
Hong Kong people displayed their national disposition of being hardworking.
Furthermore, the British has established efficient rule over Hong Kong, a team of
180 000 honest and dedicated civil servants and an integrated legal system which
enables Hong Kong citizens to comply with and abide by the law and to enjoy
various kinds of freedom. All these factors bring about the success of Hong
Kong today.
From another perspective, we see that under the "meticulous nurturing" of
the British Government, Hong Kong, an insignificant island, was turned into the
last goose that laid golden eggs for Britain. For many years, Hong Kong has
brought huge profits to the British Government. Since China started its reform
and adopted an open door policy, Hong Kong plays a more important role in
economy. It serves as an important gateway of communication between Britain
and China. No wonder when Mrs Margaret THATCHER, the then Prime
Minister of Britain, started negotiations with DENG Xiao-ping, the late founding
member of the Chinese Communist Party, over the future of Hong Kong, Britain
was so reluctant to part with Hong Kong that it proposed the preposterous idea of
giving up sovereign rights in return for the right of administration. Hong Kong
has been under British rule for over a century. It is quite natural that some
Hong Kong people will miss the British rule and even resist the reunion with
China. This is understandable. However, we must realise that Hong Kong is
returning to the embrace of the motherland. It will turn a new chapter in the
history of Hong Kong. It is an unquestionable fact that we are soon bidding
farewell to the British Administration.
1546
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr President, since the signing of the Joint Declaration by Britain and
China in 1984, many Hong Kong people suffered an acute confidence crisis over
the future of Hong Kong in the past decade or so. Those who had a chance to
emigrate racked their brains to decide whether they should leave Hong Kong.
At that time, the norm was for them to choose emigration. If, on the contrary,
they chose to stay, they had to explain. Time flies. The countdown to the
moment of reunification is now a matter of hours instead of years. Hong Kong
will have a bright future. We have already "gone through" the toughest times
when China and Britain were having a lot of disputes. And therefore, we
should be able to overcome difficulties one by one in the years to come.
Up to this day, we do not see Hong Kong people flocking for refuge to
other countries. On the contrary, those who have emigrated to other lands are
now returning to Hong Kong, looking for new jobs and starting a new life.
Hong Kong people are looking forward to the historic moment of Hong Kong
returning to China. Facing such a drastic change, every citizen of Hong Kong
will take pride in witnessing this moment. They should pluck up their courage
to shoulder this historical mission and make contributions to the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
The transfer of sovereignty on 1 July marks the beginning of a new era.
Hong Kong will be in its best political, economic and social shapes to enter an
era of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and a
high degree of autonomy. Every Hong Kong citizen hopes that, as assured by
the Chinese leaders, the way of living in Hong Kong will maintain for 50 years,
"horse racing will continue as usual, and people will dance as usual". The
stability and prosperity of Hong Kong will continue. "Trails leading to the
precipitous fortress set tough hurdles; yet with long strides we march on and now
left them behind." The dazzling pearl will glimmer forever at the southern
gateway of our motherland.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MISS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, sorrow is inevitable when
time has come to say goodbye. The present valedictory motion is quite different
from those of the previous terms. Last time, the Council was dissolved for an
election. Some Members stood for the election while others did not. This
occasion, however, heralds the end of the colonial rule. Yet it upsets us very
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1547
much. I do not think anyone would like to see the situation as it is, be they
Members from the Liberal Party or the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of
Hong Kong or other Members of this Council. As we handle the matter
differently, some 30 Members have joined the Provisional Legislative Council.
Although we often engaged in heated debates in this Council, I believe my
colleagues will agree that most of the time, we argued with reference to matters
and rarely resorted to personal abuses. Therefore, even though the democratic
camp strongly opposes the Provisional Legislative Council, I do not deliberately
engage in what the Honourable LEE Wing-tat describes as "individual duels",
picking Members out one by one and scold them. No matter how downhearted
we are when leaving this Council, I hope we can still be friends.
However, Mr President, the motion in question has in fact gone too far. I
do not want to be so gentle and mild, as many of us here say, just to bid farewell
to the British Government and wish Hong Kong stability and prosperity. Is it
just as simple as to bid farewell? I think we should settle scores with Britain.
Mr President, it is high time we spoke our mind. The Britons have done some
good things; yet many other things perplex Hong Kong people. Just now, some
Members highly praised Britain for what it has done. But we have to ask
ourselves honestly: is it really that good? They say that we would like it to be
that good. Of course I will not object to this. But what have we actually done
so that we can be so relieved?
Just now, many Members mentioned how we should celebrate. Mr
President, do you find many Hong Kong people who celebrate spontaneously?
It is reported that many young people are apathetic and some even do not like the
transfer of sovereignty. But why do things happen like that? Whose fault is
it? Is it the fault of the Britons, the Chinese Government or the six million
people of Hong Kong? We should have been in high spirits and jubilant on the
eve of the closing of the colonial era. However, nowhere in this entire colony
can we find those spontaneous and joyous celebrations. I think Britain should
be held responsible for this to a large extent. During the motion debate session
this morning, some Members said that we did not find ourselves taking charge of
our own affairs. Although some Members earlier on said that we were now
masters of ourselves, the problem is that up to this moment, many people are still
really very worried.
1548
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
In the last few days, many reporters asked me what our future would be.
I said we might not be arrested immediately. But as to the questions of what our
future would be and who would meet with misfortune, who dare say for certain
that there would not be any such misfortune? Many people say that they do not
want it to happen. Of course, nobody wants it. A few weeks ago, Mr TUNG
Chee-hwa said on the television that incidents like the Tiananmen massacre
would not take place in Hong Kong. Why? He said it was because he would
not allow it to happen. It really gave me a start on hearing what he said. He
would not allow it? In 1989, even ZHAO Ziyang, the General Secretary of the
Chinese Communist Party, was unable to prevent the Tiananmen massacre from
happening. How can Mr TUNG, who is merely the Chief Executive of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, disallow such thing, especially that
he has no command over the armed forces in Hong Kong? Therefore, Mr
President, I hope all Members will understand, although we have different
political beliefs, we have our own worries too. I hope we will do something
through our own channels and in our own ways to prevent the worries of the
democrat camp from coming true.
The Honourable David CHU has invited some Members to attend the
luncheon gathering held at the end of June next year. In English, it is roughly
something like, "I told you so." He will definitely give an elucidation on this
later. What he meant was that nothing would happen. A year later, all of us
would come to the Furama Hotel. He predicted that nothing would happen.
Hong Kong people would still enjoy their freedom; horse races would go on as
usual. Nothing would be changed. I said I hoped so. Maybe because of our
efforts, we will be able to organize that luncheon gathering.
I believe the lesson we can learn from the whole incident is that there are
many things which we have to strive for. Here is a very funny joke. Some
people told me that the Provisional Legislative Council was selected by a
Selection Committee comprising 400 people. Some others said that the
Committee was indeed the most representative in that it symbolised Hong Kong
people's manners to resign themselves to adversity. I, of course, do not agree.
I certainly think that elected Members like us are the most representative. But
sometimes, I think Hong Kong people should have more confidence when faced
with challenges. Indeed, many colleagues of mine in this Council are gifted. I
appeal to them that they should communicate with the Chinese Government
through their own channels. I hope that all of us will do our best to fight for
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1549
Hong Kong people in the days to come and that the Chinese Government will be
broad-minded enough to appreciate the reasons for our worries. It is not our
intention to "bad-mouth" Hong Kong, but we really have our own worries, which
may have good cause.
We should argue no more. I very much hope that all of us will be able to
attend the luncheon gathering hosted by Mr David CHU next year with light
hearts. But the problem is: Are things just as simple as that? Why do so many
overseas mass media keep on asking us whether there will be problems in future?
Are they all maniacs? Therefore, Mr President, although I do not object to this
motion, I do not have the tender feeling. We all hope Hong Kong will have a
bright future. However, if we do not strive hard, I believe it will only be a vain
hope.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I have joined this
Council for six years. Now I am to give this valedictory speech, actually, with a
little sorrow. One does not have many periods of six years in one's life.
Although it now comes to an end, I would like to take this opportunity to sum up
my gains and losses, maybe as a caution. What have I done over these six
years? I would like to mention a few events briefly. What I did was usually
related to housing. After striving for eight years, we had the Housing Authority
set up Estate Management Advisory Committees. And it took us 10 years to
have the Housing Authority establish a rent reduction policy for households in
hardship. Recently, I also discussed with the Housing Department on the
introduction of a trawling policy for overcrowded families. Having spent over 2
000 days of my life in return for just a slight improvement in housing policies, I
feel a bit helpless, feckless and powerless. Indeed I was no more than a
political ornament. The process, however, was a test on our will to endeavour.
Please do not laugh at me, as we may all be such an ornament in the same
Council. What relieved me a little was that in these six years, 60% of the cases
brought to me by some 3 000 citizens regarding issues of housing, medical,
social welfare and the like were solved. As the motto of the boy scouts goes,
"Do a good deed for the day", I hope I have met the minimum requirement.
1550
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
I am, in fact, somewhat dissatisfied with the little achievement I made after
spending so much time. Yet I am encouraged by the fact that we should go on
following the policy to work for the interests of the grassroots and adopt a fair
stance.
What have I lost? It could really be a long tale. People say that things
change a lot in a decade's time. Among the changes in membership of this
Council in these six years, the most significant of all was that God took back to
Him three of our colleagues, the late Honourable Stephen NG, Stephen
CHEONG and Dr the Honourable Samuel Wong. Governor PATTEN's
political reform package has brought into this Council the largest number of
elected Members. Ironically, however, the Council will lose a batch of elected
Members starting from tomorrow or 1 July, because of the same reform package.
I think, and believe, this situation is temporary. The Council will have another
new start in 1998. I believe history will pass a fair judgement on the desirability
of the changes that took place in our community in these six years.
What puzzled me most in these six years was that people said the
Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) and Mr Frederick
FUNG vacillated, this moment to the left and the next to the right. Giving the
matter a closer thought, I found that it was in fact an era of vacillation. Both
camps on the extremes made big moves. According to the pendulum theory, the
harder you push the pendulum, the greater the force it swings back. Hong Kong
is a pluralistic society where people's beliefs, means and interests all vary, and
therefore differences are inevitable. Conflicts are common but they have been
more frequent these days. On many occasions, things were handled in a
polarized manner. Members were described as pro-China, if not pro-British;
anti-Communist, if not pro-Communist. If they did not defend free trade, then
they belonged to the free lunch camp. Other Members who were not as radical
as certain Members were dubbed the conservatives. The message behind these
labels was that all others had to follow their policy; the non-conformists would
not be regarded as a friend, and most likely be treated as an enemy.
If our society was as simple as that, matters could in fact be handled easily.
If the two camps confronted each other in extremes, they would only cause the
pendulum to swing wildly. While one camp said that they would amend the
next day whatever the other camp passed that day, the other camp would retort
that since in any event, their proposals would be amended, they would do all they
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
could on the day.
tug-of-war?
1551
Would Hong Kong people benefit from this kind of
The ADPL is independent and impartial. We are not willing to join any
of these camps. We hope we can have independent thinking, seek truth from
facts and base our own decision on the merit of each case. As an individual or
as a group, the ADPL has never supported any Members or political parties on
each and every matter as we believe that no individuals or groups present will
totally see eye to eye with us. Therefore, we are not willing to join a particular
camp blindly. If the only way to prove that the ADPL and Mr Frederick FUNG
are steadfast in their stand is to join a particular camp, I would rather be
criticized as vacillating.
The way in which the ADPL deals with China is another area said to be
vacillating. Can there not be something else other than praising or criticizing
China? The ADPL is unable to give such a simple response. It does not
follow that in the eyes of China, Hong Kong people are either its supporters or a
thorn on its side. The ADPL would like to be the third category. We will
show our support when the Chinese government has done the right thing and we
will point out its mistake and even protest if it has done something wrong. I
think it is most natural to be reasonable. At least, up to now, the ADPL is a
political group in Hong Kong which submitted a petition letter to QIAN Qichen
at the Great Hall of the People, protested in a street in Beijing by waving a
banner against XI Yang's arrest, and handed to the Foreign Ministry the
signatures of Hong Kong people showing support for the protection of Diaoyu
Island.
Although lobbied by many Chinese officials, we voted against the proposal
put forward by the Co-operative Resources Centre in 1994 as well as against the
setting up of the Provisional Legislative Council. We will never forget the June
4 Incident. We draw a clear distinction concerning cardinal issues of right and
wrong, no matter when we are under British rule or Chinese rule. Sometimes
we are a bit distressed to note that apart from our opponents, some of our friends
in the democratic camp with whom we used to co-operate also criticize us for
being vacillating. This reminds me of the situation of some Trotskyist groups in
the past. In the game of power struggle, one could co-existed with his enemy
for mutual dependence, but he had neither neighbours nor close relatives.
Looking ahead, I believe there will still be conflicts. However, I hope a
pluralistic situation will develop. We should work together to create a
1552
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
pluralistic society. I hope that under this system, the Council will be more open
and tolerant to various cultures. Whether this can be achieved depends very
much on the extent of our democratic mind. The ADPL will uphold its policy
to remain independent, seek truth from facts, work for the interests of the
grassroots and adopt a fair stance. Thank you, Mr President.
MR DAVID CHU: Mr President, we are ready to bid the colony farewell with a
sense of triumph, relief and anticipation. We are now finally on our own.
As a Chinese I am proud to see the closing of the colonial era which began
with pain and which ends with pomp and pageantry. For a long time, our
ancestors, ourselves and our children have been stared down at by the Queen's
portrait. Her picture and other symbols of our subjugation have bred in us both
an alien feeling and self contempt. The fault is not Her Majesty's, who
personally shall remain a fond memory as we file away her visages to the
scrapbook of our history.
We have inherited from the British many valued institutions, such as an
independent judiciary, a professional civil service and the English language.
These we are to retain and then to refine to suit our circumstances. There is a
Chinese saying, "when we drink the water, we must think of its source".
Over recent years we have had a lot of unsolicited advice from Great
Britain and the international community whose care and concern we thank. But
we would like them to respect our ability to manage our own affairs and to do
things our own way.
While we have much more to learn from the West, they too can learn much
from us such as a profitable and efficient public transport system, universal
health care at an affordable cost, welfare which does not destroy the work ethic
or incentive, a crime rate among the lowest in the world, good education
standards, individual responsibility, family value, and the freest economy.
For the last five years, we have had a loss of British and Chinese
co-operation. None of the manufactured crises has dampened our enthusiasm
for success and weakened our confidence in ourselves. No matter what the last
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1553
British administration here has done, we bear no grudge for we are a forgiving
people who always turn adversity into an advantage, a challenge into a cause.
Now is the time to turn over a new page and move on to deal with three
critical tasks ahead. The first is to govern ourselves well with care and patience
because what we have is a proven system and, with 50 or more years to refine,
there is no need to rush. The second is to develop even more the mutually
beneficial bond with China. The third, perhaps our most sacred mission of all,
is to help China modernize and achieve its rightful place in the community of
nations.
So let us see the weaknesses in ourselves but turn them into a spur for
greatness.
Let us see the shortcomings of our society but turn them into a stimulus for
prompt community actions.
Let us see the problems of our nation but turn them into a rallying point for
our patriotism.
And together, let us anticipate the challenges of the 21st Asian Pacific
century and be galvanized by them to reach for the stars.
Thank you, Mr President.
MRS SELINA CHOW (in Cantonese): Mr President, in the twinkling of an eye,
I have already been a Member of the Legislative Council for over 15 years. I
have experienced the vicissitudes of life as a councillor. Looking back on those
years, however, I found them quite fruitful. I am honoured to have the
opportunity to look on and participate in the discussions and decisions about
Hong Kong in this momentous instance of history.
I was brought up under the colonial rule of Britain. Throughout my life
as a student, to a professional in the broadcast industry, and to a councillor, I
have all along been deeply influenced by British culture. I believe many of my
colleagues who used to be appointed Members will probably share my feeling.
1554
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Hong Kong has achieved remarkable success under British rule. This, in
fact, has something to do with the traditional philosophy and wisdom of Britain
itself. It cannot be denied that among the colonies of different countries in the
world, the British approach is recognized as comparatively humane and fair.
Generally speaking, Britain will establish a distinguished civil service in the
colony. The administrative strategies and regulations it adopts are also very
desirable. Many former British colonies still rely heavily on members of their
civil service to sustain the operation of the entire country after their
independence.
Coming back to Hong Kong, there are a galaxy of talented people in the
Government. University graduates with best results and who are the cream of
the society all apply for the post of Administrative Officer, except for those who
would like to develop their career in their own professional fields. This
tradition still prevails today, as evidenced by the large group of elite in the senior
ranks of the Government.
I also recall my father saying that Britain had perfect highways and road
systems. While we often criticize the Hong Kong Government for occasional
delays in infrastructure projects and being slow in response, on the whole, it
should be fair to say that the developments of Hong Kong today are indeed very
remarkable. We should therefore acknowledge the contribution of Britain
towards Hong Kong. Regrettably, Sino-British relations turned sour in these
few years for various reasons. The Governor's reckless push for political reform
and the change in his policy towards China have brought about adverse impacts
to Hong Kong. Yet we all have to pay the price for what he has done.
It is indeed very lamentable that there will be no through train for the
Legislative Council. It is also a grave contrition in the history of British rule
over Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the spirit of freedom and democracy which
Britain has cultivated in Hong Kong is commendable. Even those who criticize
the institution of Hong Kong as not democratic enough will concede that the
freedom enjoyed by Hong Kong people in many aspects, including those for the
individual, of speech and in economy, is no less, if not more, than that found in
some of the more democratic countries.
I think what we should cherish most is that our society attaches great
importance to a balance of interests and justifications, the means to achieve such
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1555
balance and its determination to honour the rule of law. Hong Kong people fear
nothing. As reflected in the words of advice written in beautiful calligraphy
given to Mr Allen LEE by the Mr SO Kwok-wing, the ombudsman, which reads,
"One would only fear his wife and not the government", everybody breathes the
air of freedom in our society. May this valuable feature of Hong Kong last
forever!
MR SZETO WAH (in Cantonese): Mr President, if the Honourable Edward HO
asks me to evaluate the 66 years of my life in two simple sentences, I would
firstly say that mine is a story of a Chinese who has neither succeeded nor failed,
and secondly, it is a story of a Chinese bearing the characteristics of Hong Kong.
Governor PATTEN made the following comment about me during an
interview by Apple Daily a few days ago, "No one has ever called him a tool of
the British Empire. He is an anti-colonialist, a staunch, tough patriotic Chinese
full of wits."
I am honoured to be called "an anti-colonialist" by the last colonial
Governor. I, nevertheless, have to put one thing right. "Full of wits" is indeed
an overstatement. I am merely not stupid.
During the dispute over the salary of Certificated Masters in 1973, I led
teachers to go on strike. Our success led to the founding of the Hong Kong
Professional Teachers' Union (PTU). Since then, I have constantly participated
in social movements, always at the forefront, doing my part and never shrunk
back. If Hong Kong has indeed made some progress during the past two
decades, the efforts of my friends and me should also count.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984. Being the most
powerful trade union in Hong Kong in 1985, the PTU was entrusted with the
social responsibility and historic mission to make contributions to the society so
that the idea of "one country, two systems and high autonomy' could be
materialized. I was assigned to take part in the Education Functional
Constituency of the Legislative Council which was, by that time, the first
Legislative Council election in the history of Hong Kong. Among the six
candidates, I was elected by 68.5% of the votes.
1556
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Except for the uncontested election in the Education Functional
Constituency in 1988 election, I experienced landslide victories in all direct
elections, including the Legislation Council election in Kowloon East in 1991
and 1995, and the Urban Council election in 1995. The results of the open, fair,
and impartial elections prove that I have won the support of the majority of
voters and they have placed trust in me.
I have been a Member of the Legislative Council for 12 years since 1985.
My current term is supposed to end in 1999. It, nevertheless, is now shortened
by two years. It not only deprives me of my service as a Member, but also goes
against the support and trust placed in me by the voters. No one can, however,
ever deprive me of my commitments and service to my voters. "Devote myself
to the task and carry through to the end" was the slogan I chanted when I first
took part in the election in 1985. During these 12 years, I have borne this
slogan in mind all the time and served my voters whole-heartedly. Whether I
will once again become a Member of the Legislative Council or not in the days to
come, I will serve Hong Kong people in the same way as I did in the past.
A friend of mine, a columnist who has emigrated abroad, once said to me
that among the lengthy theory of the communist party, it will be enough if they
can make good an expression found in the "Quotations from MAO Zedong", "To
serve the people", an inscription of which is erected at the main entrance of
Zhong Nan Hai. I have trusted, obeyed and made good this statement since I
was old enough to serve the community. I am not a Communist. I do not
think that only Communists will "serve the people".
"I have neither succeeded", because I have not yet achieved the goals of
my life; "nor failed" because I am still struggling. Whether I will succeed or
not, I remain a Chinese.
Goodbye, colonial Hong Kong. We will part forever! I bid farewell to
colonial Hong Kong with my national pride and sentiment. The Special
Administrative Region will soon be set up. I embrace Hong Kong as the
Special Administrative Region by facing challenges. "Regardless of success or
failure", "by doing my part without shrinking back", "by devoting myself to the
task and carrying through to the end" and "by serving the people", I will face
challenges as a Chinese bearing the characteristics of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1557
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MRS ELIZABETH WONG: Thank you, Mr President, for giving me the early
chance to speak because it is really not my turn, so I am speaking out of turn
because I am getting off this train in order to catch a boat to Discovery Bay, so
thank you, Mr President.
Words fall short to describe a 156 years of British rule, particularly in the
small hours of the morning, and I think it is difficult for me to express my
feelings without turning my speech into some sort of confession, so I shall be
brief.
Now, to do justice to the history of Hong Kong, I have actually anticipated
this valedictory motion. I have written a book, the world's little red book ─ it
is like the Mao's Little Red Book─ called "Thanks for the Memories: Hong
Kong 1997". It is about people we know, the great people, the brave people,
special people and special places and special things. It is about this Legislature.
