Members present the president the honourable andrew wong wang-fat, O. B. E., J. P
Download 0.94 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- MR HOWARD YOUNG
- MR JAMES TIEN
MRS MIRIAM LAU (in Cantonese): Mr President, some people may regard the transformation of Hong Kong from a tiny fishing village in the past to an international financial and economic centre today as a miracle. Some other people, however, believe that the success of Hong Kong is more than simply a miracle, and should be attributed to its human resources, communication system, civil institutions and even its infrastructure and so on, in addition to its excellent geographical location. Over the past 10 years or so, the economy of Hong Kong has been flourishing, marked by ever-rising productivity and a strong interest among local and foreign investors to invest in Hong Kong. Just two or three years ago, when the recruitment pages of newspapers were inch-thick, how could local workers know that they would have to worry about their "rice bowls" one day? But, good times never last. Practically the whole world is now hit by a general climate of economic slow-down, Hong Kong not excepted. What is more, due to economic restructuring and the northward shift of Hong Kong industries, economic and market sluggishness has started to emerge in Hong Kong, thus plunging more and more local workers into unemployment. Since Hong Kong is not almighty, it cannot possibly do anything to change the worldwide economic climate or to stop industries from leaving the territory. However, when it comes to boosting its domestic economy, Hong Kong should still have the ability to do so. As the economy slows down and market conditions slacken, one effective remedy is for the Government to increase public spending for the purpose of boosting the economy and creating job opportunities. The United States also did this during the time of the Great Depression, when it embarked on numerous projects to build roads and bridges. Although Hong Kong is just experiencing an economic slowdown rather than an economic depression, the Government should promptly formulate and implement effective measures to cope with the situation before it worsens, so as to prevent the economic slowdown from inflicting further sufferings on the people. In the context of today, building bridges and roads can still boost economic growth to a certain extent. And, this aside, we do in fact have an urgent need to build more flyovers and roads and to develop our mass transit system in view of the traffic congestion plaguing Hong Kong. Therefore, I urge the Government to expedite the construction progress of all transport infrastructure projects. This can boost the economy and create job opportunities on the one hand, and enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong, and attract local and foreign investments on the other. As far as transport matters in Hong Kong are concerned, the Government is in complete control. It has the final say as to where roads and bridges are to be built, and when railway systems are to be developed. Since it possesses the power, and in view of its very strong financial position, the Government should assume full responsibility in initiating a prompt development of all infrastructure items. Nevertheless, several days ago, a senior government official, who is going to retire soon, still tried to defend the transport policy of the Government, pointing out that it is a worldwide practice for transport developments to take place after community developments. I doubt whether this is a golden rule of some kind that can be applied to Hong Kong. The reality is that the Government will not build any roads and bridges or increase the transport facilities in an area until the population there has reached a specific level, hence causing the people to suffer as a result of inadequate transport facilities. On the other hand, since many people do not prefer to move into an area with inadequate transport facilities, the development of many new areas has been hindered. I have always maintained that the provision of transport facilities should take place before or at least hand in hand with the community development of an area. For that reason, flyovers and roads should be built not only in greater numbers, but also with added speed; for the mass transit system, it needs not only development plans, but also early implementation. The Railway Development Strategy released by the Government last year has come up with the decision to accord priority to the construction of the Northwest Railway, an extension of the Mass Transit Railway to Tseung Kwan O, a railway from Ma On Shan to Tai Wai and an extension of the Kowloon-Canton Railway from Hung Hom to Tsim Sha Tsui. Since the decision has been made, I urge the Government and the relevant railway companies to take active steps to implement the works projects concerned. Of all the railway projects mentioned, the Northwest Railway is the most urgently needed. The Government's neglect of Tuen Mun residents' transport demand over the past 10 to 20 years has led to serious congestion along Tuen Mun Highway, which sometimes even reach catastrophic dimensions, thus causing not only immense inconvenience to the residents of northwestern New