LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14173
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 9 July 2015
The Council continued to meet at a quarter past Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
14174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14175
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
14176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14177
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, S.C., J.P. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
14178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
BILLS
Second Reading of Bills
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council now continues with the Second Reading debate on the Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill. Does any Member wish to speak?
SPECIAL HOLIDAY (3 SEPTEMBER 2015) BILL
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 27 May 2015
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, a quorum is not present in the Chamber.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, a Member enquired what arrangements would be in place for the meeting in case the typhoon signal No. 8 was raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretariat has been paying attention to the announcement by the Observatory. Once we know that the typhoon signal No. 8 will be raised soon, the meeting will be adjourned. We will surely manage the time well for Members to arrive home safely.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14179
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, be it only one day or just once, I will support having an extra special holiday on 3 September this year because in general, Hong Kong people are working excessively long hours but enjoying too few holidays. However, we neither support nor agree with the move made by the Hong Kong Government in following the Chinese Communists to designate this day as a holiday for commemorating the victory over the war of resistance.
Let us take a look at what the Government has put down in the document. "The year of 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression. The Central People's Government will organize a range of large-scale commemorative activities throughout the country and has also designated 3 September 2015 as a National Holiday. The HKSAR Government will also host various commemorative activities. To facilitate community participation in these activities in remembrance of history, we propose to designate 3 September 2015 on a one-off basis as both a General Holiday under the General Holidays Ordinance and a Statutory Holiday under the Employment Ordinance by way of a Bill." What is the reason? It is "to facilitate community participation in these activities in remembrance of history".
If the Government wants to designate a holiday, just do it; otherwise, it can state clearly that it is pandering to the Central Government. There is no need for it to make up such an excuse. Although I do not agree with the spirit, I will not vote against it. At the most, I will just abstain from voting or leave the Chamber because after all, it is good for the wage earners in Hong Kong to have an extra holiday.
What kind of a reason is "in remembrance of history"? This is only a one-off holiday, how can it help the people to remember history? If the Government wants the people to remember history, it should hold an examination and ask all employees and students to answer questions. Only those who get a passing mark can enjoy that holiday. In the speech he made yesterday, Dr LAM Tai-fai said he did not want this holiday to fall on a Thursday because employees would only need to take leave on Friday to enjoy four straight days of holiday for a happy trip to Japan. Who can control what their staff will do while they are on 14180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 leave? Would we require staff to go to church during the Christmas holidays, or bathe Buddha on the holiday marking Buddha's birthday? Of course we would not. However, this example which Dr LAM Tai-fai cited is a very fortunate one since that employee can go on a trip on Saturday. To those who are only entitled to statutory holidays, they have to work long hours and one extra day of holiday means an additional chance for them to have a break.
President, you ruled that the 89 proposed amendments of Mr WONG Yuk-man were not admissible as they sought to designate another date to replace 3 September 2015 as an additional general holiday and an additional statutory holiday in commemoration of a particular event not being the 70th anniversary day of the victory in the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression. Indeed, if it is for remembrance of history, many historical events are worth remembering and people will query why the Government has just chosen this day to commemorate the victory in the war of resistance. Why has the SAR Government not chosen of its own accord the centenary of the 1911 Revolution to designate as a general holiday? The 1911 Revolution ended more than 2 000 years of feudal monarchy. Was that not of any major historic significance?
Moreover, in their speeches, many Members said that upon the transfer of sovereignty, the SAR Government scrapped the Liberation Day holiday in 1999, citing the reason that Buddha's birthday had become a new holiday and it did not want to create an impact on the economy. What logic is this? Is it after self-reflection that the Government has designated 3 September as a holiday this time to compensate?
In fact, Mainland China is giving enormous publicity to the war of resistance against Japanese aggression lately to boost national sentiment. Yesterday, Mr Albert HO said if the spirit of Japanese resistance was so important, they should make practical move to address the many issues left behind by the war of resistance against Japanese aggression rather than putting on shows. On that day, Xi Jinping will inspect the troops, and this obviously is a kind of political gesture.
