Members present the president the honourable andrew wong wang-fat, O. B. E., J. P
Download 0.94 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Second Reading of Bills MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995
- NON-LOCAL HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (REGULATION) BILL
- MEMBERS MOTIONS INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE DR HUANG CHEN-YA to move the following motion
- DR HUANG CHEN-YA
- REDUCTION OF TAXES MR JAMES TIEN to move the following motion
- MR JAMES TIEN
- MR CHAN KAM-LAM
BILLS First Reading of Bills MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995 NON-LOCAL HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (REGULATION) BILL Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Standing Order 41(3). Second Reading of Bills MEDICAL REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 1995 THE SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to amend the Medical Registration Ordinance." She said (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that the Medical Registration (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1995 be read the Second time. On 7 June earlier this year, I introduced the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill into this Council. However, in view of the large amount of legislative business to be conducted at the end of the 1994-95 Legislative Session, the Bills Committee decided that it would restrict its scrutiny of the Bill to those provisions relating to the introduction of a universal licensing examination and to practitioners-in-charge of exempted clinics. The remaining provisions have now been included in this Bill. This Bill proposes four major areas of changes necessary because of changes in circumstances over time. The first proposed change concerns the composition of the Medical Council, which at present comprises 14 members appointed by the Governor. Since 1978 the number of registered medical practitioners has grown from some 3 000 to over 8 000, the number of complaints has increased from 27 to 170 and the number of formal disciplinary hearings has increased from four to 29. The Council needs to be expanded to broaden its representation and to meet this increasing workload. The Bill proposes a new Council of 24 members, with expanded representation from, inter alia, the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Medical Association and the lay sectors. These 24 members shall include 12 elected members ─ six to be elected from all registered medical practitioners on the General Register and the rest to be elected by all members of the Hong Kong Medical Association. The introduction of directly elected members in the Medical Council is in line with the Government's policy of encouraging greater involvement of the profession in its own affairs. The introduction of a Specialist Register is our second proposed change. We have at present a register of medical practitioners. However, the community has no means of knowing which of those practitioners may be qualified to practise in a certain medical specialty. A Specialist Register is proposed to be established to allow for the formal registration and control of medical specialists. A General Register will take the place of the existing register. The existing Ordinance provides for the establishment of a Licentiate Committee and a Preliminary Investigation Committee. We propose to enshrine in the law various other important aspects of the Council's work through the establishment of three other statutory committees. They are the Health Committee, the Education and Accreditation Committee and the Ethics Committee. Our last proposed change concerns disciplinary proceedings. We propose that the Medical Council and its Health Committee should be empowered to prohibit the disclosure of information relating to an inquiry by the Council or a hearing by the Health Committee, if it is in the interests of the complainant, defendant or witness. In addition, we propose that, for the protection of the public, the Medical Council should also be empowered to order its disciplinary order to take effect on publication in the Gazette. Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed. Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A). NON-LOCAL HIGHER AND PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (REGULATION) BILL THE SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND MANPOWER to move the Second Reading of: "A Bill to provide for the regulation of courses of higher and professional education leading to the award of non-local qualifications conducted in Hong Kong and matters connected therewith." He said (in Cantonese): Mr President, I move that the Non-local Higher and Professional Education (Regulation) Bill be read a Second time. Over the past 10 years, an increasing number of non-local institutions of higher education and professional bodies have delivered their courses in Hong Kong. They have done so either in collaboration with local tertiary institutions or through their local agents or representative offices. At present, it is estimated that there are some 120 non-local institutions advertising and conducting about 74 collaborative courses and close to 300 independent ones in Hong Kong. The non-local courses conducted locally offer students opportunities to acquire diverse non-local higher academic or professional qualifications without having to leave the territory. However, we recognize the need to protect local consumers against potential substandard courses. We must also uphold the international reputation of Hong Kong as a community that attaches great importance to the standards of the higher