Territories, but also inestimable economic losses for Hong Kong. Since one should learn from past experience, should the Government still adhere strictly to the "golden rule" on transport policies as advocated by the senior official I mentioned just now? Apart from serving to improve the external traffic of Tuen Mun, the Northwest New Territories Railway also involves the co-ordination of China-Hong Kong cross-border railway networks in future. Thus, this railway will affect the increasingly busy cargo transportation between China and Hong Kong. I hereby urge both the Chinese side and the Hong Kong side to conduct early negotiations in the Infrastructure Co-ordination Committee, with a view to achieving co-ordination between the railway networks on both sides, so that delays of the relevant works programmes can be avoided. Railways apart, the existence of Hong Kong has always depended on its harbour since its inception. Without its harbour, Hong Kong will not have become what it is. That is why we must make the best use of this natural resource to enhance the competitive edge of Hong Kong as a whole, and of the container trade in particular. The Government should adopt a more active approach in the development of container ports. Schemes for the early construction of CT9 to CT11 should be submitted to the Chinese side as soon as possible. Mr President, one of the objectives of the motion today is to urge the Government to take positive steps to revitalize the economy and increase job opportunities for local workers. But I want to point out that while increasing job opportunities, the Government should also pay more attention to the business conditions of some particular trades and allow room for these trades to survive. The Government should refrain from creating additional difficulties for them; otherwise, more people will be driven into unemployment. Under the existing climate of weak consumption desire and general market sluggishness, even operators of taxis and minibuses are also affected. In recent years, minibus patronage has shrunk and taxi operators have recently experienced an even more difficult time. In addition to less business, these operators are further frustrated by congestion and numerous prohibited zones on the roads. Therefore, I hope the Government can have a compassionate understanding of their hardship, and make life easier for them amidst their difficulties by introducing flexible measures such as the provision of more picking up/setting down points for minibuses and taxis and more minibus stands. Mr President, the need for revitalizing the economy aside, Hong Kong still has to develop its infrastructure as fast as it can. The competition Hong Kong is facing is becoming keener, although at the same time the territory is envied by many for its achievements. Apart from its traditional rivals like the other three little dragons of Asia, there is also the challenge from the Pearl River Delta. To maintain the competitiveness of Hong Kong, a good infrastructure is indispensable, and expediting its development will only do good to Hong Kong. Mr President, with these remarks, I support the Honourable Allen LEE's motion. Mr ERIC LI (in Cantonese): Mr President, there is nothing controversial in the Honourable Allen LEE's motion. But the difficult point is to urge the Government to tackle the root cause of economic slowdown. Economics is a social science involving many interplaying human factors. It is extremely difficult to identify the root cause by means of natural scientific method. It is even more difficult to ask the Government to formulate and enforce policies as if it is prescribing medicines. But the spirit behind the motion reflects the sentiment of the public. So it can be supported by regarding it as the spirit that charts a general course. I have expressed my opinions on economic issues during the Motion of Thanks and the debate on freezing of fees and charges. Today, I would talk about my personal experience and the inspiration I can draw from it. A couple of days ago, I took lunch in a restaurant which I often patronize. Otherwise engaged as I had been, I arrived there only when it was almost 3 p.m. I saw Mr CHUNG, the restaurant operator, eating with his subordinates. They are not necessarily in the same boat as the Honourable LEE Cheuk-yan has said, although the future situation remains unknown. On seeing me, Mr CHUNG poured out his grievances, and told me to relate his situation to the Legislative Council Members and the Government. He complained that the current rental was very high and wages as well as other expenditures were on the rise. Yet his business has fared badly, which has become unprofitable no matter how hard they run it. He was repeating the same few words while his subordinates were putting in edgewise to give him a helping hand. However, just a few words can fully reflect the thinking of many small businessmen in all trades in Hong Kong. What is worth mentioning is that Mr CHUNG has been engaged in the catering industry for several decades. He started as an odd-job labourer before he was promoted a waiter and then a cook. Eventually he set up his business in partnership with others which has grown from a small-scale one to a medium-size one. After years of hard work, he now