It is also about the provisional legislature. Now, if you want to read about
yourself you can, I am going to donate this to the library, you can check it up in
the library, and I am in fact following it up with a sequel, and if you want to do
something which appears in my sequel, you have got to do something either
heroic or very crazy, or both.
And Mr President, as we say goodbye to the British rule and to each other,
we must see the end as a beginning. I shall remember all of you and all of these
with fondness and I remember you, every one of you, with affection including
yourself, Mr President, whom I have condemned in one motion. I hope you
have forgiven me. And in the parting of ways I wish you good luck, good
health and God bless you, and in the famous words of MAO Zedong, he was my
compatriot, we came from the same village, so I will say, I will spend the rest of
my days "為 人 民 服 務 ".
MR EDWARD HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I was born in Hong Kong and
so was my father. I went to a Chinese school when I was a little boy. During
my school life, what impressed me most were the Chinese history lessons on the
1558
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Opium War and the invasion of China by the Eight-Power Allied Forces. China
was so weak that other countries could simply send their troops to invade it. At
that time, I felt the helplessness and the shame of being Chinese. In 1984, when
China and Britain concluded the Joint Declaration, I was honoured to be invited
to attend the ceremony. I still remember in that chilling evening, I stood outside
the People's Hall to wait for Mrs THATCHER. Upon her arrival, military music
and the national anthem of China were played. I disapproved of the Communist
Party since my childhood, and perhaps up to now. That is why I am so glad that
"one country, two systems" will be implemented. Yet back then, when the
national anthem of China came to my hearing, I was greatly moved. Albeit the
national anthem of the communist China, it was the national anthem of China
after all. Perhaps I am rather sentimental, so much so that sometimes a movie
can move me to tears. Hearing the national anthem, I was deeply touched for I
felt that China had finally risen as a strong nation and Britain would return Hong
Kong and Kowloon to her. Today, when we are bidding farewell to Britain on
this occasion, I would like to say this first.
Glancing through the history of Hong Kong, the British should have
nothing to take pride in. In the past, they subjected Chinese people to various
discriminatory measures. Chinese people were not allowed to live in the Peak
and some clubs even prohibited the participation of Chinese. In recent years,
regrettably, I find that Chinese people still treat foreigners differently. For
example, one day, when I was in Central, a policeman found a car parked in front
of Peddar Street, which was a no parking zone. An expatriate woman was in the
car and her husband had just crossed the road to do some shopping. I told the
traffic policeman that parking was illegal there and asked him why he did not
give her a fixed penalty ticket. Yet he just kept pestering her without further
action. On another occasion, I went to a club to have dinner, where a waiter
told me to wear a tie. I said to him, "All right, please lend me one and I will put
it on." Then I saw that an expatriate, who was not wearing a tie, sat there to
enjoy his dinner. I found this most intolerable. I stood up at once and wanted
to leave. But my wife said, "Take it easy. Don't lose temper for this." I said,
"This is not a matter of losing temper. I just cannot put up with such things."
As the Honourable SZETO Wah has just said, we must respect our own nation
pride.
Mr President, as there is only three minutes left, let me change to some less
serious topics. First of all, I have to commend you, Mr President. During the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1559
past few years, in particular, you had to give up two of your favourites to take up
the duties of the President. Of course, I do not mean you have to give up your
wife. As the Honourable Allen LEE is not in this Chamber, I am not going to
say anything about him. Back to the days in the university, the Honourable
Martin LEE and I were hallmates. Mr President was also living in the same
residential hall but he was a bit younger than we were. I have great respect for
Mr Martin LEE. To be honest, we have a lot to learn from him, especially if we
want to become a politician. Taking into account the 10 years I have worked in
this Council, you may barely say that I am following a political life. Still, I
think I have a lot to learn from Mr Martin LEE. He has a high level of political
wisdom and a role to play in the international political arena. This is why he is
not the same as the rest of us. Mr SZETO Wah previously said that he
respected my sincerity and his comment became a newspaper headline that read,
"Mr SZETO respects Edward HO". I was nearly prompted to stand for direct
election. Indeed, I find Mr SZETO a sincere person, too. These are the words
from the bottom of my heart. Although sometimes we may have different views
on certain political issues, what he says and what he does are true to the way he
feels. And his speeches are never long and tedious.
Actually, I have a lot of things to say. Since I am running out of time, I
cannot talk about other Members, say the Honourable Miss Emily LAU. I
wonder if she knows that she is nicknamed "unguided missile" because
everything is under her attacks. On balance, she is a lovely person. Even
when she criticises other people, she does it with sincerity. The Honourable
Miss Christine LOH, on the other hand, is a "smart bomb". She does not say
much on each occasion but hits the mark with a single comment. Now it comes
to Mr Allen LEE. You may say that I entered into politics because of him.
After I followed him to Beijing in 1983, my political journey was started.
Thank you.
MR ERIC LI: Mr President, "Borrowed time, Borrowed place": a familiar
phrase to us all before the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984.
Clearly, the return of Hong Kong to China is, and has always been, inevitable.
The question is, how do we, the people of Hong Kong today, perceive our
departing temporary Sovereign?
1560
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
In a historical context, Britain might have been the "borrower"; but the fact
is, that many of our fathers, our grandfathers and great grandfathers chose to
migrate here. To them, Hong Kong under British rule, was more than a
prosperous harbour; it was a safe haven which self-reliant people could call home
and where they could raise their children in peace and with hope for a better
future.
British merchants might have been motivated by profit only, when
building their business empires in the colony; but they also created ample
business and career opportunities in the process and established a valuable
network with China's distant outside world. Early British Governments might
have neglected long term improvements to our housing, welfare and other
livelihood problems; but such an environment strengthened our spirit of
self-help. Too little democracy might have come too late; but we are blessed
with an exceptionally strong team of apolitical civil servants who are trained to
administer Hong Kong professionally. Successive British Governments might
have offered us more bold promises than tangible deeds; but a growing number
of self-assured local politicians have earned international repute while
articulating the case for Hong Kong.
The remarkable history of Hong Kong created our unique pluralistic
political culture and a thriving, almost legendary, economy. Although it still
sometimes hurts to be reminded that we were often considered second class
British citizens, we are extremely proud to be Hong Kongers. As far as many of
us are concerned, we already enjoy a high degree of "autonomy", "freedom" and
"independence" under British rule without the need to draw up specific
constitutional rules and a national boundary.
It would be hypocritical to say that the British Government provided us
with all the ingredients of success. China has also played an at least equally
important role. But it is also true that, because of the British presence, we
learned and developed our own skills. These skills we used for fishing,
farming, trading and eventually for achieving financial security. Much more
recently, we applied our minds and accumulated skills to democracy, human
rights and self administration. It will take us a little time to assimilate this
relatively new knowledge and mould it into our own unique, pluralistic culture.
But success is never likely to be far from sight. There is no denying, in any
case, that British traditions and practices have already become very much part of
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1561
our own local heritage and of our sense of values. We have a deeply rooted
desire to live as free men, to decide our own fate and to set our own political
agenda. This agenda will reflect the true aspirations and vision shared by the
people of Hong Kong. To respect Hong Kong today, is to let us conduct our
own affairs and fend for ourselves.
On the eve of British rule, this city of proud people bids farewell to the
British Government. We draw great satisfaction from the success achieved so
far and our new national identity allows us to stand tall, to face the future with
confidence and dignity. Despite difficult beginnings, I sincerely hope that,
when looking back at the 150 years of British rule, the people of Hong Kong, as
well as the people of Great Britain, will choose to focus on the good fortune and
mutual benefits derived during that period.
Mr President, history is still in the making. The departure of the British
Government does not mark an end to be forgotten but rather the beginning of a
new chapter in Hong Kong's history. While Hong Kong reunifies with China,
Britain, in a sense, is also faced with the challenge of reunification with the rest
of the European Community. We both have a separate but significant role to
play in the wider international community. The contribution to our people and
to the world community will be far greater if we look ahead positively and if we
strengthen existing natural ties with genuine friendship, care and mutual support.
May God bless the Queen and her people at this time of fond farewell.
May He give us all the courage and wisdom we need to guide Hong Kong and
Great Britain. May we always live and work together in peace and total
harmony.
Mr President, I shall deliver the speech to the second part of the motion in
my mother tongue.
MR ERIC LI (in Cantonese): In any part of the world, to lead a decent and
worry-free life is the most modest wish of people. The shocking dispute over
the 1994 political reform package might not have gained as much attention in our
community as a World Cup football match.
1562
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
The climax of unification activities was triggered, surprisingly, by a triple
trio pool with a prize of nearly $700 million. People just sat comfortably at
home "watching football match, horse-racing and dreaming of making a fortune".
We can see that the people of Hong Kong are already living in bliss.
If we need not confront the authorities, if we need not take unnecessary
political risks, our stability and prosperity will sustain.
I wish the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region continued stability
and prosperity. If this Council, like the rest of Hong Kong people, sees placidly
the great wheel of history move, then we will be able to set aside our differences
and show our support.
Every Member of this Council is fully aware that if our people are to keep
their way of life, the concepts of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong
people ruling Hong Kong" have to be materialized successfully. From now on,
the fate of Hong Kong is inseparable from our motherland's. We are in the
same boat to stay through thick and thin.
To win the triple trio, we have to pray to the heavens. Even knowing that
chances are slim, our passion is never dampened. With the opportunity arising
from the reunification with China, Members of this Council should have a better
understanding of the new situation. China is relieved to see that the historical
issue of Hong Kong has been settled satisfactorily and at the same time, Britain
has a new Labour Government with new personnel and new practices. While
Hong Kong is entering a new era, the three of us ─ China, Britain and Hong
Kong ─ can work together for a harmonious victory for all three parties.
I strongly believe that this tripartite victory can bring about a much larger
prize than the triple trio pool. Mr President, as there is still a little time left, I
would like to pass a few words to my colleagues. I do not want to bid sad
farewell because we will not be parted for more than a year. I hope we will
come together again in 1998.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1563
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, the sun rises and sets. Here,
sunset refers to the end of 150 years of British colonial rule, the official
disappearance of a twilight government from the political arena; sunrise signifies
the birth of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". Amidst thick dark clouds,
however, we can only hope for a better tomorrow. Yet it all depends on
changes in China and efforts made by the people of Hong Kong in fending for
themselves.
Unequal treaties started the British colonial rule that lasted for more than
150 years. In the early days of the British rule, interests of the Britons were the
only concern. Hence laissez-faire and low-tax policies were adopted from the
onset and an apolitical attitude was fostered among the people of Hong Kong to
discourage them from taking part in political activities. Neither at school nor in
the political arena did the people of Hong Kong have any political consciousness
or channels to take part in political affairs. Starting from the 1960s, when the
economy of Hong Kong took off, and through the 1970s and 1980s, the
Government began to change its policy. Many social welfare services were
provided to upgrade people's living standards. In 1983, election took place at
district level and in 1991, part of the Legislature was returned by direct election.
Mr President, what will be left behind to influence Hong Kong when the
British colonial rule comes to an end? There are four things: firstly, an
independent judiciary, an adequate legal system which will ensure that everyone
is equal before the law; secondly, a market economy which is in smooth
operation to form a level play field for the community and investors; thirdly, the
scrupulous, neutral and efficient civil service; and finally, a trend for the
Government to become more open in dissemination of information, public
consultation and performance pledges.
But unfortunately, Mr President, there are in fact three things about the
British colonial rule that warrant our criticism. They are probably blemishes in
the British colony. First, it is but colonial rule. The Government is not formed
by election. As the Government is not elected by the people, it need not be
responsible or accountable to the people. Yet the Hong Kong Government is a
merciful dictator. Through consultations with the Councils and progressive
democratization, it draws political elite into the representative government to
reinforce its colonial rule.
1564
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Secondly, it was a big mistake on the part of the British Government to
develop a democratic system in Hong Kong so late. In the 1940s, the then
Governor Sir Mark Aitchison YOUNG already thought of introducing democracy
in Hong Kong. This idea was finally aborted because he was afraid that the
Communist Party might sweep all the seats by election. It is not until 1991 that
part of the Legislature was returned by direct election. As a result, the
development of political parties, political consciousness and even the awareness
of human rights among the people of Hong Kong were rather limited. Luckily,
Mr President, Hong Kong has many favourable conditions. We do not have
racial disputes. Instead, we have stable economic development and a sound
legal system. Between the 1970s and the 1980s, many social movements took
place in Hong Kong and a number of pressure groups were formed in a few years'
time. The 1990s saw the emergence of political parties. Many of my
colleagues in this Council are also active participants of party politics.
Thirdly, Mr President, social services in Hong Kong depend too much on
its economy. It is true that the entire world is amazed by our economic
achievements, saying that they are enormous miracles. But I just want to tell
you that the gap between the poor and the rich is widening along with our
economic development. The general public cannot share our economic
achievements. The academics believing in free economy draw an analogy
between the economic situation and a funnel: growth in wealth of the entire
society is somewhat like rising water in a funnel, which will be full at a certain
point. In the same way, all of us will be wealthy when our society has got rich.
Mr President, this is actually not the case. The rich do become richer but not
the poor. In fact, the middle classes have also been impoverished recently.
Even with their lifetime savings, they cannot afford a flat of their own. This is
why we have to blame the British rule in Hong Kong. We should not only open
our eyes to the bright side but also keep watching the dark side.
Since Mr Christopher PATTEN assumed office as the Governor, in what
ways has Hong Kong been affected? To me, he is just like a gust of whirlwind,
bringing fresh air to the stuffy situation. Step by step, he opens the Government
and introduces further democracy. I consider him more a conservative than a
fighter for democracy. He has successfully created a friendly and caring image
for himself. I hope that when Mr TUNG Chee-hwa assumes office, he will be
able to learn something from him.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1565
Mr President, looking ahead, we will find that China will resume the
exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong in a few days' time. We should be
glad, and even joyous, and the whole community should be rejoicing. Yet
actually, I have mixed feelings. I do support the resumption of sovereignty over
Hong Kong by China. On the other hand, I do not have much confidence in
"one country, two systems and a high degree of autonomy". Chinese
intervention comes from all directions. This elected Legislative Council will be
replaced by the Provisional Legislative Council. The freedom of assembly and
association enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong will be severely restricted by
the Public Order Ordinance and Societies Ordinance. Mr President, however, I
have high hopes on Hong Kong. Firstly, the people of Hong Kong strive hard.
The achievements of Hong Kong in the past few decades under the British rule,
instead of saying that it is a success on the part of the British rule, should
attribute to the hard-working population of Hong Kong. I believe that Hong
Kong people will keep striving on. Secondly, people who grow up in Hong
Kong after the Second World War already regard Hong Kong as their home.
Unlike their ancestors, they do not ask to be buried in their native place after
their death. Perhaps we are just immigrants to this borrowed place. We
simply call Hong Kong our home and establish our identity as Hong Kong
people. Those who have experienced the Second World War have already
grown up and become the pillars of various sectors of the community as well as
the backbone of political parties. I have great expectations of them.
Mr President, the people of Hong Kong were accustomed to being
obedient citizens. Only in recent years have they become more civic-conscious
and started to speak out for their own rights. I hope that they will not slip back
to their old ways, playing the role of obedient citizens under one-party
dictatorship. I do not want to see the change from a colonial system to a closed
society. The people of Hong Kong have to stand up and endeavour for their
own rights such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The
establishment of a fair and democratic social system under the Chinese rule will
benefit the people of Hong Kong. In the long run, China will be greatly
affected. As a matter of fact, the influence of Hong Kong on China is not
limited to economy. It will also extend to areas of culture, ideology, religion,
and especially politics and law.
Mr President, let history be the witness of our efforts. Thank you.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1566
MR RONALD ARCULLI: Mr President, firstly I would like to thank our
audience in the Gallery, otherwise we would be talking to ourselves like we have
been doing for the past week. But I think this is both an occasion to jest as well
as to reflect on some of the serious points of life, so I think I will get rid of the
serious points of life first because in my life there is not really too much
seriousness these days. We cannot even follow amendments here to the extent
that when we pass Bills we have to adjourn to see what we have passed.
PRESIDENT: It is a sign of maturity.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: ...... which indeed, Mr President, is a sign of
maturity, but of course I am referring to Government Bills and not Private
Members' Bills.
I was in fact going to thank the Secretary for Housing for staying behind
because he probably has the most difficult job of all government officials today,
but seeing that his wife tells us in the newspapers that he works until about 3.30
or 4 o'clock, that is about the time he left.
Well, I think I would like to go down, not Memory Lane, but go down the
voting sheet and maybe try and give a few words and claim parliamentary
privilege for what I am about to say. The Honourable Allen LEE, I would
describe him as the most trusting party leader. He leaves most things to us.
The Honourable Martin LEE, for a legal heavyweight he is not a very good
comedian ─ did not raise a single laugh despite all his wisecrack remarks about
the Liberal Party.
The Honourable Frederick FUNG, the most misunderstood Member of this
Council.
PRESIDENT: Or hard to understand.
MR RONALD ARCULLI: The Honourable IP Kwok-him, who is not here, so I
will wait for him. The Honourable Ambrose LAU, the fastest kid on the block.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1567
No sooner did he join this Council, he acquired Maria TAM's party and kicked
her out at the same time, all within a matter of weeks. Mr LAU, you have no
idea how much we are going to miss her in the Provisional Legislative Council
(PLC).
The Honourable Miss Emily LAU, not easy to say something funny about.
Single-minded. I do not agree with my friend, the Honourable Edward HO, by
the way. Single-minded to the point of being blind at times. Sometimes it is a
strong point, sometimes it is a weak point, and I mean that sincerely, because
Miss LAU and I had a conversation many years ago and she thought that I was
too good for the Legislative Council, that I should have gone straight to the
Executive Council, but of course, you know, Mr Allen LEE was there, the
Honourable Mrs Selina CHOW was there, and do you think they would make
space for me? No way.
One or two absent Members. The Honourable James TIEN, the most
improved politician within a span of three, four years. Mr James TIEN in the
1980's was so right that he was sitting outside of this Chamber.
My good friend and close friend, the Honourable Paul CHENG, the big
picture man ─ details are nothing, just concentrate on the big picture.
Miss Miriam LAU, Party Whip of the Liberal Party, the most difficult job.
You have no idea how difficult that job is. When we say we are the Liberal
Party, Mr President, we are the Liberal Party. If we feel like it, we turn up and
vote. If we do not, we will not, like we did a couple of nights ago. We did not
feel like coming in. We did not come in.
The second-last, Dr the Honourable LEONG Che-hung, Chairman of our
House Committee. His hairstyle belies his fairness. Looking from the front he
neither favours the left or the right, but when you look from the back you do not
know where he is coming from.
Mr President, you, the last. I think you have, probably amongst all of us,
and I mean this in all sincerity and seriousness, sacrificed the most because we
know how you cannot resist the odd repartee here and there. Did you notice Mr
Speaker joining in the debate signalling us how to vote? Poor man has been
contained for two years. But I think when we go on to the PLC you will feel
1568
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
unleashed, but please try and control yourself. Do not make us, sort of,
embarrassed because this is the start of a new government and so on.
But lastly, Mr President, I think what I really would like to say is this, that
the cut and thrust of politics in Hong Kong has changed so dramatically in the
last nine years when I first joined that even I cannot recognize this Council, and
all for the good. And all I can say to friends that will not be joining us at the
PLC is that, for whatever it is worth, the Liberal Party will do its utmost to make
sure that we have good and fair electoral laws to contest the elections in 1998,
when I expect unfortunately to see most of you back here again!
MISS CHRISTINE LOH: Mr President, it is time to bid you fond farewell. It
is also time to say goodbye to Britain, and I suppose in a day or so that emblem
of the lion and the dragon will be removed and we will have new images and new
icons for the future.
I never thought I would be in politics, Mr President. I never thought that
I would be and I never sought to be, and it came as a shock in 1992 when I was
invited by appointment to join this Council. I never thought I would run an
election. I do not know how many people here, particularly those of, kind of,
my generation ever thought that they would be in full-time politics, but here we
are. And as Dr the Honourable YEUNG Sum said, I know there are many of
you who were involved in student politics back in the seventies and, gosh, we are
all here.
So, I never thought I would run an election and win. I never thought that
I and others would found a political party. I think my parents and my friends
never thought I would do anything like this. So, I would like to think, Mr
President, that this represents a generational break. When I was young, and I
am sure many of you will feel the same, none of us ever thought that we would
want to be the Governor. Probably none of us ever thought of wanting to
become a legislator or an Executive Councillor because we never saw these
people. We never knew what they were doing for us. But I think young
people today, and certainly this is confirmed by my visits to schools and talking
to even high school students, they notice us. They notice that this Council
exists. They notice our work and some of them say to me that they too would
like to be a legislator. Little Johnny or Little Mary in Hong Kong can, I think,
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1569
in future aspire to be the Chief Executive, and this is something quite
extraordinary.
Also our young children can also aspire to be Chinese leaders. We will
have a country in a very short time. Just now when we were having dinner, Mr
President, upstairs, a couple of my colleagues were talking about running for the
National People's Council (NPC) and they said, "Well, are you going to do it?
Are you going to do it?" Well, it is something that Hong Kong people now can
do. I am certainly not ready for the NPC. If nothing else I must improve my
Chinese. But also for me it is extraordinary that I could run an election in
Cantonese. When I first joined this Council it was very difficult for me to talk
for more than about 20 seconds entirely in Cantonese. Well, I am very pleased
that I can do so now and I suppose it is a kind of transformation.
I will be the only member of my immediate family on 1 July who will
become Chinese again. This is extraordinary. I think I am going to wake up
and I am going to think, boy, we are in China. Legally and rationally and
intellectually I can cope with this new, this new status but I must admit
emotionally I still have some problems. It is not easy for me to think of myself
and to feel myself as a citizen of the People's Republic of China. There is
nothing bad about this. I think I am going to remember always warmly those
images and icons of British rule in Hong Kong. That experience, I think, has
not done me any damage and I hear many acknowledgments in this Council
today that obviously it was not all bad. And I think it is important for us to
acknowledge our past in order to go forward in the future.