academic and professional qualifications of its workforce. We do not seek to impose Hong Kong's standards of education upon non-local courses leading to non-local awards. But we do seek to ensure that the academic standards which non-local institutions purport to achieve and have been recognized in their home countries, are actually achieved, maintained and recognized when delivered in Hong Kong. The Bill will establish a legislative framework within which the Registrar, who shall be the Director of Education, will operate a system of registration to regulate the quality, operation and marketing of non-local higher and professional courses conducted in Hong Kong. The conditions of registration will ensure that only those non-local institutions of higher education and professional bodies which are recognized by the accreditation authorities and the academic communities in their home countries are allowed to conduct courses in Hong Kong. Moreover, the standards of their home courses are to be maintained at levels comparable to those achieved in their home countries. This comparability in standard must be recognized by the institutions and professional bodies themselves as well as the accreditation authorities and the academic communities in their home countries. Where necessary, the Registrar will seek the professional advice of the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation. The Registrar will exempt a course from registration if the executive head of a local tertiary institution or approved post-secondary college will certify that it is conducted in collaboration with that institution and that it meets the conditions required of a registered course. Our objective is to regulate non-local courses actually being conducted within the territory of Hong Kong. However, certain distance learning courses are delivered to local students solely through mail, telecommunications or sale of materials in commercial outlets without any operator being physically present in Hong Kong. In the wider public interests of protecting people's freedom of access to information and self-expression, we will not require such purely distance learning courses to be registered. We will, however, welcome any voluntary application for registration from the operators of these courses. As voluntarily registered courses, their non-local operators would be required to meet the same criteria we set for the regulated courses. The reliable dissemination of information will ensure that members of the public can make informed choices in the selection of non-local courses they wish to follow in Hong Kong. Operators of registered or exempt non-local courses will be required to make regular report on the course offered in Hong Kong. These reports will be made available to the public, as indeed, will be a copy of the annually updated Register. We will not permit any person to advertise any regulated course, for the purpose of recruiting students, that has not been registered or exempted. It will be an offence for any person to issue a false or misleading advertisement about any regulated course. In order to achieve wider consumer protection, the control over false or misleading advertisements will also apply to purely distance learning courses. The Bill, once enacted, will put in place an effective quality assurance mechanism for courses conducted in Hong Kong which lead to the award of non-local higher academic or professional qualifications. Thank you, Mr President Question on the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill proposed. Debate on the motion adjourned and Bill referred to the House Committee pursuant to Standing Order 42(3A). MEMBER'S MOTIONS INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE DR HUANG CHEN-YA to move the following motion: "That in relation to the Leveraged Foreign Exchange Trading (Calls) Rules, published as Legal Notice No. 370 of 1995 and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 11 October 1995, the period referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance for amending subsidiary legislation be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance until 15 November 1995." DR HUANG CHEN-YA: Mr President, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Leveraged Foreign Exchange Trading (Calls) Rules are made by the Securities and Futures Commission to allow banks and other financial institutions authorized under the Banking Ordinance (Cap. 155) to make unsolicited calls on potential clients for the purpose of soliciting leveraged foreign exchange trading business, provided that such calls comply with the Guidelines issued by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Members of the Subcommittee formed to study the Rules have identified some issues which will require further considerations. To allow time for the Subcommittee to consider these points in depth and to seek further clarification from the Administration, it is necessary to extend the time allowed for making an amendment to the subsidiary legislation until 15 November 1995. Mr President, I beg to move. Question on the motion proposed, put and agreed to. PRESIDENT: I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee as to the time limits on speeches for the motion debates and Members were informed by circular on 6 November. The movers of the motions will have 15 minutes for their speeches including their replies and another five minutes to speak on the proposed amendments. Other Members, including movers of the amendments, will have seven minutes for their speeches. Under Standing Order 27A, I am required to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue his speech. REDUCTION OF TAXES MR