has achieved moderate success. He is a portrayal of the majority of the well-off small businessmen in Hong Kong. He does not put on airs and is on good terms with his employees. He considers himself a man in the street. Under the current economic situation, he feels helpless and finds it difficult to continue his business. I believe he has the same feeling as those workers who are under the threat of unemployment. Members invariably tend to show concern either for the big businessmen or the ordinary workers. Members may not sympathize with Mr CHUNG. However, even though they do not sympathize with him, they will agree that the spirit Mr CHUNG displays is the entrepreneurship which has been a key factor of Hong Kong's success. However, even the enterprising, hardworking well-off businessmen who have the bravery to set up their business are finding that it is now not the right moment to run a business and there is little prospect of success. In view of this, young people are far from willing to try. I believe this is the root of the problem. The Government emphasized time and again that GDP still keeps growing and the situation is not too bad. The Government's point of views is different from the Members'. If the Government, as well as the Members, turn to look at the economic problem from the micro-economic perspective, they will concur with what Mr James TIEN has just said earlier on that, with the exception of a small number of trades which may be foreign corporations engaging in government infrastructure projects, and civil servants, and employees of subvented organizations who still enjoy salary increase, most businessmen in the private sector and the wage-earners including the professionals have earned less in real terms in the year 1995. Blindly believing in macro statistics or figures derived from a variety of complicated factors will easily lead one into taking a superficial look at the real social situation. This is a mistake the Government is liable to make. I rise to speak to urge the Government not to pull the wool over its eyes and people's. It should not defend for its non-positive policies. Nor should it assert that the situation is all well and food. I would also remind the Government that it should not take the fact lightly that Hong Kong people are having less and less opportunity to start from scratch. I do not believe in the suggestions made by some Members that subsidies, subventions or some short-term measures can substitute people's entrepreneurship or other objective factors. Enterpreneurship and objective factors are the major factors leading to rapid economic development of Hong Kong. The absence of these will have a far-reaching impact on Hong Kong's economy. I think these are the factors which the Government should examine. I would like to reiterate that I highly appreciate Dr LAW's suggestion of setting up a business development fund and other related recommendations. These are positive recommendations and I share his views. Although Dr LAW's suggestions can be said to be well-intentioned, however, there are two factors which have a direct and most important impact on Hong Kong's economy. The first one is the linked exchange rate system. This is a human factor which ties our hands and strips us of all effective economic adjustment measures. We are left with no leverage except in respect of public expenditure and tax rate only, which are basically minor adjustment measures having the least economic effect. Secondly, as a number of Members have just mentioned, the economic systems of China and Hong Kong affect each other. The macro-economic control in China, in particular, is a human factor. None of these is the result of the natural economic cycle as the Government has alleged. So I believe the Government can in fact grasp the situation. However, the enunciation of major principles and the production of lots of statistics will only make the Government hold fast to its official stance. We have already become apathetic to this. So I do not speak on this today. I intentionally avoid mentioning those macro-economic theories, which are difficult to understand and sound too remote to the people. I, instead, speak from a micro-economic perspective and tell this Council a real life story in the hope that the Government will adopt a more sympathetic attitude towards the people when discussing such a major topic as economic issues although it may well be aware that there is not much that it can do. MR HOWARD YOUNG (in Cantonese): Mr President, I am in support of the Honourable Allen LEE's motion on stimulating the economy. Stimulating the economy will be helpful to the development of the tourist industry. In fact, they complement each other. Recently, the issue of employment has become Members' focus of discussion. The most crucial thing is not unemployment, nor is it the scrapping of the importation of labour, but the increase of job opportunities. Very often we talk of creating wealth. This idea and conviction of creating wealth has enabled Hong Kong to achieve outstanding development over the past few decades. Investors and workers (including those of the managerial class and other "wage-earners") join efforts to "create wealth". Even for those who stay at home to attend to the house hold