In looking at political life I have also realised that first of all it is a strange
kind of business. It is the kind of business where you can be out of it for thirty
years and come back and be president. You can also be out of office for 18
years and come back with a landslide victory. And sometimes you have to go
out in order to come back in, and I guess this is one of those moments where
some of us will leave this Council in order to get back in, in a way that we want
to get back in.
Another thing that I have really enjoyed about this last five years as a
legislator is the extraordinary number of people that I have met and an
1570
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
extraordinary number of people that I have been able to work with. I never
thought I would become a champion of women's rights. It was not something
that I knew anything about before 1992 but I have come to meet many women
who have been fighting for women's rights. I have come to meet many other
groups, labour groups. I never thought I would stand up in this Council in the
last week and speak about labour issues. It was not something that I knew
anything about. So, the privilege is that we are able to meet a vast range of
people serving in this Council. And each one of them, each group that comes to
meet us in a way shares something with us that they believe most in, and in that
ten minutes, in that half an hour, in those few times where we interact on a
particular subject that moves them, in a way they are giving us something that
they most believe in, and I find that a great privilege to be able to share that with
them.
Well, Mr President, I have decided to embrace the future. I have decided
to embrace change, and I must get used to thinking of myself as a citizen of the
People's Republic of China. I do not know how long that is going to take before
my heart feels it but I will try and do what I can. I acknowledge that in politics,
if we are going to attach ourselves to this country, we will have to acknowledge
that we are going to be citizens of that country. It is not very easy for me but, as
I said, I know this is going to be a challenge that I will face.
So, I do want to say goodbye to the British warmly. I do want to welcome
China in the hope that despite all the difficulties and the conflicts that we do have
because of our very different values and culture, we will be able to work them
out.
And I wish you well, Mr President. Thank you for presiding over us over
the last two years.
MR CHEUNG MAN-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, today I would
like to focus my speech on the Legislative Council.
A colonial Legislative Council finally comes to an end. The Council will
dissolve after the valediction. It is a place where I have been working for six
years. Traces of our footprints can be found in every corner of this Council
with records of our struggle in every conference room. At this moment of
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1571
parting, it is natural for us to have a feeling of reluctance. During these six
years with the Legislative Council, I have experienced the joy, the sorrow, the
laughter and the anger. These sentiments are not only originated from personal
feeling, but also related to my concern of the community and the pulse of the
times. At this moment, I am filled with memories and nostalgia.
Mr President, as I recollect the events occurred in the past six years in the
Legislative Council, I think the most significant change was the independence of
the Council. In the past, it was a colonial Legislative Council with its power
given under an appointment system. Most of the time, the Council was unable
to truly reflect public opinion. Drastic changes have occurred in these few
years. The Council, which has been separated from the Government and the
Executive Council, has an independent and neutral secretariat vested with the
power to exercise financial autonomy. Also, the President is elected by the
Council. All these changes have paved the way for a truly independent and
credible Legislative Council. We really spoke for Hong Kong people during
these few years. Although this was done by various political parties in the
Council, no one can deny that we represent an important miniature and strength
of our society. I believe all of you will agree that there are different political
parties and views in the Council. We have too many political differences. We
sometimes engage in heated arguments and some debates even last overnight.
Our differences, arguments and even conflicts, nevertheless, help Hong Kong
people realize that the Legislative Council is a place for the expression of public
opinion. It is a place where the minority obey the majority but the majority will
respect the minority. During these six years, the Legislative Council has built
up a parliamentary culture with Hong Kong characteristics. Compared with that
of many places and countries, this culture has a lot of features. Firstly, it is
clean. Secondly, it is subject to the rule of law. Thirdly, it is peaceful and
lastly, it is pluralistic. We have political parties with members from the
industrial and commercial sectors. But we are certain that our election is
absolutely free from corruption. While Hong Kong is under British colonial
rule, the Council is set up according to the rule of law. We do have political
and class conflicts, and views are expressed in a peaceful way. We have a
strong and executive-led government, but we are still able to present different
views when China and Britain are locked in a never-ending struggle. Though
excessive remarks and incisive criticisms are occasionally made in this Council
and the President sometimes even asks us to withdraw our remarks, basically
rules are observed and courtesy exists. I very much hope that this healthy
1572
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
parliamentary culture will not disappear with the end of the colonial rule. I
hope this culture will continue beyond 1997.
Of course this Legislative Council has some shortcomings. It is still far
from operating under a democratic political system or far from a democratic
Legislative Council. The legislature is not guided by public opinions yet. We,
however, believe that time is progressing. Our Legislative Council will
gradually become more democratic and make more progress even after 1997.
We have a very important objective: the Executive Council should be truly
accountable to an elected legislature so that people's power will ultimately be
given back to the people and democracy will take root in Hong Kong politics.
Today I will have to bid farewell to the Council. I am filled with
nostalgia. I shall miss the heated debates in the Council and the joy following
victory on the sports ground when the Council took part in a competition. At
the same time, I miss how we cheered while watching soccer matches in the
common room. I particularly miss the free discussions we had after drinking
bottles of wine in the dining room. No one will be able to appreciate the
sentiment we have except for ourselves. But, I have regrets too. During these
six years, three dear colleagues passed away: Mr Stephen NG, Mr Stephen
CHEONG and Mr Samuel Wong. We have experienced sorrowful events.
The struggle and friendship of these six years will remain deep in my heart.
Many Members went grey in these six years. Mr Albert Chan even becomes
bald while Mr CHIM Pui-chung's bald head shines more brightly. Many
Members indeed strive for the interests of Hong Kong. I respect them. I shall
remember all these with fondness.
Finally, Mr President, I would like to express my gratitude to the staff who
work with us all night long in the Legislative Council Building for their kindness
and hard work. A meticulously recorded document, a piece of accurate and
vivid translation, an appropriate and considerate arrangement and a cup of warm,
refreshing coffee, will all remain in my mind. It is because of the same reason,
although we bid farewell due to political reason, we will come back to continue
to strive for our goals and to continue our cordial friendship. Thank you.
MR CHIM PUI-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, it is now already some
time after four o' clock. Recently, it is rare for me to work so late except for
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1573
engaging in political work in these six years. I usually go to bed very early. I
would, therefore, like to make use of this opportunity to comment on the
moments of joy, anger, sorrow and laughter of the Council. The moment of joy,
as we all understand, is that Hong Kong, in the words commonly used by the
Mainland, "finally returns to the embrace of China" after more than 150 years of
British rule. As a Chinese, this is something what we should do. We have
also taken a step forward. I hope our expatriate friends will understand our
sentiment and the way we feel. After the Chinese Communist Party has
liberated China for some 40 years, China now moves the first step towards
unification through the implementation of "one country, two systems". I hope
Taiwan can reunite with China sometime in future and therefore, I expect that the
era of the Eight-Power Allied Forces invading China is over. Mr President, we
recently noticed that the eight powerful nations in the world made comments on
the future of Hong Kong. I hope this was done out of goodwill and not with an
intent to attack China again. We are pleased to note that in the modern society,
Chinese people have made progress in modern technology and indeed in every
aspect, which brings about the success of Hong Kong today as the transfer of
sovereignty is going to take place.
Secondly, my anger refers to the fact that in the past six years, we did not
share the same political views in the Legislative Council. I personally,
however, staunchly believe that the Democratic Party also hopes to bring about a
better future to Hong Kong people by striving for human rights, democracy and
freedom. It is, however, very unfortunate that we handle matters differently,
perhaps owing to our different political views, our different pace and different
demands and aspiration of the Hong Kong people. I hope that we will be able
to reach a consensus on issues in the future so that the future parliament of Hong
Kong, that is, the Legislative Council, and of course in the coming year, the
Provisional Legislative Council, will achieve greater success.
The moments of sorrow, as already mentioned by some colleagues earlier
on, is that in the past six years, three of our dear colleagues unfortunately, as
Christians put it, returned to the embrace of God. It is indeed even more
lamentable that the other 26 Members will leave the Council owing to the
political reform put forward by Governor PATTEN. Their term is supposed to
end in 1999. During the debate on political reform on 29 June 1994, I already
stressed that the term could only last until 30 June 1997. There were only 14
Members who voted for my amendment at that time. Up to this day, it is indeed
1574
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
lamentable and sorrowful to see that some Members have to leave the Council.
Leaving the Council, however, does not mean that they will not make a
comeback. I staunchly believe, as we can learn from the newspaper, that most
of the 26 Members will make a comeback in 1998. I also firmly believe that
their ambition is to serve Hong Kong and make contributions to the future Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region Government and the future Central
Government.
I staunchly believe that as a Chinese, we have the strength to face any
challenges we come across in today's world. We very much hope that Hong
Kong will establish better political, economical and financial relations with other
countries in the world so that we will be able to live in perfect harmony in future.
While we will definitely respect human rights, protect freedom and promote
democracy, no one should make use of these issues as weapons to challenge
Hong Kong and the Chinese Government, the future suzerainty of Hong Kong.
We are steadfast in our stand. We will have better co-operation with other
countries in the world, especially those who are making progress. I am very
grateful that apart from those present, there are about 10 Members sleeping
outside. I am particularly pleased to note the we have an audience of some
twenty to thirty people sitting on both sides. Of course, what makes me feel
proud is that in three days' time, around 2.45 am to 4.00 am on 1 July, perhaps
some Members can spend three minutes to make a declaration or express their
views in front of the mass media all over the world.
Mr President, as I now come to the moments of laughter, we all understand
that in the past six years, Hong Kong was prosperous in every aspect. Of
course, a country or a region has to tolerate different voices of opinions so as to
make progress. While there are, of course, many Chinese leaders who reproach
some Members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council for their behaviour, they
also fully understand that some Legislative Councillors cannot but express the
views so as to gain votes or for any other reasons. I personally have to express
my deepest gratitude to them. Their dissenting opinions have made it apparent
that our views should be cherished.
On many occasions, some Members and I do not see eye to eye on the
issues. We, nevertheless, have to bear in mind that what I propose is for the
sake of the Hong Kong people because after all, it might be the case that not
many views were reflected to the Chinese Government in the past. I voice
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1575
different opinions. They are glad to see that such opinions are also shared by
some Hong Kong people and therefore, they will not hold a hostile attitude
towards Hong Kong people and political participants. I also have trust in the
Chinese Government. After all, over one billion of people are under Chinese
rule while there are only some six million people in Hong Kong. I staunchly
believe that in the days to come, our common goal is to strive for more
happiness. Heng Sang Index reached a record high today and was closed at
15196.79. While it does not represent any great achievement, it at least shows
that we firmly believe Hong Kong will definitely have a better future. It
depends on the continual struggle of those who will make a comeback to this
Council in 1998 and those outside the Council, including the political
participants who take to the street.
Mr President, owing to the time limitation, I cannot say much. These are
my remarks.
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, when Britain took over
Hong Kong in 1841, it named the first main street in downtown Queen's Road,
reminding the people of Hong Kong, "I, Britain, have come." 156 years later, at
the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC) Extension, Britain
is going to say to the people of Hong Kong, "I, Britain, am leaving." Her
departure will be made via the new road adjacent to the venue of the handover
ceremony. Yet the new road is not named Queen's Road, Glorious Withdrawal
Road or anything like that. Instead, it is called Expose Drive.
During the 100 years or so, from Queen's Road to Expose Drive, changes
in the naming practice of streets in Hong Kong can be divided into three stages.
In the early days of the British colonial rule, Hong Kong streets were named after
personalities and places in Britain. Queen's Road and King's Road are such
examples. In the second stage, streets were named after the people who had
contributed to the local community, such as the Governors, or with reference to
special features of the locality. Pottinger Street, Hennessy Road, Tai Hang
Road and Nullah Road all belong to this category. In the third stage, practical
circumstances and needs were the basis of naming new streets. Expose Drive,
for instance, is named so to complement the completion of the magnificent
HKCEC Extension as well as marking the extraordinary achievements of Hong
Kong.
1576
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Changes in the naming of streets roughly outline the changes in Hong
Kong during the past century. After taking over Hong Kong as a colony, and
with the exception of moving the British Palaces to Queen's Road, Britain have
brought to Hong Kong a lot of her good things, such as western style of living,
and a system under which the rule of law and free economy are respected. As
time went by, the flavours of British tradition were gradually diluted by the
addition of local touches. Finally, Hong Kong has established a system that
bears her own characteristics as well as the fortes of China and the West. Under
this system and with their great efforts, the people of Hong Kong have created a
Hong Kong miracle. Here, the miracle refers to the "Hong Kong miracle", not
the "British miracle in Hong Kong"
In the past two decades, as long as the name Hong Kong was mentioned,
people would be reminded of her dazzling economic achievements. From 1992
onwards, however, once the name Hong Kong was mentioned, people would
think of her constitutional developments in recent years. This was attributed to
the long-overdue political reforms introduced by Britain. Many people have
raised this question: if Britain had wanted Hong Kong, her colony, to have
democracy, why had she not done so 100 or 50 years ago, but waited until the
handover had come in sight? I do not understand the rationale of Britain behind
this move. Yet I believe that if we could turn back the clock and had Britain
introduced democracy progressively into Hong Kong 100 or 50 years ago, the
road via which Britain will make her departure might have been named
"Democracy Boulevard" as a tribute to the British contributions to promote
democracy in Hong Kong.
Mr President, the system on which Hong Kong bases her success is much
cherished by the people of Hong Kong and commands the respect of China.
Hence China is prompted to implement an unprecedented system ─
"one
country, two systems" in Hong Kong. I am sure that under the banner of "one
country, two systems", Hong Kong will go on taking advantage of her unique
feature to perform miracles. But success cannot be taken for granted. It has
been no plain sailing for Hong Kong to accomplish her present achievements.
It took Hong Kong people their unremitting efforts, unyielding spirits and
unbounded confidence to brave the stormy sea, to head off one disaster after
another. All roads are built by people. In the past, the people of Hong Kong
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1577
built many roads. I believe that the same people, while facing the future, will
march on their new roads with the same dignity and confidence.
Thank you, Mr President.
MR MICHAEL HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am much delighted to bid
farewell to the British Government which has been ruling Hong Kong for 150
years. In about two days' time, I shall become a Chinese citizen.
The Honourable CHIM Pui-chung has just said that we are about to "alight
from the train", thanks to the political reform package put forward by Mr
PATTEN, the Governor. Still, I have no regrets. Over the past few years, this
Council has changed quite a lot. And because of us, the people of Hong Kong
have witnessed and tasted a few democratic changes. Had this not happened,
many people might not have been able to conjure up such a picture on their
minds. These slight changes also tell the people of Hong Kong: this is probably
the right way to materialize the concept of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong
Kong".
Before elections took place, everyone said that elected legislators would
call for higher taxation and undermine the stability of Hong Kong. A few days
ago, I said to a visiting American journalist during an interview, "You can have a
look at the history of Hong Kong since elected Members joined the legislature.
Did these Members ask for an increase in profits tax every year?" Last year, even
the Democratic Party asked for reducing the rate of profits tax by 0.5%. The
people of Hong Kong can see that democracy is not something to be afraid of.
Instead, democracy can help us further develop the concept of "Hong Kong
people ruling Hong Kong".
The reunification of Hong Kong with the motherland reminds me of a
Social Studies lesson in primary school. For those people who are in their
forties, I wonder if you still remember it. According to that lesson, Hong Kong
was divided into four parts: Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsula, New
Kowloon to the north of Boundary Street and the New Territories. Hong Kong
Island and Kowloon Peninsula were ceded to Britain whereas the areas to the
north of Boundary Street were held on lease. At that time my family was living
in Boundary Street. When my mother told me that the places across the street
1578
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
would be returned to China some day, I was very upset. But, seeing that this
chapter in history has been rewritten, my heart is now filled with joy.
During the 150 years of colonial rule, we have been living in a closed
system without democracy. Under the British administration, however, we have
an independent judiciary, and a neutral and efficient civil service. The
Government is getting more and more transparent and accountable to the public.
These achievements of the British administration in Hong Kong should be
recognized. Yet most regrettably, Britain has not helped us establish a
democratic system in Hong Kong before her departure. Of course, this can also
be attributed to the fact that the Chinese Government does not wish to see
democracy flourishing in Hong Kong. After all , it is easier to rule a place
under the colonial system. It is sad that the reunification of this colony with the
motherland does not bring about a higher degree of democracy. And it is even
sadder to have an elected legislature replaced by a provisional legislature whose
members are appointed to be elected. Yet the saddest thing of all is that they
intend to restore the draconian legislation which is even less tolerable than those
which were enacted by the British colonial regime.
Recently, a newspaper reported that some university students indicated in a
questionnaire their reluctance to reunite with China, and some members of the
public were somewhat scared by the presence of the Liberation Army in Hong
Kong. Though we are aware of the celebration activities in place, I doubt
whether the people really celebrate the reunification with all their hearts.
I do not mean to "bad-mouth" Hong Kong with the above remarks, for I
am only referring to facts. I hope that these facts will change very soon.
I shall soon be leaving the place in which I have worked for six years. In
the days to come, I shall stay with my fellow countrymen who love our country
and Hong Kong. If we find that the Government is doing something wrong, we
will surely speak out because we love our country and Hong Kong.
May our motherland be prosperous and may her people enjoy democracy.
It is my wish that in the near future, both Hong Kong and China can have not
only a legislature elected by the people like the existing one in Hong Kong, but
also a Government returned by the one person, one vote system.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1579
These are my remarks.
MR CHENG YIU-TONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am a Hong Kong
Deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC) of the People's Republic of
China and I am the only NPC Deputy who is also a Legislative Councillor.
Such a position poses real challenges to me. While discharging my duties, I
have acquired an intimate knowledge of the differences between the two systems.
In order to adapt myself to circumstances, I have to use different ways of
working and thinking. Since we have two different social systems, we must
understand and communicate with each other, so as to establish a working
relationship that is based on mutual trust. Hence in the past one year or so and
during the 10 years of my participation in the NPC, I find my job particularly
challenging.
First of all, I support you, Mr President, in acting as referee in these
matches. In fact, you are impartial in your work with all the rules strictly
enforced. Though you only showed one "red card" during this term, such a "red
card" had already made a deep impression on us. Everybody remembers what
you said ─ "You are not allowed to return to this Chamber today." I find "you
really hard to put up with". With you presiding over the meeting, we have been
sitting here for some good 20 hours. You are indeed able to complete the task
of the legislature. But anyway, I am so honoured that under your presidentship,
we, as the legislature of Hong Kong, are able to accomplish such a historic
mission. This valedictory motion, therefore, is not only moved to mark the end
of the legislature under the British rule. Looking beyond this, the motion also
marks the end of colonial rule in Hong Kong. With the lapse of the Letters
Patent and the dissolution of the Legislative Council, a new era is dawning.
The implementation of "one country, two systems" promises a continuation
of the existing social system in Hong Kong under which the people of Hong
Kong will enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" after its reunification with the
motherland. According to the Basic Law, except for matters relating to foreign
affairs and defence, the affairs of Hong Kong should be administered by the
people of Hong Kong, free from the interference of the Central People's
Government. If we have to carry out this broad principle conscientiously, we
should face our country with courage, get to know our nation and our people.
Though the Central People's Government and Hong Kong may not have the same
pace of development, we are, after all, one country. Instead of crying for help,
1580
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
drawing support from foreign countries to exert pressure on our own country, our
differences can be resolved through discussions.
In addition, the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and
"a high degree of autonomy" actually derive from the spirit of the "two systems"
in "one country , two systems". In fact, the social policy of Hong Kong has
been developed along the line of pluralism. People of different social strata can
uphold their own interests and express their own views through their
representatives. But , what is meant by "Hong Kong people ruling Hong
Kong"? What is meant by "a high degree of autonomy"? In the future, how
are we going to put all these concepts into practice while adhering to the fair,
open and just set of new rules of the game?
As a matter of fact, the Central People's Government and the Chinese
leaders, including the Chairman JIANG Zemen and the Vice-Premier QIAN
Qichen, have stressed a number of times that the Central People's Government
will not interfere with Hong Kong affairs. Besides, local governments are also
advised to follow the line of the Central People's Government. As the Central
People's Government has made it clear beforehand, I think Hong Kong should
stand by these principles. After reunification, Hong Kong, being a pluralistic
community, will still be a place of contradictions, divergence and conflicts. Yet
I believe that these problems can be tackled within Hong Kong's own system.
People can express their views on building our community through standing for
elections, holding consultations and peaceful assemblies. The prerequisite to
solve our internal problems is to find a solution familiar to the people of Hong
Kong and that is what we mean by "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong".
Then, what is meant by "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong"? No doubt it
must be "administering Hong Kong affairs in the Hong Kong way". We should
root up the bad habit of asking the Central People's Government to interfere with
our affairs at every turn. The one and only way to implement the concept of
"Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" at its best is to seek the recognition of
the people of Hong Kong and the consensus of the members of the public.
Mr President, 1 July 1997 is the beginning of a new era to the people of
Hong Kong. It brings to us the challenges of the 21st century earlier than
expected. I hope that people who care for Hong Kong, particularly those who
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1581
insist on promoting democracy, prosperity and progress in Hong Kong, will
witness such a great historic event with unswerving determination and strive for
the realization of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong
Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy"
Thank you, Mr President.
MISS MARGARET NG: Mr President, I support the motion.
It is not easy to sum up 150 years of British rule in seven minutes and be
fair. So I will not try to do so. This is an occasion to bid farewell, not to settle
scores, and as the Chinese saying goes, men of honour do not yell at each other
when they part company. The immorality of colonialism is obvious. Yet we
are all bound by history. What we do and think right reflects the epoch we are
caught in. No doubt, the right-minded among us, British or Chinese, are glad
that tonight we are putting that embarrassment to an end.
Mr President, let us leave to the judgement of history whether Britain
retreats with honour. I note that British and Chinese people have this in
common: we both think much of our history, except we Chinese have much more
history to think about.