Currently, the Mainland is incessantly airing drama series with resistance against Japanese aggression as the theme, hoping to brain-wash the students. They give credit to the Communist Party for attaining victory in the war of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14181 resistance and keep stressing how brave the Eighth Route Army was in fighting the Japanese army. Yet, the fact is that the main force was the then Kuomintang (KMT) army led by CHIANG Kai-shek. Being an international city under "one country, two systems", should Hong Kong get involved in the enmity between the KMT and the Communist Party back then?
Earlier, China has for the first time included provisions mentioning Hong Kong and Macao in the new national security law it promulgated. The Hong Kong garrison of the People's Liberation Army staged a public exercise in the training ground at Castle Peak. Apparently, its political implication is greater than its actual security implication, and the holiday on 3 September is in fact a political gesture of the Chinese Communists as well. I believe the SAR Government will organize various so-called commemorative activities on that day, and the people of Hong Kong will be watching scenes of troop inspection on television newscast from morning to night to get a feel of the Mainland's political climate. The reason offered by the Government is to facilitate community participation in the commemorative activities. How many activities will there be to warrant a holiday for their participation? What justification is this?
In addition, the procedure for designating this holiday is much different from that in the past. This time, the SAR Government made a sudden announcement without any discussion. The Policy Address of course made no mention of it. It is only for the sake of pandering to Beijing that the Government has disrupted the established decision-making procedure. According to procedure, the Government has to announce by mid-year the general and statutory holidays for the coming year so as to facilitate employers' work in making manpower arrangement, facilitate employees' planning for holidays and allow the public sector, schools and commercial organizations to make advance planning. However, this time, the Government under LEUNG Chun-ying suddenly announced that there would be an extra holiday in less than four months.
Surely, no one minds having more holidays. The majority of the public will not ask why there is an additional holiday. If we conduct a poll and ask the people if they want to have a holiday for LEUNG Chun-ying's birthday, even though they hate him, they should support this idea, but of course, it would be best if the holiday is to mark his resignation.
14182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Talking about holidays, I must take this opportunity to discuss the issue of statutory holidays and general holidays. The Employment Ordinance stipulates that employees should be entitled to at least 12 days of statutory paid leave (commonly known as labour holidays), but excluding the Easter holidays and Buddha's birthday, while some employees, for example, bank staff and teachers, are entitled to 17 days of general holidays (commonly known as bank holidays). This marks the difference between the "blue-collars" and the "white-collars". The labour sector has all along been asking the Government to bring the two in line. In 2011, the Labour Department commissioned the Census and Statistics Department to conduct a survey on the holidays taken by employees but the Department has never released the findings. It is only this year that the findings have been submitted to the Labour Advisory Board for discussion. According to the findings, out of the territory's 2.75 million employees, 49.5% took general holidays, 30.9% took labour holidays, and the rest were either not sure about their holiday arrangement or not entitled to holidays as they were not continuously employed.
In 2008, the Government estimated that the introduction of 17 days of labour holidays would increase expenditure by $1.28 billion. If we take into account salary increases from 2008 to date, this figure will go up to around $1.6 billion, yet it only accounts for 0.3% of the overall salary expenditure. How big an impact will this have on the business environment? Let me make a comparison with the other countries in the world. Among the 28 countries worldwide with annual leave and general holidays, the average number of annual leave and general holidays stands at 29 days. Even if we increase the labour holidays from 12 days to 17 days, plus seven days of annual leave, the total number of holidays is only 24 days, still below the international level of 29 days. Thus, we consider it entirely reasonable to demand that labour holidays and bank holidays (that is, statutory holidays and general holidays) be brought in line. This is also in the interest of Hong Kong's workers. Under the circumstances that no date is in sight for the enactment of legislation on standard working hours, having a few more holidays can ease the many problems we mentioned before.