chores, since they set the minds of other working family members at ease and enable the latter to concentrate on their work, these homemakers have contributed vastly to the effort of generating income. In my view, there is a slight difference between employment and creating wealth. I think there are two categories of people who are able to create job opportunities, and this is not the same as creating wealth. These two categories of people are the investors and the consumers. Workers can create wealth, but I think workers cannot create job opportunities directly. Amongst the various businesses of the tourist industry that I represent, hotel investment has assumed a very vital role. Recently, the Government has lifted the plot ratio to 1:15 for hotels. On the face of it, this will stimulate the desire to invest in hotels. However, at the same time the Government has taken away the favourable terms that were offered with regard to the hotels' basement and other facilities, so that the actual benefits are less or even worse than what the hoteliers used to enjoy. This is because of the special circumstances of the business. Hotels need a lot of extra space to accommodate massive air-conditioners, telephone operation rooms, security rooms, lobbies, gymnasiums, rest rooms for staff and a lot of space for administration purposes. A hotel is in operation round the clock, and it needs a lot more space for machinery and other facilities than an ordinary office. These areas do not produce extra revenue for the hotel, and are therefore called "non-revenue producing areas". If the Government really means to assist the development of the hotel industry, it should reinstate the favourable terms for the basements of hotels as incentives for hotel investors to invest in Hong Kong, hence to stimulate the economy of Hong Kong and to increase job opportunities. Lifting the plot ratio and offering other favourable terms not only costs the Government nothing, the Government's revenue from land sale may also increase as a result of investors finding land for hotel development attractive. Expanding the hotel industry can bring a lot of benefits for Hong Kong. When hotel investors find that the investment conditions in Hong Kong are favourable (for example, when the Government offers various kinds of favourable terms), and when the demand for hotel rooms rises, the capital invested in Hong Kong would be colossal. This is because hotel construction is a capital-intensive investment. What it brings is not just the capital required to build the hotels; what is more, the construction of just one hotel will produce hundreds of job opportunities, which include the posts for the managerial staff as well as front-line staff. On the average, a hotel in Hong Kong need to employ 500 to 600 workers. The larger the floor area and the larger the number of hotel rooms, the larger will be the number of people employed to achieve a higher standard of service. And therefore the more job opportunities there will be. Hong Kong is facing an economic transformation. The days of booming manufacturing industries are actually fading out and even disappearing. Taking their places are the service industries. At present a lot of workers who were engaged in manufacturing are having difficulties in finding employment. But at the same time, quite a number of service industries that I have just mentioned, for example hotels, retailing and catering, have been expanding over the past few years and there is a great demand for workers. The Government's labour importation scheme can do no more than easing the shortage of manpower in the hotel industry to a limited extent. That the quota for workers in greatly reduced under the new supplementary labour importation scheme actually represents a further departure from the demand of the hotels. As for the manufacturing industries and some of the service industries, they are able to move their machinery, computers, database and so on to places of lower costs. But in respect of hotels, people cannot move the whole building to another place. If they cannot get enough manpower, they will have to employ less staff selectively, but this will have a great impact on the quality of service. Generally, in Asia and particularly the Southeast Asia region which includes Hong Kong, the ratio of hotel staff to guests is higher than the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe. Therefore our service standards are better. But if a large number of vacancies exists in the hotel industry, particularly when this affects posts having direct contact with guests, it will have a negative impact on the "quality" and "quantity" of service rendered to guests. This will erode our competitive edge. International tourist publications give ratings of hotels throughout the world every year, and from time to time three or four Hong Kong hotels are listed among the top 10 hotels in the world. Please note that it is rare for any country in the world to have more than one hotel on the top 10 list, and Hong Kong is merely a city. So, we have to provide quality service to make visitors feel at home. This is a factor that serves to attract visitors so that they will keep coming. This is also a way to provide more job opportunities. Just now the Honourable CHIM