Today, let me, as someone born in Hong Kong and have spent her life
here, acknowledge rather the good things which had come of this tiny part of
history.
The first thing for which I give acknowledgement is the English language.
I was forced to learn English, like millions of other Hong Kong children. But
having learnt that language, I have come to appreciate how fine it is. Of course,
to me, Chinese is the most beautiful language in the world, but as I have grown
to recognize, English has its own beauty.
More than that pleasure, having acquired the English language we are
given direct access to a whole new world of literature, thinking, and institutions,
among these institutions is the common law.
1582
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
And this makes us, the Hong Kong people, unique in our bilingualism.
This is the only place where mastering both Chinese and English languages is
common and institutionally enforced. Once having mastered these languages,
the learning of the entire world is at our feet. We can choose from a unique
range of options. We can be, if we choose, more well-rounded than the
Renaissance Man.
The second good thing I want to acknowledge is the legacy of the common
law, and the rule of law under the common law system. Mr President, as the
legal profession's representative in this Council, throughout the past two years, I
have on many occasions voiced my views on the importance of the rule of law,
and of safeguarding the legal system which gives it effect. I shall not repeat
these views today.
What I wish to point out on this occasion, is that this uniquely
complements our Chineseness. It is not that China had never developed a
sophisticated system of law. But the Chinese concept of law and the legal
system is very different. It emanates more from a need for authoritative control
and to preserve the collective good, than the need of the individual to be
protected from those in power, and of citizens to settle their disputes without
violence. As China's legal development was seriously disrupted in the early
20th Century, the common law stepped into the breach in the small territory of
Hong Kong. Forced to learn the ways of the conqueror, we have now become
proficient in that law, and found it an invaluable instrument to achieve our
aspirations in the modern world.
Thirdly, I want to give acknowledgement for the creation, albeit
inadvertently, of this refuge so close to China, to millions of Chinese people in a
very difficult period of our history. It allowed our forefathers to escape to a safe
environment, a well-regulated place where although they might have to pocket
their pride, they were allowed to lead a quiet life.
The British colonialists of those days were a practical breed. They ran an
efficient bureaucracy, made comprehensive regulations, looked after health and
hygiene, and ran a relatively well-ordered and clean city which in 1923
impressed Dr SUN Yat-sen.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1583
Time and again, Hong Kong had acted as a place of refuge for the
sorrowful Chinese who had to leave their country; revolutionaries, poets,
intellectuals, the hungry masses. The British largely left them alone, and so
gave them breathing space. In that breathing space, they made whatever living
they could, and raised their families, and so, in time, brought about our
generation.
Mr President, many have commented on Hong Kong as an economic
miracle. But the more profound miracle is a cultural one. Out of those
unequal treaties grew a people who consider equality their right. Out of
colonialism ─ grew a people who firmly believe in freedom, in human rights,
democracy, and the rule of law.
We, the Hong Kong people, are a fact here to stay. We have our sense of
dignity. We are confident, accomplished, proud of our Chinese heritage,
unashamed of our British advantages, alive to the issues of the world and Hong
Kong's role in them. On the eve of the change of sovereignty, we are calm and
collected, ready to meet new challenges as we always are. Mr President, we
take the change of sovereignty in our stride. Few people are better equipped to
do so.
Tonight, we have to say our farewell to the British Government hurriedly,
because each of us are busily moving into a new phase of our lives and history.
As they no doubt wish us well, Mr President, I return those good wishes.
Mr President, as we ring out the old so we ring in the new. As we bid
farewell with good wishes, we welcome the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region, also, with sincere goodwill. I wish it should continue its stability and
prosperity with all my heart. It must not fail the 6.5 million of Hong Kong
people. Indeed, with their assistance and unfailing courage, it cannot fail.
Thank you, Mr President.
MR HOWARD YOUNG: Mr President, as this Council bids farewell to the
British Government, it is not bidding farewell to the legacy of rule of law, a
sound legal system and a sound civil service system and the use of English as a
business language.
1584
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
For 13 years now we have known that there would be a change of
sovereignty and that this Council would not be able to exist in its current form
under the auspices of the Royal Instructions and the Letters Patent. This hour is
only 67 hours away now.
Now, as we usher in the new era of a Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region and ask ourselves whether we will have continued stability and
prosperity as indicated in the motion, we will have to use our own efforts to
prove to the world that this can be achieved. What will happen after 1 July
1997? What about the future of Hong Kong? Is it a prediction? Is it fiction?
Is it a forecast? Is it a guess?
In three days' time it will be the first time anyone will be able to show that
it is fact. It is upon us now and we will have to prove to the world that one
country, two systems can work.
As for the world looking on us during this time of change I only hope that
the world will give us a chance to prove ourselves. And in one year's time I
hope the thousands of journalists will flock back to Hong Kong again, not only to
boost our tourism industry but also to see for themselves that Hong Kong is
stable and is prospering and the system does work.
And as for the mystery question which will no longer be asked of us, Hong
Kong people, when we go abroad, "what will happen after 1997?", or "what
comes after 1997?", Mr President, the answer has always been simple: it will be
1998.
MR FRED LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, when I came here to attend
meetings recently, once I stepped out of the Legislative Council Building,
reporters from the radio and television stations repeatedly asked me, "What are
you going to do after "getting off the train"?" "Who will support your family?"
"How can you make a living?" "What plans do you have after losing this
well-paid job?" The mass media keep on asking us, full-time legislators who
will have to "get off the train", this kind of questions. This is the last time I
make a speech before leaving this Council and it is delivered during the early
hours of the morning. The same question was repeatedly asked and my answer
became rather mechanical. This is, however, a sad question because having
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1585
joined the Council for six years, we have already had a deep affection for this
Chamber of the Legislative Council. In fact, among the various Government
proposals and legislation relating to the livelihood of Hong Kong people,
particularly the 31 bills which were passed in the past few days ─ some were
Government Bills while the others were Members' Bills ─ most of them are
closely related to Hong Kong people and we are all involved in the legislative
procedure.
The task is meaningful; yet there are heated arguments. The 26 of us are,
of course, reluctant to part with this Council. Reporters would like us to relate
how miserable and dejected we are. Having talked about it for so many times,
in fact I am not that miserable. As Chinese people always say, "Another village
appears from behind the dense willow trees and bright flowers", "A loss
sometimes spells a gain". A few months' absence from this Council may bring
better prospects to us. Of course, teachers can go back to school and set their
minds on teaching while lawyers can take up more cases. After discussion, we,
full-time legislators, have decided to form a "shadow cabinet". Members of the
Provisional Legislative Council should not be elated as we will be sitting up
there watching you. We will come whenever you have meetings. You are
bound to be criticized for making any wrong moves and we will also put forward
our views. We firmly believe that we will soon come back and play the role of
legislators in this Chamber again.
Recently, many reporters asked me which event had the deepest
impression on me during my days with this Council. Many colleagues will, of
course, think that they are the incidents related to the Britons. To me, however,
it is a doubt which I had when I was a child. Why police officers at the
inspector rank and those with "stripes" on their uniform were all expatriates? I
am now over 40 years old. I do not know whether you had the same query as I
did when I was a child. When I came across those inspectors with a red "stripe"
in my childhood, I was so perplexed and thought to myself: Why were they all
Britons? Why were they all expatriates? They were especially fierce and
dignified and we Chinese were particularly afraid of them. Moreover, many
Government officials and legislators at that time were expatriates, so were the
Executive Councillors. Belonging to a younger generation born in Hong Kong,
we would query why all the important posts were taken up by Britons. Why
were all our buses imported from Britain? Their vehicles were in fact not the
best. Why did we inherit such a lot from Britain? In fact, those who launched
1586
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
social movements in the 1970s were the ones who felt a repugnance to British
rule. We had a strong sense of anti-colonialism. Up to this day, we are
dubbed "pro-British messing up Hong Kong affairs" and "anti-China". This
really puzzles me. We have never been "pro-British" from the beginning to the
end. JP, MBE and OBE titles are seldom conferred on our party members.
Giving the matter a closer thought, one can realise that these titles are seldom
conferred on the members of the Democratic Party. We also have the fewest
members who are appointed to the advisory committees of the Hong Kong
Government. It was not until the past few years that our members were able to
join the above-mentioned advisory committees. Although the Government
started to adopt a liberal stance in constitutional affairs, nothing done by us, the
"trouble-makers" or the so-called social activists, including those of the older
generation who participated in the Use of Chinese Movement, the Jubilee
Incident and Yau Ma Tei Boat People Incident a decade ago, was appreciated by
the Hong Kong Government. I have only been engaged in this kind of work for
10 to 20 years. It is not until now that we are able to become councillors by
taking part in an open, fair and "one man, one vote" geographical constituency
election. I think we have "paved the way" by ourselves. We have never been
"pro-British" nor obtained any free lunch in this colony. And when Hong Kong
returns to the embrace of China in future, we still have to rely on ourselves to
pave the way. No favours will be bestowed upon us.
The 26 colleagues and I will soon leave this Council ─ it should be the
Legislative Council, it will only be called the Provisional Legislative Council
three days later. I hope all of us will be steadfast in our stand and full-time
legislators will continue to show their concern for Hong Kong. Many of us,
full-time legislators, have stated clearly that we will often go in and out of this
Chamber and continue to play the role of a "shadow cabinet". To those
Members who will not seek a re-election, I wish them every success in the future
and hope they will continue to show their concern for Hong Kong.
I never expect that my speech can last some six minutes. I do not have
any draft, merely sharing with you my personal opinions. Here, I hope Mr
President will smoke less and he will then have better performance in football
games.
These are my remarks.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1587
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have been holding a
succession of meetings in the past five days. Today, our last meeting has
already been going on for more than 20 hours. My colleagues are very tired.
At this last meeting, I think the greatest contribution I can make is perhaps to
deliver the shortest speech, so that everyone can go home early to have a rest.
Looking back on the past two years in the Legislative Council, we, the
"newcomers" from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong
("DAB"), have learnt a lot of things. Here I have a secret to share with you in
particular. I am nicknamed the "hot stuff" by the Honourable Miss CHAN
Yuen-han. She bantered with me that every time I had delivered my speech in a
motion debate, Members belonging to the Democratic Party such as the
Honourable LEE Wing-tat, the Honourable Albert CHAN and the Honourable
CHEUNG Man-kwong would "spurt flames" at me in no time. Now they have
raised their hands once again. I guess it is time for them to "spurt flames". As
the Honourable Emily LAU has just said, despite the heated debates among
Members in this Chamber, we directed our attacks against the issues in dispute,
not against anybody. For example, concerning the recent passage of the
Housing (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 1996, Mr LEE Wing-tat eventually decided
to give me his support. Of course, I have to thank Dr the Honourable LAW
Cheung-kwok of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's
Livelihood (ADPL) for his persistence. Sticking to economic principles and the
principle that the Legislative Council should not interfere in administrative
matters, Dr LAW finally withdrew his opposition and my amendment was
therefore carried inadvertently. We may say that these are the most constructive
decisions of the ADPL and the Democratic Party at this last meeting of the
Legislative Council. Probably being impressed by our satisfactory performance,
the President commended us over dinner, saying that we progressed with
amazing speed. On the other hand, the Honourable Martin LEE also conferred
to us an Award of Rapid Progress in his speech. Thank you all very much.
DR LAW CHEUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Thank you Mr President. As an
economist who was locally born and bred, and has studied abroad, I am not only
proud of but also surprised at the economic achievements and the international
status of Hong Kong. The key elements contributing to the economic
achievements attained by Hong Kong can be summed up in the following points:
1588
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
First, a free market economy;
Second, a free flow of information;
Third, the rule of law;
Fourth, entrepreneurship and a hardworking labour force;
Fifth, the compatibility of the people of Hong Kong;
Sixth, a highly efficient and increasingly open Government;
Seventh, low taxation; and
Eighth, the long term economic support of China to Hong Kong, which is
also a very important point.
In the past two years, I joined the Legislative Council in the capacity of a
member of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood
(ADPL). Whilst fighting for the interests of the grassroots, I have to ponder on
the ways to maintain the prosperity of Hong Kong. It is by no means easy to
strike a balance between the two. I have faced the greatest challenges in the last
couple of days. When I returned home in the evenings, this is the first thing I
said to my wife: "No big trouble has been stirred up today". (Laughter) I
remember when I left home yesterday, I said to my wife, "Today we will be
discussing the issues relating to discrimination and housing. As I am not in
charge of this, I think I can have a quiet day". Out of my expectation, the
abstention vote I cast this morning would not let me slip from the mind of the
Democratic Party. I have to thank the Honourable Martin LEE for just
mentioning casually my abstention vote while criticizing the ADPL. I believe
that we, the ADPL, and the Democratic Party, as well as other parties and
independent legislators in this Council will still be working together, making
endeavour to build Hong Kong into a democratic and prosperous community.
I studied at the Chinese University of Hong Kong from 1969 to 1971. In
the Chinese Language Movement and the Diaoyu Islands Movement, I was in the
front line of anti-colonialism activities and demonstrations. Many people said
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1589
to me, "After participating these activities, don't expect that you can be a civil
servant." But it is true that the policies of the British Administration in Hong
Kong is getting more and more liberal. I was admitted into the civil service in
the 1980s. The political reform package, which constituted the "three
violations", brought forth by the Governor Mr PATTEN had done me a special
favour. By obtaining 26 votes, I became a Legislative Councillor. I have to
thank him with all my heart.
A few days later, China will restore her sovereignty over Hong Kong.
Though "one country, two systems" is the established Chinese policy in handling
matters relating to Hong Kong, there is no relevant experience to which we can
make any direct reference. During this process, it is inevitable that some people
may worry and others may even hold pessimistic views. I hope that the people
of Hong Kong will stand fast to their positions. Under the banner of "one
country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", we should be
patient and do our best to continue with our journey to democracy and prosperity,
as well as setting a good example for the great unification of China.
Hong Kong is just a small special administrative region of China, which is
a country with a population of 1.2 billion. Yet Hong Kong is the most advanced
and prosperous city of China. It is impossible that the move we make will not
have any influence on the policies of the Chinese Government and the way the
people in China see things. The social and economic systems, and a free and
democratic political culture in Hong Kong will surely carry forward.
Thank you, Mr President.
DR ANTHONY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Today, this Council bids farewell to
the British Government.
What exactly do we want to bid farewell to?
What does the British rule represent? During the British colonial rule
spanning over 100 years, the British administration in Hong Kong, for most of
the time, consolidated its rule by running an autocratic Government, separating
expatriates from the Chinese, absorbing Chinese elites and using the Chinese to
control the Chinese. There had been no freedom in Hong Kong over a long
period of time. Someone has said, "We have freedom in Hong Kong although
1590
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
there is no democracy." In fact, when we take a closer look, freedom has
become something within our reach for only two decades. Numerous colonial
"draconian legislation" used to suppress civil rights in the past has already made
it clear that, for long, the so-called free society in Hong Kong is but merely a
show of hypocrisy.
Hong Kong was a place with no democracy and only limited freedom.
However, why did so many people come here from mainland China after the war
to be merely refugees? Such a phenomenon can be attributed to economic as
well as political reasons. When the "issue of 1997" came to light in the 1980s,
why did so many pillars of the society prefer exchanging sovereignty with the
right to rule, hoping for the continuation of the British rule? It is not because
the Chinese were unwilling to reunite with the motherland and were reluctant to
accept Chinese nationality with dignity. Rather, it is simply because they had
no confidence and trust in China.
In the early 1980s, Mr LAM Sham-muk of the Hong Kong Economic
Journal made the following observation: "The people of Hong Kong find China
not trustworthy and Britain not reliable". In the 1980s when China gradually
opened herself to the outside world and introduced a series of reforms, the people
of Hong Kong did earnestly hope that China would be progressing day by day.
The reunification with China was therefore no longer greeted with reluctance.
Instead, it was an event with positive significance. In 1989, the Democratic
Movement broke out in Beijing and a million people in Hong Kong took it to the
street. While acting in sympathy with the students, these people also firmly
believed that the destiny of Hong Kong and that of China had been hung together
and could not be separated. At that very moment, the concept of national
reunification had already taken root. Actually, the Chinese in Hong Kong had
said "goodbye" to Britain a long time ago.
Bidding Britain farewell should mean a farewell to her autocratic colonial
regime. Yet many people worry that the parting would be like draining a bath
together with the baby, meaning that the systems cherished by the people of
Hong Kong, such as the excellent civil service, an independent judiciary, the rule
of law, and so on which my colleagues have mentioned, will be eroded by the
change of sovereignty. In addition, as the British colonial rule has a firm grasp
of power, it has launched a succession of reforms since the 1980s such as the
introduction of election, the Bill of Rights, the liberalization of the Government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1591
Hence many people worry that these reforms will be refuted for being part of the
anti-China conspiracy contrived by Britain, leading Hong Kong back to the old
days.
We hope that the end of the British colonial rule will not mark the
beginning of another era of autocratic rule. It is hoped that history will prove
that some people have unwarranted worries in this regard.
Mr President, under the British rule, many local elites were happy to be
British in the past. Or, as Sir CHUNG Sze-yuen put it, "In order to serve the
people of Hong Kong, the elites had no choice but to serve the British
indirectly". Today, the British are leaving. Our elites have to pledge their
allegiance to another sovereign. They have to resume their Chinese identity and
curry favour with the Chinese Government. In real life, they give no cause for
much criticism. But in my opinion, they should not "pretend to be Chinese" as
if they were "pretending to be British". With yellow skin, black eyes and
Chinese blood, we were born Chinese. We do not have to play or sing
deliberately the songs of mainland China during the 1950s and 1960s to show
our allegiance to our motherland. Nor do we have to require schools to hoist
the national flag and students to sing the "March of the Volunteers" to show their
love for the country. Around May and June 1989, when the people of Hong
Kong staged demonstrations in support of the Democratic Movement in Beijing,
they sang the national anthem and held up the Five-Starred Flag spontaneously,
showing that their hearts were linked to those of their compatriots in the
motherland. It is natural for us to love our country. We do not become
patriotic all of a sudden and we do not have to feign it. As for the reports about
the schools which required young students to "listen to Grandpa TUNG and be a
good baby of the SAR", this is completely nonsense. These schools were
simply putting on the old play of hysteria shown in the fanatic worship of leaders
in mainland China during the Cultural Revolution. I want to reunify with the
motherland. When the colonial rule comes to an end, the Chinese in Hong
Kong can finally raise their heads and just be themselves ─ the Chinese who
are confident in their own national identity, bearing no traces of pretence or
affectation.
Mr President, the Honourable Miss Emily LAU has just said that we have
to get even with the British. I think that we should get even on the issues of
democracy. The British Government has all along been hypocritical. If the
1592
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
British gave us democracy in all sincerity, why did they not do so before the
1980s? When the representative Government was introduced in 1985, why did
they not have the courage to hold direct elections but invented such a freak as
"functional constituency" which was then used by the conservatives and the
Chinese Government as a means to thwart the development of a democratic
election system?
Even though the British has introduced democracy to Hong Kong, it is
dreadfully late. Yet regardless of their intention, it is, after all, better late than
never. Besides, having a democratic election system is far better than doing
without it.
However, democracy is never bestowed upon us by those in power and
must be fought for with the strength of the masses. The people of Hong Kong
should not be wishful for any democracy, freedom and human rights granted by
the British Government. By the same token, they should not be wishful for any
democracy, freedom and human rights granted by the Chinese Government in
future.
Upon the withdrawal of Britain from Hong Kong, the people of Hong
Kong should be fully aware that in the end, they themselves are the masters of
the destiny of Hong Kong as well as their own fate. Democratic Movement is a
hard and long struggle. Not only is our bargaining power in diplomatic talks at
stake, we also have to bet our future, freedom and even our lives and properties
on that. We must succeed in our struggle for democracy, otherwise the
prosperity and stability of Hong Kong will not be guaranteed.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Mr President, I think it is a very
good idea for us to move the valedictory motion today. In the past few months,
I was too busy to think about the reunification.
I have been sitting here for several hours this evening. Though I have
taken a doze of ten minutes or so outside the Chamber, now I am full of vigour
again. As I return to this Chamber and listen to the speeches of my colleagues,
a lot of things come to my mind. Hong Kong, following the wheel of history,
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1593
has transformed from a tiny fishing village into a place with great reputation and
extraordinary achievements. It is referred to as the Pearl of the Orient and the
Little Dragon. Such a miracle is made possible by a number of factors. As our
Doctor in Economics has just said, the factors contributing to the success of
Hong Kong are manifold. I have summed up these factors into three categories:
firstly, a society abides by the rule of law for which Hong Kong has been striving
for years; secondly, as we have mentioned before, the hardworking and vigorous
Hong Kong people who have performed a Hong Kong miracle; and thirdly, the
geopolitical relationship between Hong Kong and the motherland. To a large
extent, a long-term stable supply of foodstuff to Hong Kong owes much to this.
In particular, I remember when Hong Kong was still a poor city, mainland goods
were a great bargain. For example, a pair of twill trousers could last many
years.
The above circumstances gave rise to the development Hong Kong attains
today. But as some of my colleagues have said, under the administration of the
Hong Kong Government, we saw that the entire community had undergone
drastic development. On the other hand, we also saw that during the course of
development, some voices had not been taken heed of by the Government.
Over the past few days, we have passed a lot of bills in this Council and many
people have given us a new name ─ the collusion between the Government and
the labour sector. We used to accuse the Government of colluding with the
business sector and now people say that there is a collusion between the
Government and the labour sector. To me, whether it is a collusion between the
Government and the business sector or the labour sector, this process shows that
changes have taken place in Hong Kong. I joined the labour movement and the
women's movement in the early 1970s. At that time, it was clear that the
Government paid no attention to the opinions of the grassroots, especially those
of the pro-China camp. The situation had remained the same for a very long
time. It was only when China made known her intention to get back Hong
Kong in the 1980s that a system of representative government was introduced to
Hong Kong, incorporating voices of the grassroots and the opposition into the
establishment. I want to emphasize that, from my own experience, I agree with
Dr the Honourable Anthony CHEUNG that the Hong Kong Government had all
along been a believer of the typical colonial elitism. In a way, it was a policy of
absorbing the elites into the administration, which was a covert act of using the
Chinese to control the Chinese. This situation, however, has changed little by
little since the last decade. We, the pro-China grassroots being long rejected by
1594
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
the Government, gradually have our voice heard in the establishment. Albeit a
bit late, this change is all to the good. After all, it is better late than never.