Another grave issue is the discriminatory holiday arrangement commonly adopted by many enterprises, under which some employees enjoy 17 days of bank holidays while others only have 12 days of labour holidays. I have deep feelings in this regard. My first job was a DJ with a radio station. I found out that being a DJ with a radio station made me a "blue collar", so, I was given 12 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14183 days of labour holidays, but my colleagues who worked as accountants and clerks had 17 days of bank holidays. I asked the company the rationale for this but they did not know what to tell me. All I was told was that programme hosts and DJs were entitled to 12 days of labour holidays while clerks and administrative staff could have 17 days of bank holidays. Given this disparity, there was not really harmony among colleagues.
The situation is the same for the management of First Bus and Citybus. Such organizations offer their staff 17 days of general holidays but close to 70% of them, including bus captains, station masters, field staff and garage staff can only enjoy 12 days of holidays. Swire's Coca-Cola HK Limited shares the same situation. Staff members at the managerial rank or above are entitled to 17 days of holidays but junior staff members which account for 80% of the total headcount only have 12 days of holidays. Management staff of cleaning companies and security companies also have 17 days of holidays but field and front-line staff only have 12 days. I fail to see how they came up with the labour holidays and bank holidays in the first place. In this world, inequality rather than scarcity is the cause of problems. If inequality exists, people must be given the reason before they will be convinced. I do not know if rank discrimination causes the difference between 17 days and 12 days of holidays, which has nothing to do with salary. Take myself as an example. I only had 12 days of holidays when I was a DJ, but my colleagues who worked as clerks had 17 days of holidays. This regime is very weird.
When it comes to holidays, many aspects are worth discussing. I hope that this Bill will be passed so that the Hong Kong public can have an extra holiday on 3 September. However, I also hope that the Government can seriously review the disparity between statutory holidays and general holidays. Of course, the Government can say that it encourages the people to take more leave but many employers think otherwise. To them, it would be best if their employees do not take leave.
Lastly, I would like to say that I will support having this holiday but not the reason cited or the approach taken by the Government in designating 3 September as the commemorative day for the war of resistance against Japanese aggression. I so submit.
14184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, just now Mr CHAN Chi-chuen made a very good remark, that is, "inequality rather than scarcity is the cause of problems". He mentioned about the inequality between blue-collars and white-collars in terms of holiday entitlement. In this connection, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has been fighting for that for some years. Since the Secretary is present at the meeting today, we wish to take this opportunity to urge him to consider this matter seriously. Sometimes, it is impossible to fight for the same holiday treatment and to allow everyone to enjoy the same treatment in one single move, but we hope that can be achieved in a gradual and orderly manner. For example, to change the number of statutory holidays from 12 to 13, then 13 to 14, and then 14 to 15, and eventually from 16 to 17. In doing so, we can bring the statutory holidays in line with general holidays and thus make everybody happy.
In the past, holidays were divided into two types by the Government because there was a large number of factories in Hong Kong. The wages of most factory workers were calculated on a daily basis, right? I think it is time for the Government to consider bringing the two types of holidays in line. Of course, in the course of consideration, we should also think about ways to deal with a large number of foreign domestic helpers. For instance, if foreign domestic helpers enjoy the same holiday treatment, then they will have five extra holidays for no reasons. Should that be the case, would the Hong Kong housewives accept the fact that their foreign domestic helpers could enjoy these additional holidays? I hope the Secretary will conduct sufficient consultation in this regard.
Let me return to the holiday on 3 September, which is meant to commemorate the victory in the war of resistance against Japanese aggression. Everybody knows that this is the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression. When I was a little girl, I was already told the harrowing and horrific ordeal that the Chinese people had suffered during the years of resistance against Japanese invasion. Those were inhumane atrocities. The unfortunate experience of women at that time would make one's flesh creep and make one's hands shiver. Let us think about the many women forced to become "comfort women" during the anti-Japanese war. There must be tens of thousands of them. Besides, numerous women were raped, and many others were raped and killed. President, there were indeed too LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14185 many to be counted. I just hate the Japanese army to the bone whenever I think of the atrocities they had caused to the people and women in China.