Pui-chung said that over 9.3 million people visited Hong Kong last year, whereas only about 200 000 people are engaged in various trades within the tourist industry, which means that, on the average for every 49.5 visitors we have, one job opportunity is created. Visitors are accommodated in the hotels of Hong Kong, and they go shopping, sight-seeing and savouring Chinese and other cuisines. All these can increase the revenue of Hong Kong's service industries. Therefore, I think if the Government devises and takes measures in regard to the tourist industry (including hotels and other kinds of businesses) to stimulate the investment desire, more visitors will be induced to come and spend money. Only in this way can we really create job opportunities and overcome the difficulties the Hong Kong economy is faced with. MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Mr President, insofar as the industrial sector is concerned, we feel that one of the problems is that over the past 10 years or so when economic restructuring was under way the Government has not intervened which means it has let the industrial sector develop according to the needs of the market. Naturally, the service industries and the financial sector look more attractive nowadays and many people have switched trades, which has led to the inexorable decline of the manufacturing industries. The number of workers in the manufacturing industries has dropped from 1 million in 1990 to 400 000 today, something we had foreseen long time ago. Over the years, the industrial sector has been pleading with the Government and pointing out how it should help the industries. But the Government just sticks to its positive non-interventionism. Now in this Council, we also have many colleagues from the labour sector who often say that there is no need to help the business sector. They argue that should the Government help the business sector make money, any benefit so derived would only go to the business sector. Therefore they have not supported the Government's proposals. What we can see to date is this. To the remaining 400 000 workers in the manufacturing industries, it might sound very mean if we called them the old and the weak, but the fact is that it would be very difficult for the remaining 400 000 people to switch to another trade. Most of them are probably between 40 and 50 and have not even received secondary school education. If they are asked to switch from some jobs like handling and turning out a product such as a garment or an electronic radio to jobs in the service industries such as selling goods, advising people how to buy a T-shirt or a pair of jeans, many such workers may not be able to adjust readily. Over the years, we have been of the view that the Hong Kong Government has absolutely given no help to the industries. The Government has done nothing other than collecting tax. Over the years, conditions offered by the Hong Kong Industrial Estates have been harsh; they simply are meant to encourage overseas investors to move into the Hong Kong Industrial Estates. As for industries that hire a large number of Hong Kong workers, such as garments, electronics, toys and plastics, they have not succeeded in entering the Hong Kong Industrial Estates. Consequently, they are forced to move to Shenzhen or the Pearl River Delta to set up their manufacturing plants. Conversely speaking, and as a contrast, the industries of Singapore can also move their plants to Malaysia and Indonesia. So why can their industries still survive? Why can their high-technology industries still survive? In Taiwan, the situation is the same. People have moved numerous manufacturing plants to Fujian, but the high-technology industries in Taiwan can survive all the same. It is so because over the years their governments have put their resources to use, and members from the labour sector sitting on these countries' assemblies and councils may have considered that if their business sector is doing well, it may provide job opportunities to their next generation just as well. Mr President, today we would like to talk about the Science Park. In Taiwan and Singapore, such a scheme has been in operation for more than 10 years. In Hong Kong, the Government merely talks but takes no action, and then it talks again but there is still no action. Now that the piece of land in Taipo may be worth $10 billion, perhaps the scheme could be abandoned as $10 billion is a lot of money. And that piece of land could instead be sold for the purpose of housing development and the Treasury could derive more revenue. Well, if that were the case, then what would the situation be in 10 years' time? Have we considered that students studying for their degrees in engineering at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology today would not be able to find employment after they have graduated? In that case, what should our policy be like? My view is that although it is late, the Science Park scheme should be implemented as soon as possible, I repeat, it should be implemented as soon as possible so that our next generation of industries will be able to catch up with Singapore and Taiwan at a higher level. Mr President, with these remarks, I support the motion. Download 0.94 Mb. Share with your friends:
|