As a newcomer to this Council for just over a year, I have lots of thoughts
and feelings. This evening, I have heard from different colleagues that they
liked this place very much. But I believe many of them know that I do not like
parliamentarism. I resent the so-called harmonious working relationship, or
rather the ultimate compromise in the legislature. I am a person who goes in for
labour movement and being compromising is not my nature. Every time I stood
for elections, it was because of the Honourable CHENG Yiu-tong. It was he
who urged me to stood for elections in 1988, 1991 and 1995. I loathed standing
for elections. I think my colleagues in the union are well aware of this. I
joined the legislature soon afterwards. Mr President, I worried that I would be
assimilated into the legislature. But now I am doing fine. For example, in the
last couple of days, there were quite a few excitements, particularly the two
battles that took place today, or rather the night before. I watched these battles
with fixed eyes. This is what I called parliamentarism. You win when you
were about to lose; you lose when success was in sight. Mr President,
sometimes the outcomes are full of surprises. I have to thank my colleague, the
"hot stuff", for the real surprise. I believe that even if I staged a five-year,
six-year or 10-year street demonstration, yelling for changes, I would not be able
to achieve what we have done today. Take the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam's
proposal on revising the public housing rental policy as an example, at first I
thought we were just having a try but unexpectedly, but the proposal has been
endorsed today. I think it is very good and that is why sometimes I do worry.
As I am against the establishment, I worry that I will be assimilated into the
establishment. But now I am struggling with myself.
Some people asked me whether I would stand for elections in 1998.
Perhaps this time I may not say no again but I am still thinking about it. Time is
running out. First of all, I have to say that I do appreciate the achievements of
Hong Kong as accomplished by our endeavours and I do cherish everything we
have in Hong Kong today. I have confidence, though not absolute confidence,
in the future of the concept of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people
ruling Hong Kong" and " a high degree of autonomy". If the people of Hong
Kong do not get themselves involved but just standing by with folded arms and
empty words, success will never be on our side. "One country, two systems",
just as the term implies, means that there will be two separate systems, each has
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1595
its own logic and mode of thinking. Certainly, it takes two to put such a
concept into practice. Respect and communication, however, are paramount in
the process. As long as we can make concerted efforts, I think there should be
room for development in Hong Kong.
Mr President, I wish you could give me some more time. Thank you very
much, Mr President. You are a scrupulous person. When I first became a
legislator, I was given many "lessons" by you for being anti-establishment. Still
I admire your impartiality. Moreover, I have to thank the staff of the secretariat
for their support during the transition from the Legislative Council today to the
future Provisional Legislative Council. I have to thank all my colleagues in this
Chamber too because you really are a big help. This legislature has made a very
deep impression on me. Hence I shall have the courage to stage a comeback in
1998.
MR LAU CHIN-SHEK (in Cantonese): Mr President, do you need to puff a
cigarette first?
Thank you, Mr President. I originally thought that the motion debate
today is going to be a boring one. Quite unexpectedly, it turns out that
Members can praise the British Government and criticize the Chinese
Government, or do it the other way round by criticizing the Chinese Government
and praising the British Government. Some Members criticize both of them
while the others praise them all. Members not only use both English and
Chinese languages in their speeches, but also show their gratitude to the English
language. The speeches are of all kinds, commenting from the events occurred
over a hundred years ago to the present situation, recounting from one's infancy
to adulthood, showing off one's great achievements by standing on the stilts,
praising oneself through another person and even promoting one's aspiration.
Members promote not only their own aspirations, but also their books.
Mourning over the loss of dear colleagues is indeed inevitable. Members can
also show their authority at home by telling us that one would fear his wife more
than the Government. We had this story before in the Ante-Chamber. A
person named Chow Ming-kuen is called "Chow Ming" at home. The character
"kuen" (which means "power" in the Chinese language) is missing. Returning
to the subject, interpreters from the Simultaneous Interpretation Section always
remind me not to talk so quickly because if they cannot catch what I say, neither
1596
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
can other people. This time, I will say it very slowly, "Thank you for your hard
work." I would, however, like to mention one thing. Whenever you,
Members, "filibustered", they really had a hard time and could hardly breathe.
Therefore, if you want to "filibuster" to wait for someone, it is better for you to
seek an adjournment from the President so that they can have a rest and
arguments can be avoided. Otherwise, they will not even be able to have a
chance to take a rest.
I would like to thank those staff who provide service to us. I am the one
who pass notes round most frequently. You can imagine that it is indeed tiring
to go back and forth this circuitous passage. And they also have to serve us tea.
I would suggest that whenever Members rattle on, there is no need for
replenishment. Thank you for your kindness.
I would also like to thank the staff of the Legal Service Division. The
Legal Advisor was still here a moment ago, I believe he must be too tired to be
our audience. During these few days, many of us need their assistance
regarding the Bills put forward by us. I am very disappointed because some of
the bills have been negatived. I would, however, like to express my gratitude to
them for their great effort.
I have to thank the staff of the Security Office too. I have a bad habit of
carrying cumbersome items around and leaving them behind at night.
Therefore, they have to take the trouble of moving them from one place to
another. There is, however, one good thing. Except for moving the items for
me, I do not fear you. I just fear the Public Security officers.
I would also like to make use of this opportunity to pay tribute to each and
every staff member of the Secretariat. I, probably, cannot thank you one by one.
The fact, nevertheless, is that during this long period, you have helped me a lot.
If I omit anyone, it does not matter as God will remember everyone of you. Let
me tell you this. I shall miss all of you. I nearly forget to do one thing.
Some reporter friends asked me to give a mention in my speech of the reporters
here who sit up all night. I really have to thank all of you. There is nothing
more to say. Yet the conclusion is the most important of all. May peace of
God be with you and with the people of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1597
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, during a motion
debate in this Council on 13 November last year, I used a slang expression "foul
grass out of a foul vase" to describe the small circle appointment system. That
was the only red card given in the Legislative Council under the British colonial
rule for over 150 years.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It depends on how you put it! (Laughter)
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I would like to
challenge you again today for I would like to use this expression in my speech.
I would like to clarify first of all as I explained on the last occasion, although it
was not accepted by you, that I did not mean to insult Members of this Council.
On this occasion, I would like to use this slang expression to describe the total
acceptance of all the repulsive issues arising out of colonialism by the Chinese
Government and the future SAR Government and bring these issues to a greater
height of development.
Nothing is more repulsive arising out of colonialism than autocracy,
trampling on human rights and a collaboration between the Government and the
business sector. It is indeed regrettable that these repulsive issues do not
disappear along with the end of the colonial rule. The handover simply
signifies that Hong Kong becomes a colony of China instead of Britain.
Judging from the current trend of development, we can notice that there
will be a smooth transition of colonial autocracy. An authoritarian rule by the
Britons will soon become that by the Chinese. Apparently "small circle
appointment system" has long been a colonial characteristic of Hong Kong. Not
only are the majority of Hong Kong people unable to participate in the election of
their representatives in the process, their right to know about the policy making
and the operation of the Government is not safeguarded either. In the past
decade or so, there was a slight change of the "small circle appointment system".
On the eve of the handover, however, the adoption of the small circle
appointment method in politics makes a comeback again. From the Preparatory
Committee to the Selection Committee, from the Chief Executive to the
monstrous Provisional Legislative Council, those appointed are all regarded as
"friends" by the Chinese side. Under the small circle appointment system, those
1598
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
in power can treat parliamentary seats as their private property and allocate them
to their supporters as a reward.
Another characteristic of colonialism is the trampling of human rights.
Colonial legislation is full of draconian laws which are in violation of human
rights. Recently, with the persistent struggle of the Hong Kong people, there
was eventually gradual improvement. Quite a number of the draconian laws
were rescinded. The Chinese Government, however, by specious reasons,
blatantly acted against the will of the Hong Kong people and announced the
restoration of the draconian laws which had been amended to enhance the
protection of human rights. The drawing up of the draconian laws such as the
Societies Ordinance, the Public Order Ordinance and so on, at that time by the
colonial government aimed at providing strong measures against the political
activities of the pro-Communists in Hong Kong. Ironically, up to this day, these
draconian laws are able to revive in a new guise. Hong Kong people are once
again bound by these draconian laws and our freedom is suppressed.
The collaboration between the Government and the business sector has all
along been another feature of the colonial rule. Capitalists had the monopoly of
political power in the colony all along. Capitalists and financial groups
dominated each and every political structures, from the Executive Council and
the Legislative Council to every district organisations and advisory bodies of
large or small scale. They were just like their clubs. Under the collaboration
between the Government and the business sector, most of the Government
policies were in favour of the capitalists' interests. The Government acted under
the pretence of creating a favourable environment for business and in fact took
no heed of the livelihood of the grass roots. The rights and interests which
workers were entitled were ignored. Since the introduction of the direct
election of the Legislative Council, there were, comparatively, more Members
who fought for the interests of the grass roots in the Council. The Government
policies were also, comparatively, beneficial to the grass roots. Unfortunately,
with the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR)
Government, there will be a total capitalist restoration. Great retrogression on
livelihood issues will be ensued in the future. Two days ago, the Legislative
Council passed a few pieces of legislation to improve the rights and interests of
the workers.
Representatives of the commercial and industrial sectors
immediately gathered together to create a disturbance, deliberating on how to
persuade the Chief Executive to scrap these pieces of legislation. We can see
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1599
the inkling of the colonial collaboration between the Government and the
businesses.
Mr President, if I have to sum up the work done by me and other Members
who represented the grass roots in this Council over the past two years, I would
say we tried to prevent the colony from turning into a foul vase. We do not
want this foul vase to be fraught with foul grass in future. Unfortunately, our
work has only been barely satisfactory. We can still see that the future SAR is
overgrown with foul grass. In particular, we can see that the handover is simply
the transfer of sovereignty; it does not symbolise the genuine reunification of
Hong Kong people with China. Mr President, I hope there will not be any foul
grass on this colony one day. And all the foul grass can be eradicated. Mr
President, I hope this day will come as soon as possible so that Hong Kong
people can truly experience reunification and only then will there be an
honourable return of the Hong Kong people.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am not going to make a ruling on what you have
just said. I think you have deliberately brought up an old case. Since I made a
public ruling on the matter at that time, you could either write a letter to me or
discuss the matter with me in private if you were not satisfied with the ruling.
You did write a letter to me, and that letter was also made known to the mass
media. However, my reply to you has not been publicized all along. I will
seize the opportunity to make the reply known to the public within a few days to
explain my ruling when I am still the President of this Council. There is no
other alternative for me to handle this matter.
MR AMBROSE LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, as the British poet Kipling
puts it, if a person only knows Britain, he fails to understand Britain. In other
words, you cannot understand Britain without understanding the history of
British colonialism. By the same token, while bidding Britain farewell, this
Council should also look back at the history of British colonialism for a more
rational farewell.
1600
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr President, in just a few days' time, Hong Kong, the "Pearl of the
Orient" in the history of British colonialism, has to reunify with China. But
British colonialism has not yet reached its very end. After withdrawing from
Hong Kong, Britain still has 13 dependent territories scattered around the world.
"There is no banquet in the world that never ends". By the turn of the 20th
century, the British colonial empire gradually disintegrated. When the Second
World War was over, the American President Roosevelt denounced British
colonialism as "immoral". Following the tide of history, there aroused a wave
of movements for independence in the colonies after the Second World War. At
the same time, the "de-colonization" policy was promulgated in these colonies by
Britain. But Hong Kong is not a British colony. Instead, it is a historical issue
left over by unequal treaties. On the basis of the concept of "one country, two
systems" engineered by the late Mr DENG Xiaoping, both China and Britain
agreed to settle the issue of Hong Kong through peaceful talks. While bidding
farewell to the British Government, this Council highly appraises China and
Britain for their mutual understanding and accommodation, and their respect for
history and reality in settling the issue of Hong Kong. The resolution of the
issue of Hong Kong sets an exemplary precedent for the world in resolving
historical issues through peaceful talks.
Mr President, in the history of British colonialism, there has never been a
dependent territory or a place which can accomplish the achievement as great as
that of Hong Kong. As for the 13 remaining British dependent territories, their
people are in financial straits with a lacklustre economy. Most surprisingly,
although the legal system, civil service and set of values installed by Britain in
these colonies are in fact very similar to those of Hong Kong, the degree of
prosperity enjoyed by these colonies can hardly match up to that of Hong Kong.
None of the cities in Britain is as successful as Hong Kong, either. What are the
factors contributing to the success of Hong Kong? This is a meaningful issue
for the historians to ponder.
Mr President, history is the reality of the past and reality is the
continuation of history. When this Council bids farewell to the British
Government, the achievements and errors of the British rule in Hong Kong
during the last 100 years or so should be left for history to decide. In fact, we
are more interested in the future. The Prime Minister of the Labour
Government in Britain said that Hong Kong, rather than an obstacle, was a bridge
leading to China. The wisdom behind these words gained much praise. We
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1601
wish that after the handover of Hong Kong, both China and Britain can still use
Hong Kong as a bridge for mutual communication, so as to promote the interests
of their people, world peace and world development. Instead of the end of an
era, the handover of Hong Kong marks the beginning of a new epoch. Starting
from 1 July, under the banner of "one country, two systems", the Special
Administrative Region of Hong Kong (SAR) will implement the policy of "Hong
Kong people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy". The
prosperity enjoyed by Hong Kong in the past owed much to the Hong Kong
people, mainly the Chinese. With the support of China, the British legal system
and the civil service, the people of Hong Kong have made use of the exceptional
geographical advantages of Hong Kong to achieve success. If Hong Kong
people can create prosperity in Hong Kong, they should be able to rule Hong
Kong with the same success. Mr President, the stability and prosperity of the
SAR are not only where the confidence and hope of the Hong Kong people lie,
there also lie the interests of Britain, China and the rest of the world. Hence, the
prosperity and stability of the SAR will not only be given the blessing of this
Council, but also the blessing of the people of Hong Kong and the rest of the
world.
Mr President, the stability and prosperity of the SAR basically hinge on
whether the people of Hong Kong can unite as one in implementing the concept
of "one country, two systems". The Hong Kong Progressive Alliance believes
that when the people of Hong Kong become the masters of their own house, they
will maintain harmony and vitality in the community with harmonious yet
distinct spirits. "Harmony" and "uniformity" are in opposition to each other.
"Uniformity" refers to monotony and unitary whereas "harmony" refers to the life
and growth in nature in an endless succession under a pluralistic and harmonious
environment. Hence, according to Guoyu, "Harmony begets vitality but
uniformity gets nowhere." In The Analects of Confucius, Confucius also says,
"The gentleman aims at harmony, and not at uniformity. The small man aims at
uniformity, and not at harmony." I have to send my sincere thanks to the
Honourable Martin LEE, an old friend of mine for the past 30 years. His speech
proved that I am as good as my word. We have a harmonious relationship
though our viewpoints are not the same. So he cast his vote and I cast mine.
As for the compliment of the Honourable Ronald ARCULLI, I really do not
deserve this because I did not kick out Maria TAM. I merely kicked her up.
"U" "P", "UP".
1602
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Mr President, as long as Hong Kong people and the political parties can
establish a harmonious relationship among themselves while retaining their
different viewpoints, "one country, two systems" should be a success. Freedom,
democracy, stability and prosperity will then be within the grasp of the SAR.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MR ANDREW CHENG (in Cantonese): Mr President, as a Chinese with
righteous ardour, I feel utmost ambivalence towards the valedictory motion
today. No Chinese will feel shame about the Unequal Treaty signed 150 years
ago because the Ching Government was corrupt and decadent. A century later,
the return of Hong Kong to China under the Sino-British Joint Declaration
worried quite a few Hong Kong people. Those who do not have confidence in
the future regime already voted with their feet and became second class citizens
in foreign lands. The reason for their lack of confidence is because,
unfortunately, the present regime is corrupt and decadent. Moreover, it
tramples on human rights and freedom. Same reason brings about an entirely
different consequence for the Chinese. A century ago, Chinese people "hated to
leave but they had to do so". A century later, the Chinese "wish to stay but they
choose to leave". This is the sorrow of the Chinese.
I therefore have mixed feelings when bidding farewell to the British
Government. If we are too sad, we will be severely criticized by those who
have a blind faith in nationalism for being the lackeys of imperialism, or even
traitors and collaborators of the nation. If we refuse to give credit to the British
Government for the work done in Hong Kong over the past century because we
are taking too narrow a view of nationalism, it is indeed unfair to the British
Government.
Mr President, due to time constraint, I will only go into the subject of how
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) can remain prosperous by
learning from the experience and the gains and losses of the Hong Kong British
Administration. Firstly, it is the issue of anti-corruption. Some people say that
Chinese people stress the importance of connections, from "giving face" to
"offering bribes". From a century ago up to the Valentine's Day in 1974, that is,
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1603
14 February, the date on which the Independent Commission Against Corruption
was set up, corruption was the prevailing practice of society in Hong Kong.
Here, I cannot but praise the determination of the Hong Kong British
Administration to fight corruption. In the operation of "Fighting corruption,
Bringing GODBER to justice", a number of Chinese ICAC officers went all the
way to the homeland of the Hong Kong British Administration to arrest corrupt
and decadent officials. This demonstrated the determination of the Hong Kong
British Administration to uphold justice and righteousness even at the sacrifice of
blood relations. Let me narrate a story to which the Honourable Martin LEE
often referred. One day, while DENG Xiaoping was having a walk with ZHOU
Enlai at Tiananmen, they discussed national affairs, in particular, how to fight
corruption in Mainland. DENG Xiaoping asked, "Comrade ZHOU, how many
corrupt officials do I have to arrest so that the problem of corruption in Mainland
can be solved? How about five million?" ZHOU Enlai shook his head. "Will
500 000 be sufficient?" He shook his head. "50 000, is that enough? Too many?
How about 5 000?" DENG Xiaoping said, "Comrade ZHOU, tell me how many
officials do I actually have to arrest?" He said, "Two. Your son and mine."
Mr President, maintaining a corruption-free SAR is very important to the
prosperity of Hong Kong. Whether the SAR is able to fight the infiltration of
corruption from Mainland depends on the determination of the SAR
Government. Corruption is not only a behaviour but in fact a way of life in
Mainland. I think a lot of courage, much more than that of upholding justice
and righteousness even at the sacrifice of blood relations, is needed so as to
change this habit.
Recently, it is learnt that the Commissioner of the ICAC is keen on
studying the possibility of amending the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance so as
to prevent employees of the private sectors from engaging in corruption activities
outside Hong Kong. It is very important to head towards this direction and I
hope this can be done as soon as possible. Yet the Commissioner disclosed
another more worrying issue in the same press conference the independence of
the Commission in the future. The English short title of the Commission will
change from "ICAC" to "CAC", without the letter which stands for
"Independent". The Chief Executive explained that this was done to make it
consistent with the text of the Basic Law. He, however, failed to get rid of the
worries of the Hong Kong people and the foreign investors. Questions such as
whether the Commission will remain truly and completely independent and
1604
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
impartial in future; whether the Commission will contract the bad habits of the
Mainland; whether ill the Commission will be forced to become a political tool
of those in power in the Mainland to harbour the privileged comrades or a
political tool for the Beijing Government to clamp down on dissidents in Hong
Kong are left unanswered. The rule of law and a corruption-free environment
are the important foundation for the prosperity of Hong Kong over the past two
decades or so. If Hong Kong becomes a community which defies all laws and
perverts justice for a bribe, Hong Kong will only take the road back to its former
position after the handover. I venture to urge the Chief Executive to place
anti-corruption work on the top priority so as to maintain the prosperity of the
SAR.
Mr President, having talked about the issue of fighting corruption, I would
like to talk about representative government. Firstly, Sir Jack CATER, the first
Commissioner of the ICAC, recently disclosed in a newspaper interview that it
was the then UMELCO Members appointed by the British Government
(including Baroness Lydia DUNN and Sir CHUNG Sze-yuen) instead of the
traditional Administrative Officers in this British colony, who hindered the
development of representative government in Hong Kong in the 1960s and
1970s. They offered advice to the Government at that time, emphasizing that
Hong Kong people did not have the required intelligence to accept a democratic
system. Mr President, many people believe that it is a plot of Britain to
introduce democracy to Hong Kong a few years before the handover so as to
render the SAR out of control. No matter whether this conspiratorial theory is
true or not, I am of the view that democratization is an international trend. With
technological advancement and information flowing freely around, only
totalitarian government would be able to stifle the freedom of the people. I
think it was the continuous effort of Hong Kong people and the irresistible
international trend that brought about the democratic development in Hong Kong
in the past decade or so.
Mr President, I hope those in power in the future SAR will consider views
put forward by the public. They should not only give thought to their own
interests and act against the trend of the times. There are rumours saying that
quite a few villains whom Chief Executive TUNG hangs around hold sway. In
the past, people like Sir CHUNG Sze-yuen worked for the colonial government
and hindered the development of democracy. Today, Sir CHUNG Sze-yuen
paves the way for the SAR Government and again hinders the development of
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1605
democracy. Before we can see the benefits of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong
Kong", we see the harm of "Hong Kong traitors ruling Hong Kong".
Mr President, a century ago, Chinese people "hated to leave but they had to
do so". A century later, the Chinese today "wish to stay but they choose to
leave". This is a sorrowful phenomenon. The Chief Executive of the SAR
must have the courage to say "no" to the Beijing Government and be steadfast in
his stand to protect the rights and interests of Hong Kong people so that Hong
Kong people will stay and be committed to contributing to the SAR. Only then
will Hong Kong people no longer "wish to stay but choose to leave". They will
"stay if they wish" and work for the new Hong Kong. The Honourable Miss
CHAN Yuen-han earlier on said that she would definitely take part in the 1998
election. I believe she will stand a higher chance of winning in the election than
I do. It is, however, a well-known fact that I am younger than she is. If I lose
in the first Legislative Council election, I will make a comeback in the second
one. If I lose again, I will stand for the third one. I will do so until I return to
this Council.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
MR CHAN WING-CHAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Mr President.