President, for so many years in the past, Hong Kong people actually had not too much contact with the anti-Japanese history. They only knew that very often, people from China urged the Japanese to compensate them the military expenditure and to redeem the token money ― the Japanese military yen. In fact, the Japanese troops had done too many bad things to the Chinese people, but we are just too generous and kind-hearted. As it is the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression, we can ponder on the history of the anti-Japanese war on this day 70 years later. For that reason, I hope Members will not think about other things, such as Hong Kong can make this day a holiday just because the Mainland has already made it a holiday, and so on. This holiday has nothing to do with the Mainland. It is because Hong Kong wants to make it a holiday that we are going to have a day off.
Don't tell me that as far as that part of history is concerned, they do not bitterly hate the Japanese troops which invaded China? Mr WONG Yuk-man knows this part of history very well, and he always says history is the most formidable. I hope he will speak about how the Japanese treated his family members and his previous generations. I urge him to speak about the history. Please do not talk broadly about history other than that. Please do not talk about the KMT and the communist party or lump all the historical events together. The anti-Japanese history is the anti-Japanese history, he should face it courageously.
President, that part of history has passed. In those years, my father was a soldier fighting against the Japanese. Sometimes, he said that the matters concerning the previous generation had past, we should move on with a positive attitude. However, we should remember the reasons why a strong nation like China had been subject to foreign invasion despite its large population and vastness of land. We should reflect on these issues. Therefore, I hope that while commemorating this historical moment on the 70th anniversary day of the victory of the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression, we can make 3 September a special holiday. I also hope that the Government ― the Secretary for Home Affairs is not in attendance ― and every government department will promote the relevant activities concerning the history of the 14186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 anti-Japanese campaign and to awaken everyone, so as to let everybody know why China had suffered a crushing defeat even though it was a strong nation. Everybody should face up to this part of history.
At the same time, I urge everyone, including the Secretary for Education, to encourage schools and teachers to tell student the history and facts. It is okay even if the story starts from the corrupted Qing Empire to the present-day China. Only if we learn from the history will we know how to face it. For that reason, I support the proposal of making 3 September a special holiday. I also hope everyone in Hong Kong can reflect on the cause of this part of history. I so submit.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I fully support the proposal for designating 3 September as a special holiday. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and I share the same kind of feeling. At different times, and even during mealtime, the older generation would share their painful war experience with the younger generation who has not experienced the war. Such experience sharing has formed a kind teaching in history.
I wish to quote the following maxim from the Old Book of TANG: "Using a bronze plate as a mirror, I can tidy up my clothes and hat properly by looking into it; using history as a mirror, I know how dynasties rose and fell by studying it; using people as a mirror, I can see what is right and wrong in me as well as my success or failure by observing them." I quote it to exemplify that to remember the history is of utmost importance, and so doing is of great importance to the development of a nation as well. The proposal of making 3 September a special holiday can help Hong Kong people to remember the history ― the painful history of the eight-year war against the Japanese invasion of the Mainland; and to Hong Kong, the painful history of the three years and eight months of Japanese occupation. Hence, the special holiday is worthy of our support.
What I want to expound on is that the agonizing history of the invasion of China by the Japanese militarism is indeed worthy of our remembrance. According to historical figures, 36 million people were unfortunately injured or killed in the war. In the course of discussing this subject matter and when this part of history was mentioned by Members in yesterday's and today's meeting, some Members ― especially Dr KWOK Ka-ki ― just summed up this part of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14187 history with this short sentence: China was invaded by Japan. Then, when talking about this holiday, he always described it as a "political holiday" and criticized vigorously the fault of the ruling Communist Party. He even put the 4 June incident on a par with the Japanese invasion of China. In my opinion, Dr KWOK maintains such practice and way of thinking probably because none of his family members or the people around him had been traumatized during the Japanese invasion of China, and therefore he considers that the matter should be let go gently.
As I recall, each year the New Territories Association of Societies would get together with the former members of the Hong Kong-Kowloon Independent Brigade of the East River Column (HKKIB), and we would try to remember the history and their stories during the war years. I consider it important for these survivors to impart the history and stories to the next generation and members of the public. On 3 September last year, I also got together with them in remembrance of this part of history.