JAMES TIEN to move the following motion: "That, in view of the current unfavourable economic and business conditions which Hong Kong is facing and the large reserve the Hong Kong Government has, this Council urges the Government to seriously consider lowering the corporate profits tax and salaries tax immediately in order to stimulate the economy and create more employment." MR JAMES TIEN: Mr President, the Honourable Allen LEE's succeeding motion will diagnose our economic ills. I in mine will try to prescribe the right medicine. Our twin moves are prompted by the Liberal Party's deep concern that our Government is not taking the maladies seriously enough and is doing nothing about them. I have noticed how senior officials have been avoiding one word ─"stagnation" ─ to describe our ailing economy. I know why. If the Government were to face the reality that the economy is not well, then it has to provide treatment. The treatment can only come out of the Government's medicine cabinet marked: "the reserves". Two days ago, Government Economists revised, downward of course, their forecast for our annual Gross Domestic Product growth to 4.8%. They then immediately consoled us that western countries envied our GDP performances because theirs were flat. Even the 4.8% average growth is very misleading. The detailed breakdown shows that re-export growth, which affects our livelihood very little, is 15%, but domestic export growth, which affects us greatly, is only 3.3%, while retail sector growth is only 1.4%. I was frankly awestruck by the Government's easy going attitude. Why suddenly do we no longer compare ourselves with other Asian communities ─Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Thailand and Malaysia? Why have we dropped our expectations so much that we contrast ourselves with Britain, Spain, France and Canada? I would like to remind our Government that we are in a competition with our regional rivals, the annual GDP growths of which are 7% to 10%, and not with the European Union. We have to have high growth because our population is used to steady improvements to its quality of life. I am afraid that if we start to think like the western societies, with their abundance of social welfare programs and high taxes, we would become like them and so fall further behind our neighbours. No one then will be keen to work and invest. Make no mistake about it: Ours is a modern Asian economy. We would like to keep it that way. Mr President, the Administration collects the taxes and saves the surplus for a troubled time ─ a time such as this. The popular saying is "save for a rainy day". Even if there is no downpour yet today, it is drizzling and the storm clouds are approaching. For a decade our budget has been consistently in the black and we have amassed $408 billion in foreign exchange funds and another $150 billion in reserves, making this tiny place the fifth richest in the world. We are all very proud of that and I compliment the Financial Secretary, although he is not here, and all his predecessors for getting us there. However, other governments far less well endowed than ours do not hesitate to stimulate their economies with short-term tax breaks and rebates. And I emphasize the word "short-term". They do this because any treasury can benefit from a resurgent GDP. How? When the economy is bad, company profits shrink. Some firms go out of business and dismiss workers. People spend less and many earn less. Land auctions bring back poor returns. In such a scenario, the so-called downward spiral, government revenue would fall. Just to give everyone here some facts about our economy, let me point out that in the first six months of this year all our listed companies are reporting an average annual return of 8% in profit. For the previous five years, by comparison, these companies enjoyed 18% profit per annum. Mr President, I think the present condition justifies prompt government action. The Liberal Party now formally asks that the Financial Secretary to cut corporate and personal tax rates by 1.5 % to stimulate the economy. There is sure to be a cost to the Treasury, but the impact of a revitalized private sector will definitely be positive. The Exchange Fund earns about $18 billion a year from the government reserves of $150 billion it manages. In the 1994-1995 fiscal year, some 40% of total government revenue was derived from those two forms of taxes which I am today asking to be reduced. The amount brought in for that year was around $70 billion. A corresponding cut of 1.5% across the board would cost the treasury around $7 billion. What the Government is basically requested to do is not to drain the reserve but to slow down its expansion. We are fully in support of our Government having a healthy, robust reserve. But do we need an excessive reserve at the expense of a slowdown of the private sector? Even after the Administration has adopted our suggestion, it should have money left over from the earnings' bonanza to offset "losses" from the fee and charges freeze which this Council is also seeking. Far from being a gift to the rich, the tax break is beneficial to everyone. The cutting of the salaries tax rate to 13.5% is sure to help those who pay out couple of thousands of dollars to Inland Revenue and exempt more of those earning around the $79,000 taxable income threshold. The Government has been resisting any meaningful tax adjustments partly on the excuse that it has to pass bountiful reserves to the Special Administrative Region. The claim that the Administration's hands are tied on this is much exaggerated. The British had earlier told the Chinese that the Hong Kong Government could bequeath no more than $5 billion to the SAR. After better than two years of wrangling, both sides agreed in 1991 that the reserves for the SAR should be no less than $25 billion ─ which, Mr President, is a sixth of the $150 billion that we have amassed so far. If $150 billion is not enough as a hedge, why then did this Government impress on the Chinese that first $5 billion, then $25 billion, would suffice? Mr President, recently Hong Kong has suffered from a serious image problem. The Fortune Magazine, which four months ago predicted our doom, has pushed our ranking down from the top spot to sixth place as the city best suited for business. The impression of a Hong Kong unnerved by the change of sovereignty in 20 months, even without our economic woes today, is daunting enough. Our Government is obliged to change this negative perception of Hong Kong not just with one more promotion tour but with direct, effective, simple fiscal measures. A significant tax cut will show foreign investors that our Government is confident, that our Government is in control, and can feel the economic pulse as well as act with speed. With lower taxes, companies here will be more inclined to hire extra staff, expand their business, thus driving up profit and reducing joblessness. With lower taxes, consumers will feel more assured and spend more. The Government objects, saying tax slashing may be inflationary. But so is growth, so is salary increase, so is spending and so is investment. Inflation has been with Hong Kong as long as I can recall and the Government has not done anything about it. The Government has also on recent occasions dismissed calls for tax cuts and fee freezes as cries for "free lunch". I find that kind of reaction most illogical. How? Our Government itself last year trimmed corporate tax by 1%. Until recently our Government has not applied the "full users pay" principle to levies. Many subsidies went on. If that is the case, has this Government been for "free lunch" for all these years? Certainly not. The Administration must admit that our economy is sliding and the brakes must be applied. Our Government does not always shy away from fiscal measures to deal with the economy. In spring of last year, the Administration intervened in the property market. The consequence has been a 30% drop in property prices. If something could be done effectively for home buyers, could something not be done now to stimulate the economy and create more job opportunities? Give us the tax cuts to spur on business and assist our people. An excellent ─ and accountable ─ government is one that accepts the facts, and acts accordingly. Mr President, I beg to move. Question on the motion proposed. PRESIDENT: Mr CHAN Kam-lam and Dr LAW Cheung-kwok have given notice to move amendments to this motion. As Members were informed by circular on 6 November, under Standing Order 25(4), I shall ask Mr CHAN Kam-lam to speak first, to be followed by Dr LAW Cheung-kwok; but no amendments are to be moved at this stage. Members may then debate the main motion as well as the two amendments listed on the Order Paper. MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Mr President, at present the economy of Hong Kong features low economic growth, high inflation, high unemployment rate and a widening gap between the rich and the poor. One of the reasons is the restructuring of the economy. Other than this reason, today's adversities are also attributed to the fact that the Hong Kong Government has been resolutely holding on to the fiscal philosophy of "positive non-intervention", that it has neglected to invest in the training of skilled personnel and that it has failed to upgrade production technology. Now the Hong Kong Government should indeed face the problem squarely to find the solution in earnest. Changing the fiscal philosophy The Hong Kong Government has adopted the fiscal philosophy of "positive non-intervention" since the 1970s with the vigorous encouragement of the then Financial Secretary, Sir Charles Philip HADDON-CAVE. The philosophy holds that demand and supply in the market will adjust the economy naturally. The end of 1980s and the early 1990s saw a series of stock and financial crises as well as low economic growths, high inflation and high unemployment. These manifestly pointed to the need for the Government to change its fiscal philosophy. Yet, the former Financial Secretary, Sir Hamish MACLEOD, and the incumbent, Mr Donald TSANG, have clung to an ossified attitude, seeking to maintain the status quo by declining to introduce changes and refusing to abandon the sacred law of "positive non-intervention". Consequently, a huge fiscal surplus has been built up but the Government appears at a loss as to how to deal with the economic slowdown and the high unemployment rate. The economic growth of Hong Kong has dropped from 6.5% in 1992 to a mere 4.8% this quarter whereas the unemployment rate has gone up drastically from 2% to 3.2%. In the final analysis, this is, on the one hand, due to the serious mistakes that the Hong Kong Government has made in respect of training. Not only has the employment of workers been thus affected, the momentum of economic growth in Hong Kong has also been impaired. As a result, the production technology in the territory gradually lags behind the other "little dragons" in Asia and the competitive edge of Hong Kong in the international market is undermined. On the other hand, the Government put undue reliance on the service sector when the economic restructuring took shape, hoping that the unemployed workers released from the manufacturing industry could switch to the service sector simply through the introduction of retraining programmes. The