I have joined the Legislative Council for nearly two years. The time I
shared with my colleagues in this Council valuable memories and deep feelings
of mine. Mr President, thank you for presiding over this meeting for some 20
hours with impartiality. From yesterday evening to this morning, our female
Members have no time to revitalize their beautiful faces with touches of
make-up; our handsome guys are too busy to shave away their stubble.
Speaking of stubble, hair is naturally the next thing I have to talk about.
Actually, I only have a few foreign friends. They inquired about my age
through an interpreter. When I replied that I was over 60, they asked if I was
kidding and how come I still had so much hair. So I told them that my hair was
real though the colour was not. (Laughter)
Let us return to our motion. I am over 60. Under the colonial rule, the
British Administration in Hong Kong has been running for some 150 years.
That means I have witnessed more than a third of the days of colonial rule in
1606
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Hong Kong. During the 1950's and 1960's, the economy, politics and culture of
Hong Kong were extremely backward. The general public were living in
poverty and the community had more hands than needed. Though we say that
unemployment rate is high these days, back then, the problem was even more
serious. In order to get a job, you had to ask your elders, relatives and friends to
recommend you to an employer, then you might get a very hard job. Needless
to say, labour rights were ignored. Workers had to work for more than 10 hours
a day without a single day of rest in a year. There was no statutory holiday,
either. The situation has slightly improved over the years through the
continuous efforts of the labour sector to strive for labour rights. Up to the
present, labour rights are still not adequate.
We have to fight for labour rights with the Government and the employers
bit by bit, little by little. Compared with the advanced countries, we are merely
a laughingstock. With the end of colonial rule and the British Administration in
Hong Kong, we will go on with our struggle against the Government of the
Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong (SAR). We should not assume
that crossing the threshold of 1997, workers will stand up and free themselves.
This day will never come unless we continue with our struggle.
Mr President, the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration unfurls a
long transitional period. Unfortunately, China and Britain are in dispute during
the transition. The non-cooperative and unfriendly relationship is actually
resulted from the change of its China policy on the part of Britain. In addition,
some people refer to 1997 as the deadline of Hong Kong, claiming that
democracy, freedom and human rights will no longer be found in Hong Kong
after 1997. Some people even make a stormy sea stormier by passing absurd
remarks, predicting that with the approaching of 1997, a wave of emigration will
arise and lots of people will have to brave the rough sea to seek refuge. It
seems that at the dawn of 1997, the situation in Hong Kong will be just like the
collapse of the Nguyen Van Thieu Administration in Saigon; scenes of
Government officials and civilians crawling and squeezing into helicopters to
flee for their lives will revive in the Hong Kong airport.
Mr President, with just three more days to go, Hong Kong will be reunified
with the motherland. Fortunately, the above scenes do not appear in Hong
Kong. I do hope that they will not appear in Hong Kong. We all know that it
is already 1997 right now and it will be 1 July in a few days' time. In other
words, the SAR will soon be established on the basis of "Hong Kong people
ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy", marking the end of colonial
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1607
rule. I am so glad that I can witness one third of the days of colonial rule. Just
now, the Honourable Edward HO said that he was deeply touched by the national
anthem. In brief, this is how I feel about the reunification:
Born at this time, live at this moment,
how happy I am, how meaningful it is!
Thank you Mr President, these are my remarks.
MR TSANG KIN-SHING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President. Let us
celebrate the restoration of sovereignty and mourn for the encroachment of
Diaoyu Islands. In the past, I was regarded by many people as a trouble-maker.
But in fact, I just wanted to make known my love for my country and Hong
Kong. I had been to Taiwan, where I was regarded as a communist bandit.
Still, I planted the Five-Starred Flag in a bid to preserve the territorial integrity of
my country. Among the three places in the world with very large Chinese
community, Mainland China is governed by one-party dictatorship with no
election ever held.
The direct election of the President of Taiwan on 18 March 1996 was a day
of honour for the Chinese. Yet the election had its corrupt practice: black
money politics. On the contrary, elections in Hong Kong are more honest
because Hong Kong is under the colonial rule. I think that we, the Chinese,
should have self-examination and find out why we feel happy only when we are
not in mainland China. Since PATTEN came to Hong Kong, he has brought in
new parliamentary and political cultures. He has adopted a friendly attitude
towards members of the public which I hope his successor will carry forward.
With PATTEN at the helm, all policy secretaries have to stand up to public
pressure and for this, he deserves our commendation.
Many people asked me why I did not join the Provisional Legislative
Council (PLC). Let me tell you a story about my son. One day, my son's
teacher said to him, "TSANG Check-kit, you shall be the class monitor". "This
is the age of direct elections, I will not accept this appointment," my son said to
his teacher and his teacher told me about this over the phone immediately. I
believed that my son had done nothing wrong. Eventually, my son asked for a
direct election of class monitor and a consultative meeting was convened
afterwards. The class monitor was finally returned by election but my son lost
in the end. Similarly, if we did not accept the PLC, there would not be any
1608
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
PLC. Why did you accept it? To put it bluntly, it is because of your
infatuation with power and wealth. As for the composition of the PLC, I will
simply sing you a Japanese song to sum up the whole thing and that is "losers
will soon be appointed". Those who have lost in the election will be appointed
later. I used to be a radical. I have repeatedly criticized the Hong Kong
Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL), the Democratic
Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Federation of
Trade Unions (FTU). Why did I not criticize the Liberal Party and the Hong
Kong Progressive Alliance? It is because we had work together for the rights
and interests of the labour and the grassroots. But the votes cast in the past 20
months or so showed that they betrayed us. Still, I only focused on the matter
itself and any criticism made was not intended to be personal. If I offended any
of you, such as the Honourable Frederick FUNG and the Honourable Bruce LIU
of the ADPL, the Honourable CHAN Yuen-han and the Honourable CHENG
Yiu-tong of the FTU, at Council meetings during the past two years, please
forgive me for I only focused on the matter itself and did not intend to make any
personal remark about any of you.
Mr President, with two more days to go, you can open your mouth and
speak again. I think you should give your copy of Erskine May to Mrs Rita
FAN. It is a very useful book. One does not have to make the ruling himself
and just let the dead to make it for him. Indeed, this dead person had done a
very good job.
The factors contributing to the prosperity enjoyed by Hong Kong in the
past are manifold: Hong Kong is a society of rule of law, integrity, free flow of
information and freedom of expression. There are no riots in Hong Kong.
Even if there have been hundreds of demonstrations every day since 1989, these
demonstrations have neither led to riots nor caused any damage to public
properties. So, why does the legislation need to be tightened? Why is the
colonial legislation enforced during the riots in 1967 reinstated? Do not do to
others what you do not wish yourself. Regarding the setting up of the
Provisional Legislative Council and the Government of the SAR, this is how I
feel: "Today public opinion is buried under the ground, the ruling dictatorship
will have the same fate in future". Many people asked me, "TSANG Kin-shing,
you will be alighting from the train very soon, what are you going to do?" The
answer is simple, as I will no longer be a Member, I will be a street-fighter again.
I will go back to the grassroots from where I have come, keep on monitoring the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1609
operation of the SAR Government and defending the people of Hong Kong
against any injustice.
Mr President, parliamentary culture has been changing from 1991 to 1997.
It is no longer honourable. I think the word "Honourable" will not be used by
the SAR Government to address Members. I believe that as long as the people
of Hong Kong are willing to make an effort and speak out for themselves,
nothing cannot be achieved. In a word, we have to speak out whenever there is
an injustice. I still have one minute to speak and I would like to recite a poem
with which the Honourable SZETO Wah practises calligraphy very often: "In the
sky, there are clouds and sunshine, full moon and new moon; in life, there are
joys and sorrows, partings and reunions. From ancient times, the ways of the
world have never turned out as we wish. If only we could be together forever,
admiring the moon from miles and miles afar". Perhaps you are falling asleep,
so I want to "crack a joke". My son wrote me a sentence in English. Now I try
to read it to you: "A good beginning, a good ending".
Thank you, Mr President.
MR LEE KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President.
In fact, I wrote a poem last night, but now the time has changed. Besides,
I want to make the shortest speech as far as possible. The Honourable CHAN
Kam-lam said that his speech would be shorter than mine, but I think that this
speech of mine will still be shorter than his.
Mr President, as Britain ends its rule in Hong Kong, this Council which is
formed under the constitution of British administration will have to go as well.
This is the reality of history. Now, I would like to say farewell to you all with a
poem, wishing you all the best in the days ahead and an even more prosperous
future for Hong Kong.
Firstly, I would like to read to you the poem that I wrote last night, then I
will make some minor amendments to it. Anyway, they are almost the same.
As the setting moon shines into this Chamber,
We speak in turns to uphold justice;
1610
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Let us drink a toast tonight before we part,
There is no need to sigh emotionally over the past.
I have to change it slightly because the sun has risen:
As the rising sun shines into this Chamber,
We speak in turns to uphold justice;
Let us drink a toast today before we part,
There is no need to sigh emotionally over the past.
Thank you, Mr President.
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Mr President, we have actually
sobered up and awaken. 150 years has passed. While we are thinking of the
legacy the British left behind for us, what should be our most treasured
possession? Is it a prosperous city, a clean Government, a robust economy, or
an community of good order under the rule of law? Many colleagues have
already spoken on this subject. But the case of Hong Kong is very different
from other former British colonies. Britain, upon her departure, is not going to
give Hong Kong a democratic Government. We learn from history that when
other places gained their independence, their nationals would be very happy with
their independent status and there would be nation-wide rejoicing at their
breaking away from a colonial society.
If you happen to be in Central these days, you will see many lanterns and
coloured streamers. They are the most beautiful decorative lighting I have ever
seen, creating a jubilant atmosphere. One day, when the Honourable Miss
Emily LAU and I were walking to the car park, she said that the decorations were
really disgusting. In fact, this has not been the first time I heard of such
comments. Other colleagues have made the same comments at chats over
meals. Instead of revealing our joy, why do we feel this way at the time of
reunification? Perhaps it is because this meeting, which spans five days and
five nights, has deprived us of the opportunity to breathe in the air of jubilation.
Last night, my family went to Lautau Island to spend the holidays. I
really wish I could have gone with them. I should have spent these few days'
holiday happily with my family. But even if we had gone to Lantau Island to
enjoy the sunshine and the beach, we might not have felt the joy of the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1611
reunification. Supposedly, this should be the time for us to rejoice, but why do
we not feel the joy? Although I have thought it over and over again, I cannot
figure it out. Is it because we await the reunification with fear? Is it because
we are afraid of being reunified with China, a country with no respect for the rule
of law, no freedom, human rights and democracy? We are in a dilemma. Do
the some 6 million Hong Kong people feel the way as I do? If we are really
happy, even if there are no lanterns or coloured streamers, we will still be happy.
But do lanterns and coloured streamers really stand for happiness?
Ever since the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984, Hong
Kong has gradually departed from her secluded past, striding forward towards an
open society. In comparison with the old days, today we enjoy some freedom,
more human rights and, albeit very little, democracy. Looking back at the past
decade or so, we often talked about progressing in an orderly way. Does an
orderly way mean a snail's pace? Taiwan began her journey towards democracy
in 1987 and within 10 years' time, it has a directly-elected President. Hong
Kong, on the other hand, has begun her journey towards democracy much earlier
than Taiwan. Yet under the present circumstances, perhaps even in another 10
years' time, democracy will not make much progress in Hong Kong.
The Honourable CHIM Pui-chung said that I was a boring person. I think
it has something to do with my feeling about the reunification. Dr the
Honourable LAW Cheung-kwok has just said that the "3-violation" political
reform package enabled him to obtain the 26 votes he needed to win a seat in the
Legislative Council. Both he and I were elected under the same reform
package. The only difference is that I obtained 26 000 votes. As I received my
education in this colony, I may not have the sense of nationalism as possessed by
the patriots who also love Hong Kong. Recalling the June 4 Incident in 1989, I
could actually feel the patriotic feelings expressed by the people around me in
demonstration parades. Of course, with the changes in political climate, the
ways to express patriotic feelings may also change. No matter how hard I think
about the future, the questions of when we will have a directly-elected Chief
Executive here in Hong Kong and when the concepts of one country, two
systems and Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong will be put into practice
remain unanswered.
At last, I would like to spare a few minutes to talk about some of my
colleagues as a complement to the awards given out by the Honourable Martin
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1612
LEE. I wonder if it has ever come to your notice that the Honourable Miss
CHAN Yuen-han, who is sitting in front of me, very often walked out of this
Chamber when it comes to voting. I believe I can give her another award for
casting the fewest votes. She did attend the meetings, but why did she not vote?
You can give it a thought. Secondly, it comes to Dr LAW Cheung-kwok.
Here I have to say this for my colleagues. All of us have serious doubts about
his doctorate degree. The third person I would like to talk about is the
Honourable Bruce LIU. When I first met him, he was the personal assistant of
the Urban Councillor Frederick FUNG. He and my wife were also schoolmates.
In the past 10 years or so, seeing that Mr Bruce LIU has done so many things, I
have lots of thoughts and feelings. I just want to tell him that as politicians, we
must always bear in mind our purpose in entering into politics. I hope that Mr
LIU will think thoroughly if we have to do something , or if we have to do
something just for ourselves. Must we do these things by ourselves? As long
as we have done a good job, things are considered to be successful. If you keep
on asking yourself whether you can climb to a certain position or whether you
should take part in the election of the National People's Congress or something,
you have, in fact, forgotten what you have wanted to achieve in these positions.
Over the last couple of days, we have lots of opportunities to accomplish our
intended purpose. The pity is that we lost them all. We do not mean to step
forward swearing at the others. I just hope that we are given a chance to reflect
on ourselves. Given that our age and background are more or less the same,
why is there such a big difference between us?
Thank you, Mr President.
MR YUM SIN-LING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President. Hong Kong
was once known as "a borrowed place at a borrowed time". Now, the borrowed
time is nearly over; this borrowed place will soon have to be returned. In the
past 150 years or so, there was, in fact, nothing worth taking note of in the first
100 years. It was only in the past 50 years that the combination of various
factors led to the success of Hong Kong. I think there are seven basic factors:
(1)
During 1949 to 1950, nearly all industrial and business elite flocked
to Hong Kong from China. Most of them were Shanghainese and
they came with wealth, knowledge and skills.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1613
(2)
From 1949 up to the present, there have been the influx of people
and talents to Hong Kong from time to time providing cheap labour,
skilled workmen and intellectuals.
(3)
People from Guangdong Province were diligent and frugal. With
relatives and friends living abroad, they had an international
perspective. In the early days, Hong Kong economy was largely
depended on labour intensive industries. "Diligence" brought
about rapid economic development. "Frugality" meant effective
operation of all trades and professions and by saving a large portion
of income in the bank, it became the source of huge capital for
re-investment. Having an international perspective and with the
assistance of the Britons, Hong Kong people had the opportunity to
develop trade with countries all over the world.
(4)
We have inherited from Britain the rule of law and a system under
which individual freedom and rights are respected. These
institutions have provided a favourable political and business
environment for us to bring our ability into play and attracting
foreign investors;
(5)
With the establishment of a civil service, including the
administrative officers system and a regular redeployment system to
train generalists, and by drawing on their own solid experience,
Britain has indeed adopted a very desirable administrative strategy
in ruling Hong Kong;
(6)
Owing to the belief that "the less one does, the fewer mistakes one
makes", the colonial government engaged a lot of consultants and
set up various advisory committees. The adoption of "positive
non-intervention" in certain areas has inadvertently brought about
the most successful free economy system in the world.
(7)
For decades, Hong Kong people have enjoyed freedom in many
aspects. Over the past decade or so, democracy has been gradually
developed in Hong Kong to enable this international city to be
broadly in line with the international trend. Many people therefore
have chosen to stay in Hong Kong. There was a continual inflow
1614
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
of overseas talents and Hong Kong was a place where the Chinese
and Western culture met.
Furthermore, the opening up of
Mainland China and democratic development in Taiwan in the past
decade or so brought about a substantial increase in re-export trade
of Hong Kong. More and more Mainlanders visited Taiwan via
Hong Kong and vice versa. All these brought about substantial
political, economic and cultural development of Hong Kong.
Judging from the above basic factors, both the Chinese and the Britons
have more or less made equal contributions to the success of Hong Kong. Up to
this day, the whole world focuses its attention on Hong Kong to see whether the
factors leading to the success of Hong Kong can be maintained. Unfortunately,
the way in which the Beijing authority handled Hong Kong affairs in the past two
years left us with an impression that the Chinese Government would only like to
implement "one country, two systems" on economic matters and would like to
implement "one country, one system" on political matters. For example, there
have been "small circle elections" behind the scene, the emphasis on the rule of
man and so on. Economy and politics, however, can never be separated.
Retrogression on political matters will definitely have adverse effects on the
economy. The implementation of "one country, two systems" on one aspect but
not the other makes Hong Kong people worry about the future. It also
adversely affects the unification of China and Taiwan.
Governor PATTEN will be departing soon. Apart from promoting
democracy in Hong Kong, he enhanced the efficiency of the government
departments through the implementation of "performance pledges" so as to
provide better services to Hong Kong people. He therefore can signify the
honourable retreat of Britain.
Looking back at our past achievements, this Council should bid farewell to
Britain on behalf of Hong Kong people. Having regard to the worries lying
ahead, we have to send our best wishes to the Special Administrative Region of
Hong Kong. I look forward to the early implementation of "one country, two
systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong".
With these remarks, I support the motion. Thank you.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1615
DR HUANG CHEN-YA (in Cantonese): Mr President, I believe everyone of us
has been looking forward to this moment for a long time. All Chinese may say
that they have waited for 150 years or so. We look forward to today ─ the last
sitting of the Legislative Council when Hong Kong is under colonial rule ─ to
bid farewell to the British Empire. When today is over, there will not be a
colonial Legislative Council anymore. How should we describe our history
under British rule for the past 150 years or so? We know that the colonial era
began with disgrace. Hong Kong was not only a shame for China, but also a
shame for Britain because at that time, Britain resorted to violence to promote the
sale of opium in China and it was followed by the usurpation of Hong Kong.
Now, we of course know that over the past few decades, the Britons has indeed
transformed Hong Kong from an insignificant island into a well-known city.
Furthermore, we have also inherited from the Britons a fine legal system, an
efficient civil service and a well-regulated free market which operates well. Yet
we cannot forget after all that Hong Kong is a flawed city. The Britons have
never given up the right of administration. They all along tightly grasped the
right of administration and forbade Hong Kong people to become the masters of
their own house.
Mr President, had Hong Kong people not started to strive for democracy
and human rights in the 1970s, there would not have been the element of
democracy, albeit just a tiny bit, in this Council today. This is, in fact, the
achievement of Hong Kong people through struggles over the past two decades
and has nothing to do with the bestowal of the Britons.
Britain has all along used Chinese to subjugate their own races so as to
have local elites at its service. Britain not only failed to promote democracy in
Hong Kong, but has all along hindered the pace of democratization. Had there
been an early adoption of decolonization by Britain so that Hong Kong people
were allowed to run their own affairs and had there been an introduction of
directly-elected seats in the Legislative Council, there would not have been so
much conservative voice to oppose democracy in the early 1980s. Had Britain
conformed to the wishes of the Hong Kong people at that time by introducing
direct election in 1988, we would have had practical experience to prove that
direct election not only did no harm to Hong Kong, but also enabled government
policies to be drawn up in a way that would better suit the need of the
community. The Basic Law might also have not been drafted in such a
conservative way. Beijing officials who belonged to the conservative camp
might not shorten the lawful tenure of the Legislative Council or deprive us of
1616
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
our democratic power on the excuse of Mr PATTEN's political reform package
which was alleged to be in violation of the Basic Law. We must remember that
Mr PATTEN's package was after all only a very tiny step towards the democracy
of Hong Kong. We knew from the Legislative Council debate at the time that
the package was still a long, long way from the demand of the Hong Kong people
for democracy and a comprehensive direct election system. The truth is,
therefore, it was not the case that Britain introduced democracy to Hong Kong on
the eve of departure, it was the selfish way of Britain ruling Hong Kong that
posed a lot of difficulties in the democratization of Hong Kong.
The handover marks the end of our national humiliation which has lasted
over a century. Yet the humiliation of the Hong Kong people still persists. A
century ago, Hong Kong people, who were originally the humble subjects of the
Qing Dynasty, became the humble subjects of a British colony. After the return
of Hong Kong to China, Hong Kong people will most likely be ruled by the
Chinese instead of being freedman. We cannot be the masters of our own house
yet after 1 July. We will not be able to elect our own government, councils or
the most suitable representatives to serve the community. The establishment of
the Provisional Legislative Council and the amendment made to the Public Order
Ordinance are a reflection of retrogression. When Hong Kong ceases to be a
colony, we even enjoy lesser democracy, freedom and human rights than we used
to under colonial rule. When more and more people of countries all over the
world enjoy democracy, the Basic Law continues to deprive us by stipulating that
we can only enjoy second-rate democracy. Furthermore, those provisions
cannot be amended within years. The fate of Hong Kong and its people are still
not determined by us. We still have to put up with the humiliation of being
ruled. The words of our national anthem read, "Stand up, those who are not
willing to be slaves ......". Let us continue to strive for wiping out the
humiliation of our generation and be slaves no more. Let us have a fully
directly elected government and councils. The tenure of this Legislative
Council can be cut; yet I hope Hong Kong people will never cease to strive for
democracy.
I have served the Legislative Council as an Australian Chinese for six
years. My grandfather, my father and I have done something for China over the
past century. We are all along overseas Chinese and believe that one should
have the right to choose one's nationality and then serve the land one loves. I
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1617
hope I can still serve this piece of land and help Hong Kong people as well as the
Chinese to strive for the rights they entitle after 1 July.
MR MOK YING-FAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President. As China
has been a nation of propriety and righteousness since ancient times, I am not
going to comment on the British rule in Hong Kong during the past 150 years or
so for "people can tell in their hearts". Instead, I will thank Britain for looking
after such a naughty child for China over these years. In two days' time, Hong
Kong will be handed over to China.
I have to illustrate my speech with props. I love travel very much and
anywhere will be just fine to me. Sometimes I returned to China and sometimes
I went overseas. Wherever I went, I always brought back souvenirs and the
things I liked. Travel is good because, in addition to widening my horizons, I
can take this opportunity to get to know the conditions and customs of different
places. Shopping, of course, is another good thing about travel.
The first prop I have to use is a statue of LU Xun, which is made of the
fine porcelain of Jingdezhen, Jiangxi. LU Xun compares his own writings to
daggers and spears. I think that the motions, debates and voting of the
Legislative Councillors are the daggers and spears of modern days. Actually,
they are more than daggers and spears. They are the shields and city walls to
defend the people of Hong Kong. I hope that each and every Member of the
legislature of the future Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region (SAR) will be LU Xun of modern days, using our motions, debates and
voting as the spears, shields and city walls of the SAR, defending the freedom
and democracy enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong.
My second prop is a crystal globe. I have already forgotten where I
bought it. Our Earth is a very beautiful planet. I hope that we can conserve
the beauty of our Earth, making it last forever, free from any pollution. People
say that we are living in a place borrowed from the future. But if we want our
future generations to have a clean environment to live, from now on, we have to
make every effort to conserve the Earth on which we are now living.
This crystal globe is transparent, too. A transparent globe looks even
more beautiful. I also hope that our future SAR Government will have a very
1618
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
high degree of transparency, so that members of the public can see clearly the
operation of the Government.
My last prop is a model of the Parthenon I bought during my trip to
Greece. I think all of you recognize the Parthenon. When I was in Greece and
arrived in the mountain top where the Parthenon was situated, the majesty of the
Parthenon overwhelmed me, reminding me of the golden days of the Greek city
states. The feeling of remoteness and vastness aroused by the landscape and
monuments I saw in Mainland China was a similar experience. Two different
places stirred the same feelings in me and this is where the subtlety lies.
The Parthenon reminds me of another thing and that is the spirits of
democracy and liberty evolved in Greece. These spirits have made a great
impact on the political development in the West over the past thousand years. I
really hope that our future SAR Government will carry forward the spirits of
democracy and liberty cultivated by our Legislative Council in the past eight or
10 years, calling into play the concept of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong
with a high degree of autonomy".
Thank you, Mr President.
MR LEE WING-TAT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members.
Mr President, very few speeches I made in this term were accompanied
with scripts. As this is the last speech I am going to make, I have prepared a
decent script.
Mr President, the colonial rule is drawing near to a close. But, making
any impartial comments on the colonial rule is not at all easy. If I, just like the
columnists Pai Yang or Li Ao of Taiwan, praise the British imperial rule in Hong
Kong over the past hundred years or so, people will definitely say that I am too
attached to the colonial rule, or even call me a traitor.
Hong Kong has made every endeavour to progress. After more than a
hundred years of changes, the British has introduced to Hong Kong the rule of
law, a civil service and a clean Government. Coupled with the efforts of the
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1619
Chinese, a miracle was created in Hong Kong. Among the countries and
regions in the world, such as Taiwan, China, Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau,
of which the majority of the population is Chinese, which one is the best?
Mainland China still lacks freedom and the rule of law. Though her economy
has taken off, there is a long way to the utopia the Chinese always want. As for
Taiwan, it has a strong economy but the concept of the rule of law has yet to take
root. Elections are corrupted and press freedom has not been allowed full play.
Despite full-scale direct elections, Taiwan is still very far from an ideal modern
society. Singapore, on the other hand, can be compared to a hospital run by an
autocratic father. Staying there for just two weeks has already made me sick.
Even though there are general elections, signs of freedom are nowhere to be
found. Among these five places, Hong Kong is the place I love most. When
you drink water, you should think of its source. No matter how many privileges
and benefits the British have obtained from Hong Kong, their contributions to
Hong Kong are undeniable.
Over the past 10 years or so, in a bid to atone their crime by good deeds,
the British and the British Administration in Hong Kong have been doing their
best to promote freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. The Portuguese
Administration in Macau, on the contrary, has all along been commended by the
Chinese Government for their co-operation. So, how can we make a
comparison between the two? It seems that co-operating with China will earn
high praise but such a phenomenon has ignored the truth. Let us take a look at
Macau. Has she implemented the civil service localization policy smoothly?
Does her economy develop well? Does she provide a pluralistic political
environment? Can she uphold the rule of law? Judging from these angles,
only a Government, be it the current Hong Kong Government or the future Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, which does not agree
to everything China says can build up its own authority in administering Hong
Kong.
Today, many colleagues have said that the absence of a through train is a
pity, but I do not think so. The one-year derailment is so brief that it cannot
stop the train of democracy from advancing at full speed in 1998. If we had had
a feeble Governor in 1992, we could, of course, have ridden the through train but
it is for sure that there would have been a selection process and there would have
been non-democratic direct elections in 1995. Undeniably, the five-year
political training proves to be a valuable lesson to the people of Hong Kong.
1620
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
The Governor, Mr PATTEN, has awakened the people of Hong Kong to the
demand of democracy. Such a concept has taken a firm root in the minds of the
people of Hong Kong and this intrinsic value will never be diminished. I have
to thank Mr PATTEN for laying a foundation for a more open and more
accountable Government. This change will carry forward to the SAR
Government and benefit the people of Hong Kong all their lives. Hence apart
from he himself and the Executive Council, Mr TUNG Chee-hwa indeed inherits
a Government system and culture bequeathed by Mr PATTEN.
Mr President, as a Hong Kong Chinese who was born after the war and
have never been living in China, I find the motherland so close yet so far away.
In the 1970s, when I was a university student, I participated in student
movements, unveiling the mysterious side of China little by little. Being much
impressed by the positive propaganda, I attached high hopes for socialism.
With aroused patriotic sentiments, I asked myself to trace back the history of my
own country. During the Sino-British negotiations in 1984, I was fascinated by
the high promises of "one country, two systems", "a high degree of autonomy"
and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". The Joint Declaration prompted
me to resolve to be a politician. Mr President, I have never been regretful for
the choice I made. No matter whether we have an ameliorated colonial
government or an autocratic government run by the Hong Kong people, I still
have the same mission and this mission is written in the lyrics of the song The
Dream of China we often sing: "My heart, my dream and your dream, the Yellow
River is the source of every dream of ours. In the past five thousand years, the
countless dreams of China have but only one theme." Mr President, I am very
confident that before making my last breath, my fellow countrymen will live in
plenty in the land of happiness and our motherland will be a prosperous and
powerful country. Thank you, Mr President.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr President. I would
like to tell the Honourable LEE Wing-tat that it is better for him to do without a
text. I indeed very much appreciate the patience of our friends sitting in the
public gallery. To tell the truth, this is the most boring debate I ever have since
I joined this Council. Yet in spite of its boring nature, the debate has to be
continued. I have to speak my mind and sincerely voice my innermost thoughts.
It, however, may not be something interesting.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1621
I do not want to say much about this motion, that is, Hong Kong under
British colonial rule for 150 years. I think Hong Kong people are very gentle
and kind in that they neither bear grudges nor feel hatred towards somebody they
should. We should regret the British Government's failure to introduce
democracy to Hong Kong. I have already indicated my regret in the Motion of
Thanks on the Governor's policy address. I, therefore, will not repeat here.
In relation to labour rights and interests, this Legislative Council is a
unique one. Throughout the past 150 years, it was not until the past two years
that there was the opportunity to pass certain bills which were closely related to
the rights and interests of the grass roots and the labour but they were not
welcomed by the Government. Unfortunately, this channel will be shut off from
us after we get off the train or after the handover in 1997. There will no longer
be any opportunity to put forward Members' Bills. Members of the future
Legislative Council will only have the right to speak but not the chance to put
their words into practice. Fewer members of the future Legislative Council will
be returned through election. As a result, there will be fewer Members who
strive for labour rights and interests.
Of this Council, I would like to mention the Honourable James TIEN for
he was the one who most frequently had verbal exchanges with me. I would, in
fact, like to tell him how much I admired him in the past two years. When I was
with him, I realized how good a trade union educator he was, probably the best
one in Hong Kong. I believed after workers had listened to what he said, they
would understand why there was the need for trade unions. I, therefore, owed
him a tremendous vote of thanks for the educational work done for me. It is a
pity that he kept on calling for the abrogation of labour legislation today.
As for the industrial and commercial sectors, they are, in fact, too
dependent on the Government to do everything for them. This is not a healthy
phenomenon in the long run. Hong Kong will finally become a democratic
society. When that day comes, the representatives of the industrial and
commercial sectors can compete for the seats of this Council if they wish as they
have a galaxy of talent. The ruling parties of the capitalist societies in the world
are, very often, political parties formed by the industrial and commercial sectors.
They should, therefore, ponder how to win people's support in the election
instead of relying on the Government to do everything for them or securing seats
in the councils through pull. I hope we can compete for the seats of this
Council on equal footing one day.
1622
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Another issue which I would like to talk about is that in the past two years,
reference was made to the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (CTU)
and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) on many occasions. I
think their relationship in this Council over the past two years was like taking
part in a three-legged race. They would sometimes move together but on some
occasions, one of them was lagged behind the other or even stumbled over.
CTU and FTU have been playing this game for two years and I hope they will
work together in the days to come. The Honourable Miss CHAN Yuen-han
mentioned earlier on that very often, the situation changed abruptly. This is
something which I least wish to see. As for the Democratic Party, Mr James
TIEN yesterday labelled them a Labour Party. I do not know whether he was
saying that I could be their party chief. I hope that is what he meant. If there
is a Labour Party, the number of votes will be 19 plus two. There will be a total
of 21 votes. The Honourable Martin LEE said earlier on that the Democratic
Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong was the most improved party. I
would also say that they probably ascend most quickly. This refers to the
ascension of their class stand. As for the Association for Democracy and
People's Livelihood, much was said by other colleagues and I do not want to say
much about them. They, however, never had it so good. Their performance
was so superb that within these two weeks, this Council, the SAR Chief
Executive's Office and the Hong Kong British Government became their
playthings. I have to pay a tribute to them. Lastly, all I have to say is that it is
indeed exhausting for us to sit up working tonight.
Thank you.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Mr President, it was quite interesting at the
beginning to hear a few colleagues such as the Honourable Allen LEE and the
Honourable Edward HO talk about their personal experiences. Finally, there
are of course some words from the bottom of their hearts. But as pointed out by
the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan, true feelings come with a touch of sadness and
one should not use the word "boring" to describe such feelings.
I would also like to talk about some personal experience, or to borrow
words from Mr Allen LEE, "the experience of bearing witness to something
important". My participation in elections dates back to 1985. In the next 10
years since then, I took part in three elections in three different constituencies but
all ended up in failure. My efforts were finally paid off in 1995. But I will be
forced to leave this Council after just two years as a Member. I am really
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1623
unlucky to the utmost. (Laughter) Nevertheless, I totally agree with what the
Honourable Michael HO has said: we have no regret about what we have done.
I am happy to leave this Council on grounds of principle. I do not have any idea
as to whether I will return in 1998 and whether it will sound as confident as the
Honourable Miss CHAN Yuen-han has said, because the election system will be
extremely troublesome by then. Someone said that it did not matter as we could
bide our time. I am not worried either. I think maybe I am someone whose
success will come late in his life. (Laughter) Some people say that there will
surely be chances in 2007, but by then I may be running for a provincial governor
or even the Premier on the mainland. (Laughter) The year 2007 is really too
far away. Talking about bearing witness to an era, it has been more than 20
years since I first took part in social activities in 1971. There are broadly five
stages during this period. The early 1970s was dominated by student
movements, when people in Hong Kong began to express the voice of their
conscience and students took to the street to demand for justice; we were part of
this group of people who took part in such activities as the anti-corruption
movement, the official Chinese language movement, the Diaoyu Island
movement, the protest against the increase in telephone tariff and the protest
against the Queen's visit to Hong Kong (that is the protest against colonialism).
From the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, we entered an era when pressure groups
were in the process of conception, during which we saw the gradual
establishment of various organizations one by one, such as the Society for
Community Organization, Hong Kong People's Council on Public Housing
Policy, Association of the Rights of the Elderly and so on, which pulled forces
together to fight for social justice in Hong Kong. In the early 1980s, as the
public was generally concerned about problems in Hong Kong, various
organizations were established for participating in politics. I founded the Hong
Kong Affairs Society Limited together with the Honourable HUANG Chen-ya
and other people. The Association for Democracy and Justice and the Meeting
Point were also set up during this period. In the mid 1980s, political
organizations began to be represented in the Legislative Council, fought for
democracy and took part in the Basic Law movement. Various political parties
such as the Liberal Party, the United Democrats of Hong Kong, the Association
for Democracy and People's Livelihood and so on, began to emerge in the 1990s.
What should be the next step in the mid 1990s? The normal course of
development should be for political parties to become the ruling party through
elections for the legislature. It is a pity that this movement has faltered and no
one knows for how long it will continue. I believe that we all feel regret about
1624
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
this. However, as we are in such a difficult situation, we must continue with our
struggle.
As for the feelings deep in my heart just before the reunion of Hong Kong
with the motherland, as far as I or many of my colleagues from the liberal camp
are concerned, the reunion with the motherland has never been a problem. In
the early 1970s, we always chanted a few lines in which we truly believed. I
think that you may also remember how to recite them. That is: "Caring for the
community, bearing in mind the motherland and broadening one's vision of the
world". We often read books about China and talked about the development of
China. We went from rational understanding to sentimental affirmation. We
were of the same mind and sincere. The thought of Hong Kong returning to the
motherland did not trouble us at all. Unlike many people who have said that as
the good old days are numbered and the Joint Declaration has been proclaimed,
one has to be gradually instilled zeal for the motherland and be educated in how
to foster a sense of love for it, or even contract a passion for it. I do not think
that we need to do these. When the Sino-British talks on Hong Kong reached a
deadlock in 1982, Hong Kong was thrown into a doomsday panic. Heavy
buying of the US dollar made the Hong Kong dollar plunge to a record low of
one US dollar against 10 Hong Kong dollars and shelves in supermarkets
throughout the territory were emptied. Some people sought an emergency exit
while others wanted Britain to keep a certain form of its administration.
Nevertheless, we actually stood up in 1982 in unconditional support of the
reunion of Hong Kong with the motherland. But one point in which we believe
is that we must implement the "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong
people ruling Hong Kong" concepts. The continued prosperity and stability of
Hong Kong depend on democracy, without which Hong Kong will not be a
success story. This is our firm conviction up to now. Therefore, we are still
fighting on today.
We do not need any language to express our love and feeling for China,
but we want to stress that we love our country as well as its history, culture, the
land and its people. When the government represents the interests of its people,
we will love and support it. But we cannot love and support a government just
because it is in power, or we only love and support leaders who are in power.
Mr President, finally, I would like to talk about confidence. I want to
stress that for me confidence means commitment rather than just a question of
confidence. Even if our confidence is at its lowest point or we have totally lost
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1625
it, we should also be committed to this place as this is our home. China is our
homeland. We therefore must take on this responsibility in the same way as we
are responsible for our family members. No matter how naughty and bad our
children are in our eyes, they are after all our children and we ought to do our
best to help and teach them. Therefore, no matter how pessimistic or optimistic
we are, we ought to be active, fully committed, participating and fighting.
Finally, on the one hand, we are waiting for the reunion of Hong Kong with the
motherland with enthusiasm; on the other hand, we will never forget our fight for
democracy.
MR LAW CHI-KWONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, unlike the Honourable
LEE Wing-tat, nearly all of my speeches since joining this Council were prepared
in advance. But I have not prepared my speech this time. One of the most
special things for me since joining this Council was the President's approval for
me to sing a song. Earlier, the Honourable TSANG Kin-shing said that I should
be consistent and therefore should sing a song tonight. But I think that singing
a song in the morning sounds like the crowing of a cock. So please allow me to
sing later.
The subject of this motion debate is to bid farewell to the British
Government. I think that if we see off the Crown Prince and the Governor who
are leaving on a vessel, we are saying good-bye to the colonial identity imposed
upon us by the British, rather than just the British themselves. Therefore, we
are saying good-bye to an identity instead of just a group of people. Looking
from another angle, will our Chinese identity automatically come into being on 1
July after we have said good-bye to our colonial identity? For me I have yet to
apply for a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) passport. I think
I must join the queue as soon as possible. Earlier on, I saw a lot of people join
the queue to submit their applications. So it may be quicker to get one if I
submit my application later.
Moreover, after saying good-bye to the colonial identity, another thought
has occurred to me: the making of Hong Kong was the result of the Opium War;
it is the Opium War which has separated Hong Kong from the rest of China for a
short period of time; it is also because of the Opium War which has made Hong
Kong such a place for some Chinese people to take refuge from the wars and
from the unstable situation before the liberation of China. It sounds
1626
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
contradictory. On the one hand, it is like a stigma, but on the other hand, it has
also set aside a place on the map where our ancestors and parents could establish
their homes.
The British are leaving! We have also heard something related to opium,
and that is the "spiritual opium" mentioned by a colleague sitting in front of me
with the nickname "Dr IQ", Dr the Honourable Philip WONG Yu-hong. Will
social welfare bring about "spiritual opium"? Many colleagues have mentioned
the pace of democratization in their speeches today. Some considered it too fast
while other said it was too slow. For the Democratic Party, democracy has
come to Hong Kong too late. As the representative from the social welfare
sector, I want to present another point of view that welfare service made a late
start in Hong Kong, which has nothing to do with opium. As it made a late
start, the initial pace was too slow. Therefore now is time to catch up from
behind. But the acceleration was criticized and likened to "a car speeding out of
control before crashing and killing its passengers"! By the same token, as
democracy has come too late, when the pace of democratization is accelerated, it
is criticized for being too fast. Welfare service has encountered the same
situation. For more than a century, the British did too little and too late in this
area. It wanted to accelerate the pace of improvement in the final days of its
administration, which had naturally attracted criticism. In my opinion, apart
from democracy, the British Government should also feel regret about the
provision of welfare service when it withdrew from Hong Kong.
The British are leaving! But a lot of problems remain to be solved.
Many people have to bear exorbitant rents, the rent for a bed-space is as much as
$1,500; 18 000 elderly persons are waiting for places in care and attention
homes; a few hundred thousand people are living in abject poverty and eking a
living in Hong Kong. No one knows when these problems will be solved.
Many people ask why there are still so many problems. I just want to sing a line
of a song: "The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind". I have been
consistent in that I have always sung the same song. I would like to invite all of
you to mix with members of the public to see and hear more and then you will
get the answer. I do not want to talk more about this answer. I just hope that,
instead of holding discussions in the Chamber only and working in the office
only, we should go out and see more.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1627
Many colleagues have extended thanks to a lot of people in their speeches
today and I do not want to repeat them. I will extend my thanks to all those to
whom all colleagues have extended their thanks. Moreover, I would like to
express thanks to some people who had helped me a lot with my work over the
past two years. They are groups of new immigrants, elderly persons, single
parents and their children, and many family members and parents of our clients.
They have conveyed many views to me in the past two years. It is not an
overstatement to say that they have supervised and guided my work. Therefore,
if in these two years I have made any achievements, they should be given the
credit.
Mr President, these are my remarks.
DR PHILIP WONG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I know from this list that, of
those Members who joined this Council along with me in 1991, 15 are still
serving in this Council. I have heard quite a number of classic remarks during
the six years in which we have been working together. The most unforgettable
one was made by the Honourable Martin LEE. At that time, we were discussing
about whether smoking should be allowed during a meeting. He said, "I am not
against smoking. You can smoke but you cannot puff smoke." I think that this
is the biggest difference between us. Neither of us is a smoker. He allows
other people to smoke but doesn't allow them to puff smoke. I won't forbid
other people to puff smoke. When they puff smoke, I will only turn away from
them. After all, this is a free society.
Moreover, I believe that all 60 Members have 60 independent minds but
we can still make friends among us. Some issues may prompt heated debates
even within a political party, and opinions can be poles apart among party
members. Even a political party can be like this, let alone this Council.
Therefore, I am of the view that the fact that it does not matter whether we hold
different political opinions, we can still make friends. I am very glad today that
the Honourable CHEUNG Man-kwong asked me just now whether he could ring
me and invite me to a meal some time in future. I told him that would be a
wonderful idea. This has proved that different political opinions will not
prevent us from making friends. I have no hard feelings towards any of the
other Members. Although we do not see eye to eye on quite a number of issues,
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1628
I respect them all. I believe that our society will really be full of hopes if we
continue to act like this.
Thank you, Mr President.
DR JOHN TSE (in Cantonese): Mr President, I knew that when it was my turn
to speak, all kinds of views would have been expressed by other people and I do
not want to pick up what other people have said by repeating views expressed by
other Members. Therefore, My President, I will express my views in the
following way.
DR JOHN TSE : Welcome to the morning news.
Here are the main headlines:
-
One-person-one-vote direct election to take place soon;
-
Housing speculation under control; and
-
Illegal immigration to China on the rise.
‧
An unidentified spokesperson from the Office of the Chief
Executive admitted late last night that the proportional
representation election held in 1998 was a mistake. The landslide
victory of the democrats was a major embarrassment for the Special
Administrative Region (SAR) Government. In order to prevent the
democrats from winning again, the next election will be in the form
of 60 directly elected seats in the Legislative Council. Sources
close to China confirmed that the election of the Chief Executive
will also be on a one-person-one-vote basis. New electoral
registration will soon be required. Reliable information suggests
that eleven million people in Hong Kong will be required to register.
‧
The cost of real estate went up again by another 10% last month.