Government, however, lost sight of the fact that in times of economic slowdown, the service sector would also be subject to a downturn and would, therefore, be incapable of absorbing the unemployed workers from the manufacturing industry. Making good use of the fiscal surplus Now the Hong Kong Government has amassed a huge fiscal surplus of close to $150 billion. While we, legislative councillors, are not jealous of the Government, my view is that under the circumstance the Government definitely has the capability and the responsibility to siphon off, in an appropriate manner, part of the fiscal reserve into the tax system and welfare provision in an effort to attain equality in society and alleviate the financial burden borne by the low income earners so that the standard of living of the people will not be lowered following a slowdown in the economy. This is the fiscal philosophy that a responsible government should adopt. All along, the Government has not defined the so-called "healthy fiscal reserve" in clear terms. Yet, the Financial Secretary, Mr Donald TSANG, said last year when he assumed office that Hong Kong should, at least, maintain a fiscal reserve capable of sustaining the recurrent expenditure for one year. Now if we use this as the premise and base our calculation on the $124 billion recurrent expenditure for the fiscal year 1995-96, the accumulated reserve of the Government at present, not to mention the money in and flowing to the Land Fund, is clearly in excess of what is needed. I believe that colleagues in this Council would agree that the existing huge fiscal reserve of the Government, which is generated from society, should be spent on society. Yet, the most important element for us to take into consideration is how we can properly use it to alleviate the financial burden of the general public in a real sense without giving rise to social chaos. Reduction in profits tax means gilding the lily I consider the Honourable James TIEN's original motion, which calls on the Government to reduce profits tax and salaries tax, impractical. First of all, profits tax is a major source of government revenue. Under the projection of the Government, the revenue from profits tax for the year 1995-96 amounts to $49.5 billion, accounting for more than 25% of the Government's revenue for the whole year. In order to maintain the low tax rate in an unfavourable economic climate, it is necessary for the Government to have a stable income. In this connection, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment of Hong Kong (DAB) opposes the proposal of cutting the profits tax at this stage for the profits tax rate in Hong Kong is almost the lowest among neighbouring countries. Financial consortiums or businessmen have never complained strongly about the profits tax being too high thus compelling them to give up investing in Hong Kong. On the contrary, the business sector is concerned about the high land prices, high inflation and high wages, which have affected the operating cost. In order to stimulate the economy and boost investment, I think we must give the right prescription. The Liberal Party claimed that the reductions would actually lead to an increase in revenue. This is, in fact, wishful thinking of their very own and they have failed to produce proof to support their claims. To businessmen who are making big money, it would be nothing short of gilding the lily. In fact, it is inappropriate to make constant changes to the profits tax rate or else uncertainties faced by investors will mount because investors generally hope to know not only the tax rate for the coming year. They are even more eager to know about the tax they are to pay for the next few years so that they can make long-term investments and provide employment opportunities. Raising the personal allowance to store wealth among the people Regarding the Liberal Party's proposal to reduce salaries tax, I think it is purely the idea of a group of people who have vested interests. In the end, it will only enable the rich people to become richer because the proposal is beneficial only to the high income earners, who are in a small number. Neither the low income workers, recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, the unemployed nor the elderly will be benefited as a whole. Therefore, we are of the view that the Hong Kong Government should raise the personal allowance further to $94,000 so that more people in the low income group will be freed from the tax net. Only in so doing can wealth be genuinely stored among the people by fair means. The "Dishing out money" proposal: Simple but impractical Dr the Honourable LAW Cheung-kwok of the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood (ADPL) called on the Government to distribute $20 billion of the fiscal surplus to the 4 million permanent residents of Hong Kong who are above 18 years of age. In my opinion, this proposal which seems to be simple and equitable is in fact most stupid and unfair. To the affluent businessmen, $5,000 a month may just be enough to pay for a meal and to the unemployed, for how long can $5,000 last if they are not encouraged to rejoin the workforce? The proposal of "dishing out money", so to speak, can only help some people tide over financial hardships temporarily. It is not an effective measure to redress unemployment and the economic slowdown in the long term. Besides, DAB envisages that the social problems and chaos that this proposal may trigger will not be as simple as expected. For these reasons, DAB certainly does not support the proposal of ADPL. Mr President, with these remarks, I move the amendment. Download 0.94 Mb. Share with your friends:
|