However, the Secretary for Housing claimed that there was no
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1629
speculation in Hong Kong. He says the market is expected to be
stable in the range of $2,000 to $3,000 per sq ft.
‧
Still on the housing issue.
Vacancies in public housing have
increased in recent months.
Spokesperson from the SAR
Government suggests that this may be a direct consequence of an
over-supply of land. Reliable sources urge residents to apply early.
Immediate occupancy is guaranteed.
‧
After the setting up of the Human Rights Commission in 2003, our
station carried out an opinion poll. Results indicate that residents
have become more positive toward the SAR Government. The
Hong Kong Freedom and Human Rights Index has gone up 88
points. The recent emigration rate has dropped by another 2%.
‧
A group of 800 people were caught in Guangzhou last night after
being smuggled into the city from Hong Kong. The use of aircraft
for illegal immigration purposes is on the rise. The Chief
Executive is worried and has agreed to set up a committee to
investigate the situation.
‧
The United States was granted permanent Most Favoured Nation
(MFN) trading status by China. Professor S. K. LAU of the
Chinese University speculated that it was in return for the United
States Consulate's attendance at the inaugural ceremony of the now
deceased Provisional Legislature.
We now turn to business news:
Shares in Diaoyu Islands' business are expected to increase again.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the fishing and tourist trades will grow by
66% in the coming year.
The Hang Seng Index was up another 138 points today and stayed at an all
time high ─ 108 000 points.
1630
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
Now, the sports news:
Veteran tennis star Michael CHANG, who recently retired, revisited Hong
Kong and played at the centre court in the Minzhu (民 主 )Sports Stadium. He
won the game 8-9, 6-4, 6-4.
The fifth annual football match between the Legislative Council (1996-97)
team and Provisional Legislative Council team was held earlier. Final score
3-0. Winning the game, the Honourable Albert CHAN scored twice. While
Andrew WONG scored once in the first half when he played in the Legislative
Council team, after switching sides, he failed to score in the second half.
(Laughter)
The weather report is sponsored by the Chinese Commercial Party:
According to the Hong Kong Observatory, a heavy rain signal is expected
to be hoisted later this evening.
Education Department has already announced that "All schools will be
closed tomorrow."
Social Welfare Department, undaunted by the weather warning, announced
that "Individualized Home Help Services will continue tomorrow." So, senior
citizens need not worry about the impending storm front.
Fellow Council Members, the above news announcement was only a
dream. Let us hope it portends good things to come. Let us protect human
rights, fight for democracy, maintain the rule of law and make Hong Kong a free,
just and peaceful society.
Farewell London! Welcome Beijing!
DR JOHN TSE (in Cantonese): Mr President, we now switch to "the Chinese
Channel"! Here is a dialogue between a man and a woman: "Hey, property
prices went down at once after I had suggested that taxes be imposed on property
speculation. That's remarkable, is it not?"
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1631
"No, that is nothing. Property prices went up at once after I had bought a
flat specially for my son to take a rest after school. Is that not more
remarkable?"
Two persons are talking to each other in the prison: "I was given a
remission after I had done something to appease the Superintendent of the prison
a little bit. Is that not remarkable?"
"No, that is nothing. I was released from the prison right after I had
beaten someone. Is that not remarkable?"
Two students are having a dialogue: "Hello, more than 90% of my
classmates voted for me to become the monitor. That is remarkable, is it not?"
"No, that is nothing. I can still be the monitor even though I did not win
in the election because the form master said that each class must appoint one
more monitor from now on. Am I terrific?" (Laughter)
Fellow Council Members, you should not laugh at the above dialogues
because all of them are facts, ridiculous facts. It is a shame to democracy for
someone to use power for personal gains; it is a shame to the rule of law for
someone to act in total disregard of law and order; it is a shame to mankind that
those who were defeated in the election were appointed while whose who had
won in the election would be forced to step down. Such a shame will be a
headache not just for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, but also for
China. To erase such a shame, they must do better than the colonial
government by letting the people enjoy human rights, the rule of law, democracy
and freedom to which they are entitled. The people of Hong Kong should no
longer be infatuated with the expectations that a wise leader would come to our
rescue to lead us to a shining path. In fact, what Hong Kong needs most is a
democratic, fair, just and open electoral system so that the public can monitor the
performance of both the Executive and the Legislature.
As pointed out by many fellow Members, Britain has not brought us
enough democracy. My fellow citizens, as the British will withdraw and Hong
Kong will soon be returned to the motherland, we must continue our fight for
democracy.
1632
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
These are my remarks. (Clapping of hands)
MR WONG WAI-YIN (in Cantonese): Mr President, after the exquisite grand
finale delivered by Dr the Honourable John TSE, I should not stand to speak any
more. And in fact, I have not prepared to speak. But having heard the
Honourable MOK Ying-fan's story based on a painting of the Parthenon, I also
wish to say a few words.
He said that the Parthenon he saw was magnificent. In fact, he should say
that it once had its moments of magnificence and glory. Today, nevertheless, it
has fallen into ruins. This has reminded me of my trip to mainland China
during which I saw a couplet. It is a pity that I can remember the second line
only, which goes like this: "How many cycles of vicissitude temples and palaces
here have witnessed". A prosperous society, no matter how magnificent and
glorious it may have been, will eventually fall into nothing more than a ruin if it
gives up certain principles which are like some of the finest pillars it owns.
Mr President, today's valedictory motion is for us to bid farewell to Britain
and to wish the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) continued
stability and prosperity. Hong Kong has been ruled for more than 150 years by
28 "butlers" sent by Britain whose rights and wrongs in more than a century
remain to be judged fairly. I do not want to go into details on this.
Nevertheless, the fact is that the British Government has established a very good
and efficient system for Hong Kong. We also have civil servants of high calibre
and the people here are industrious. All of these have made Hong Kong an
economic miracle in just a few decades, which is marvelled not only by Asia but
also by the rest of the world.
Of course, we very much hope that the stability and prosperity of the SAR
will continue well after 1 July. However, economy alone will not guarantee
continued stability and prosperity. Why is the economy of Hong Kong so
robust? The answer lies in a good system, hard-working people, high-calibre
civil servants, and it is of paramount importance that we must maintain our four
pillars, that is, democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law. I believe
that every Member in this Council understands the importance of the
above-mentioned four factors.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1633
For democracy, as pointed out earlier on by many colleagues, the extent of
democracy brought to Hong Kong by Britain has been very limited. We must
keep on fighting for it. It is a pity that just as we have gained a little bit of
democracy, Hong Kong will backpedal on the process of democratization after its
reunification with China. It is impossible for us to expect a great degree of
democracy under the British colonial rule. But what is unexpected is that our
hopes for greater democracy also appear to be dashed. The development of our
democratic political system after 1997 is worrying and the electoral system by
then is especially framed in such a way as to put members from the liberal camp
at a disadvantage. What on earth are they afraid of?
Regarding freedom, I believe that our colleagues, our friends working in
the media and even the Governor himself, have openly expressed concern about
the freedoms of expression and of the press after 1997. These two freedoms are
fundamental to an open society. It will be tragic if every one shuts up and, the
media in particular, is made to shut up.
Human rights are something we mentioned on Monday in the motion
debate on the system to handle complaints against the police. We often chant a
slogan: "Unchecked police power will give no protection for human rights ". It
is true that Hong Kong has an outstanding police force. But the police must
come under supervision in one form or another. For no matter how outstanding
a police force may be, a few undesirables, if not dealt with, will be more than
enough to tarnish its reputation.
The rule of law is of course the most important element. All international
investors hope to do business in a safe and corruption-free environment in which
they can compete on an equal footing. If corruption is rampant and fair
competition has disappeared in our society, then we will no longer be able to
attract consortia or investors to continue to invest in such a prosperous place as
Hong Kong.
Hong Kong people's confidence in the reunification of Hong Kong with
China cannot be boosted simply by playing a lot of fanfare. I think that the
future SAR Government must put its trust in the people of Hong Kong. The
word "trust" is most treasured among the Chinese people and all deals are done
on this word. This word is therefore very important. We must trust each other
when we work together. If Mr TUNG Chee-hwa, the Chief Executive of the
1634
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
SAR, does not establish a relationship which is based on mutual trust with the
Branch Secretaries and other civil servants, I believe that the implementation of
many policies will meet with huge obstacles.
Secondly, the SAR Government should also "trust" its people. It should
"match its deeds with its words" and trust us. If the Government does not trust
its people, it will impose various safeguards and restrictions, which will deal a
serious blow to the atmosphere and the openness of the entire community.
There are some words which I am going to say for the third time, and they
are that I am not worried about our democracy, freedom, human rights and the
rule of law being affected or destroyed by forces from the outside. What I am
really worried about is that some people in Hong Kong who have a vested
interest will destroy the limited democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of
law in Hong Kong for the sake of their own interests. What we are more
worried about is that these people will snuff out democracy, freedom, human
rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong. I hope that we will be able to continue
to defend our democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law.
Thank you, Mr President.
MR BRUCE LIU (in Cantonese): Mr President, the British Government has
exercised 150 years of administration in Hong Kong, and it has been colonial
rule. The current session of the Legislative Council is the last and the most
representative one in the history of British rule. And so, in this motion debate
when we bid farewell to Britain, I think it is more meaningful and fitting to talk
about the Legislative Council than anything else.
In these few days we have been preoccupied with debates and there is no
time for us to think carefully. I myself have just waken up. Many reporters
have been asking us a very simple question and I would like to make use of this
opportunity to answer them all in one go. Their question is: who is the Member
you admire most? I think that each party or group has some outstanding
Members. And I would like to pick one Member from each party or group
whom I think is the best and deserve my admiration.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1635
The first one is the Honourable James TO of the Democratic Party, for I
think he is the most hardworking legislator. I have the privilege to serve with
him in the Security Panel and numerous bills committees. He was much better
prepared for the meetings than I, and the questions he raised showed greater
depth of thought. This is what I need to learn from him.
As for the Frontier, I would choose the Honourable LEUNG Yiu-chung.
The reason is not because he sits next to me and so I can often talk to him. It is
because I think he is a very sincere person. Though I may disagree with what
he said last time, after all, these were words from his heart.
Among Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of
Hong Kong, the Honourable CHAN Kam-lam, who is dubbed "hot stuff", is
certainly my choice. Whenever he rises to speak, he would be bombarded on all
sides by many Members. But he would fight to the end. He will make a
smooth transition beyond 1997. Being a staunch believer of his own views, he
can always state his views clearly.
As for the Hong Kong Federations of Trade Unions, I would choose the
Honourable Miss CHAN Yuen-han. Even before she joined this Council, I
already knew her to be very hardworking and wholly committed to labour
matters.
For the Liberal Party, I would choose the Honourable Mrs Miriam LAU.
Every time she speaks, I would listen attentively, for her speeches are always
based on well-researched materials. I would listen carefully to her as if I were
in a class. I always find myself learning a lot from her. She would always
give her best performance. Her speeches are always very detailed and her
position is always clearly spelled out.
For the Hong Kong Progressive Alliance, I would pick the Honourable
David CHU. Whenever I think of him, the following lines from a song would
come to my mind: "Forever forging ahead and always on the go, in search for a
dream and will eventually make it come true". He is much older than some of
our younger Members, but he always gives himself all kinds of challenges and he
is "forever forging ahead and always on the go".
1636
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
As for the 123 Democratic Alliance, I would choose their only
representative in the Council, the Honourable YUM Sin-ling. He was returned
uncontested, and yet he did stand for election anyway. He obviously has
genuine affections for China. This can be seen when he joined the Council. In
fact, he had quite a tough time on the political front, but he worked hard to meet
the goals of the 123 Democratic Alliance as far as possible.
For the Citizens Party, the Honourable Miss Christine LOH is my choice.
She was also returned uncontested. When I attended the founding ceremony of
the Citizens Party, she said something which greatly impressed me. She said
that she was standing alone as the only member of the party in the Council at that
time, but given time, the Citizens Party would become the ruling party in Hong
Kong. That is her goal and ideal. The road from a one-man band to the ruling
party of Hong Kong is a long and winding one. To raise commendable
proposals and to compete with the others is as hard as going on another Long
March. I wish her every success, though I know the times ahead will be very
difficult for her.
As for the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions, I would
choose the Honourable LEE Kai-ming. He was also returned uncontested. As
he sits next to me, he is my adviser on labour matters. I would consult him in
labour policies. He would explain to me in detail how the matters should be
handled. In fact I was under his influence in many policy issues, for he gave me
a lot of data on those issues.
For the "Breakfast Club" I would choose Dr the Honourable LEONG
Che-hung. His even-parted hairstyle is the closest image of the impartial spirit
of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy & People's Livelihood (ADPL).
We feel that one of the characteristics of the spirit of the ADPL is independent
thinking and autonomy in decision-making. The Honourable Frederick FUNG
also mentioned some of the views of the Association last night.
Among independent Members, I would pick the Honourable Miss
Margaret NG. I read a lot of her books and articles, especially those articles she
wrote for the Ming Pao because I do not have much time to do research myself.
While I agree with her views in many legal issues, I deviate from her in making
judgement on political issues because I have to think independently and arrive at
my own conclusion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1637
As for the ADPL, to which I belong, I would choose the Honourable MOK
Ying-fan. I do not choose the Honourable Frederick FUNG or the Honourable
Dr LAW Cheung-kwok, for I think that Mr MOK Ying-fan is very much like a
Zhuang Zi of the modern times. He does not like to compete with others and
can be regarded as an entirely non-political person. He is philosophical about
the nature of things and he acts on his own intuition in making a judgement.
That makes life easier and happier for him.
Lastly, I wish to say a few words on the President of the Council. The
greatest regret I have is that you had already been elected as the President when I
joined this Council (Laughter). You are really a good referee, but I am not so
sure if you are also a good player. For in these two years, I have never had a
chance to hear you make a speech in a debate, and so I could not learn from you.
That is regrettable. I hope I can learn more from you later on.
Last night the Honourable SIN Chung-kai asked me to make an
introspection. I have known him for quite a long time. He raised a
thought-provoking question: why did you go for politics? I thought for a long
time and in the end I came up with a clear conscience. Though in the past we
had different views in many matters, I am sure that every judgement I made was
the result of clear and independent thinking. I fully support the party-line of
promoting democracy for the grassroots advocated by the ADPL.
Lastly, I would like to say why I went for politics. The lyrics of a song
has been my inspiration all through these years. As a conclusion to my speech,
I would like to read it out for you:
"Our two hands are bare and holding nothing,
We take on a road that never seems to end,
Let us strive to go on though the way is rough,
Let our hearts be touched by every need we see,
Let us bear our heavy burden on our shoulders,
While we are still young let us lose no time,
Together we stand and move ahead,
So, farewell my friend and take good care."
Mr President, these are my remarks.
1638
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEONG Che-hung, do you wish to give a
reply? You have four minutes.
DR LEONG CHE-HUNG: Can I first say that I am a bit disappointed, and I am
sure that goes for most of us in this Council, that the Government, the
Administration, is not around at this valedictory motion. Not only are a lot of
our remarks on them, our praises on them, have been wasted, but we have not
been able to hear their views on us at this very last session of the legislature
under British rule.
Personally, I am very grateful that so many Members have spoken so
eloquently, starting with the small hours to late hours of this morning. They
have expressed areas of their interests, their vision, their thoughts, their
frustrations, and also brought back enriching memories of not just this Session
but Sessions in the past, which to me symbolises and signifies the beauty and the
bondage of this established institution of over a hundred years, this Hong Kong
Legislative Council.
Let us hope that the culture of this institution can continue into the future
for it is in this institution that the cradle, which is the cradle that the basis of the
rule of law, is originated. It is for this reason that I think the 33 of us who will
still be working in this Chamber for the next year or so should carry this
particular culture forward for our new-comers.
Some of us in our speeches exhibit a sense of doom and gloom. This is
understandable for the scepticism of the one country, two systems is not going to
vanish with the fireworks of 1 July. Yet the feeling of doom and gloom will not
disappear on its own. We have to work for it. Martin LUTHER KING once
said, and this is something he usually says, "I have a dream". I think all of us
around in this Council have a dream. If we do not have a dream we would have
not joined this particular trade. But if we want this dream to come true, if we
want to move one step forward towards the dream, then we have to start working
for it. And can I quote John KENNEDY in saying that "let us begin".
There are a couple of legislators who, I think, might have gone home or
left before the motion started, and did not actually speak in this motion debate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1639
Now, it does not mean to say they are not participating. It does not mean to say
they are not taking an active part in this institution, as like all sessions in the
Legislative Council, not all Members speak. To them, let me offer a word
which John MILTON said (John MILTON is an English poet, of course), and he
said, "they also serve those who stand and wait".
Mr President, Winston CHURCHILL was asked on the closing days of the
Second World War whether Hong Kong should be returned to China. "Over my
dead body", he said. Well, Winston CHURCHILL is something of the past, but
Hong Kong's reunification with China is imminent.
Mr President, for the last few days we have been more or less impounded
in this building, like the gladiators of Rome in the Coliseum fighting for our
beliefs. We have fought, we have perhaps even torn each other apart, but as the
first light of the morning starts to shine in, in the dome of this building, let us all
leave, go our different ways, but with one aim in mind, which is for the
betterment of Hong Kong and its people.
Thank you, Mr President. But before I close, could I ask all Members to,
or could I ask you, Mr President, to suspend Standing Orders to allow me to
move a motion to let you, as the President, speak?
PRESIDENT: You do not have to, I also have this question. You do not have
to worry about it, I will certainly speak to you.
Question on the motion put and agreed to.
DR YEUNG SUM (in Cantonese): Mr President, may I suggest that all Members
rap on the table to show our appreciation for the work you have done.
END OF SESSION
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Today is Saturday, 28 June 1997. It is now
nearly eight o'clock in the morning. We have been working for over five days.
The last session of the Legislative Council is about to come to an end. As the
1640
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
President of the Legislative Council, I would like to take this opportunity to say
good-bye to every Council Member.
Looking back on the past two years, the Legislative Council has handled
numerous matters and had a hectic schedule of Council business, particularly
during the last two weeks. Although Legislative Council sittings have not been
particularly frequent, Legislative Council panels and bills committees have had a
very tight schedule. The political environment in Hong Kong has undergone
significant transformation during the same period, with some having far-reaching
effects and others highly controversial. I am not going to go into details on
them as I cannot be involved in politics yet. Anyway, what is encouraging is
that parliamentary affairs in Hong Kong, that is, the way in which the Legislative
Council conducts business and the mode of political operation, have gradually
become more mature. For example, during this session, especially last night
and this morning, the filibustering was fantastic. Such clever moves have never
been seen before. It has become possible for people to make a deal within just
three minutes after the ringing of the division bell, swinging from a tie to a
landslide. This has demonstrated that consensus politics is not necessarily a
goal to work at in confrontational politics; cooperation and division are also
possible options to take. Consensus means that, after confrontation, both sides
still regard each other as friends because what they have played was nothing
more than parliamentary politics. You should not treat it as a game because it is
a very serious matter. I therefore think that we are becoming more mature and
will continue to grow in maturity. The departure of 27 Members among us
should not pose a serious problem. Whether they will return to the council at
this level or otherwise, they can still play their role in councils at other levels.
If they become members of pressure groups outside this Council, they can also
play their part because political power is not rested in Legislative Council
Members alone. The power also lies in lobbying and in what pressure you can
exert. I hope that you will not draw a line between being within the
establishment and outside it. We should understand that confrontation is
inevitable but it must be expressed in a peaceful manner and opposing sides
should not regard each other as feuds.
For me, as the President of the Legislative Council, there is one thing
which is worth mentioning. With a lot of support from the Legislative Council
Secretariat, I have put a great deal of efforts in translating once again into
faithful, fluent and elegant Chinese the English terms regularly used in Council
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
1641
and the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council, whose original Chinese
translation was rather stilted. However, Mrs FAN seems to be a bit unhappy
with the new translation because she considers some of the terms too old
fashioned.
The Chinese version of the Standing Orders was finally authenticated at
the Legislative Council Sitting on 5 July 1996. When I was elected President,
that is, in the first session, I used English to conduct Council sittings. Starting
from the 1996-97 session, I began to use Cantonese to preside at Council sittings.
But I sometimes switched to English in order to save time. I hope that the
situation will improve when Cantonese is widely used at Council sittings. In
fact, at recent Council sittings, Cantonese was widely used among Members and
officials alike.
During this session, I have made a large number of rulings on Council
business, such as Council procedures, bills, the order of speeches and so on.
These rulings are different from those made in the past because I have given
grounds and detailed explanations to each of them. I hope that such
information, after being systematically collated, may be used as reference by the
future legislature.
Two years is a very brief period. Most of my memories have been
pleasant except the loss of Dr the Honourable Samuel WONG, my dear friend
and colleague. Of course, you have referred to a longer period of six years,
during which we have lost three colleagues. But for me I have already lost one
colleague in two years.
In the past two years, it has been a great privilege for me to have served
together with my colleagues towards a better Hong Kong. Despite our
difference in views on Council business and politics, Members have worked hard
in the interests of the people of Hong Kong. Your excellent performance has
enriched my experience in parliamentary affairs. As one is never too old to
learn, I have learned more about the rules for conducting sittings and the
ever-changing situation has further enriched my experience. I would like to pay
special tribute to Dr LEONG Che-hung, the Chairman of the House Committee
and my Deputy, for his impartiality and dedication to Council business.
1642
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 27 June 1997
There are so many people indeed whom I wish to thank. They of course
include every Member in this Council. Finally, I wish to pay tribute to all staff
of the Legislative Council Secretariat, whose unfailing efforts will be
indispensable to the continuity and the efficient operation of the legislature. I
have planned to say something more, for example, to recite a few lines from the
Moral Sutra. But I am afraid that will leave everyone of you with no time to
enjoy your breakfast.
As Hong Kong will open a new chapter, everyone of us should face
various situations with a peaceful mind. I wish everyone of you best of luck in
future.
In accordance with the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council, I now
adjourn the Council, sine die.
Adjourned accordingly at Eight o'clock on 28 June 1997.