The HKKIB was established in February 1942. It was expanded from the original 200-strong to 6 000-strong. We all know the history of those years and how the Japanese troops had invaded our land and slaughtered our people. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan just now pointed out, in her capacity as a woman, the atrocities the Japanese troops had inflicted on Hong Kong women. Such acts were detested by all Chinese people. The HKKIB was able to expand from 200-strong to 6 000-strong due to the brutality of the Japanese troops as well as the sadistic treatment they imposed on Chinese people, which had caused the all people to come out against the Japanese aggression. As everyone in those years detested the militarism of Japan, many young people voluntarily joined the guerrillas. They had no fear of sacrificing their lives or difficulties. Their biggest achievement was the success in rescuing a large number of people from the cultural and education sector as well as the press who sought refuge from the war in the Mainland. There were also some foreigners, including people from the United States, the United Kingdom, India and Denmark. In particular, eight American pilots were rescued as their planes were shot down by the Japanese. Among them was squadron leader and flight instructor of the 14th Squadron of the US Air Force, Donald W. KERR, who was rescued on 11 February 1944. They made possible the survival of some allied soldiers who fought the war and enable them to continue to fight. Therefore, no matter in the vast territory of Mainland China or a tiny place in Hong Kong, every Chinese national who has a 14188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 conscience would rise and fight in order to protect their country, their land and their homes. I believe this part of history should be remembered.
For that reason, I consider that in addition to making 3 September a special holiday, the SAR Government should also establish a museum for the HKKIB, so as to record those historical events and enable more members of the public to get to know these traces of history and crimes committed by the Japanese troops. Actually, we do not hate the Japanese people. We only hate the Japanese militarism. Seeing the rise of militarism in Japan in recent days, we are concerned that they will make the same mistake again. Therefore, I quoted the "Using history as a mirror" maxim from the Old Book of TANG to caution Members who are present and members of the public that we should not take the Japanese militarism lightly.
Everyone knows that the Germans are willing to acknowledge their mistakes after World War Two. They have made compensations to people who had suffered the atrocities and pains of the war. Today, are the Germans still being castigated by other countries and people in countries that had been invaded by Germany? The answer is no. However, as of today, not only we Chinese but also the Koreans or people in countries that had been occupied by Japan are still demanding compensation from Japan. Hence, we can see that Japan is unwilling to admit its mistakes, and there is a chance for the resurrection of militarism in Japan. We need to remember history and to use history as a mirror.
President, I support the proposal of making 3 September a special holiday, thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong, my grandfather lost his eyesight in both eyes due to American bombing in Hong Kong. For that reason, this part of history has indeed caused our family to suffer from keenly felt pain. Moreover, I wish to remind all Members in this Council that the third Monday in August has all along been the Victory Day of Sino-Japanese War in Hong Kong. We used to have a holiday on that day to commemorate this part of history. The holiday was also spent on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14189 honouring people who had sacrificed their lives in the war against Japan ― regardless of whether they were soldiers or civilians, because we were able to witness the Japanese surrender at the end of the three years and eight months occupation of Hong Kong. Therefore, in discussing the 3 September special holiday today, I have to point out that at some times in the past, we actually had a holiday to commemorate the same event.
The President should remember well the Sino-Japanese War Victory Day (the third Monday in August), as it was deleted along with the 2 October holiday (the day following National Day) under the Holidays (Amendment) Bill 1998. The purpose of the deletion was to make room for two new general holidays, namely the Labour Day (the first day of May) and the Buddha's Birthday (the eighth day of the fourth lunar month). They were subsequently replaced by the two new holidays. As such, there is no question of this part of anti-Japanese war history being forgotten in Hong Kong.
I have conducted some research regarding the Holidays (Amendment) Bill 1998. When this Bill was passed in the Council in 1998, a Bills Committee report was tabled to the Council and it mentioned that members of the Bills Committee had conducted a detailed discussion. It was revealed that a number of members had queried that the consultation carried out by the authorities were conducted under certain premises. But then, that was still better than the current case, as the authorities are acting in a cruder manner, adhering to no rules and conducting no consultation exercise. Back then, this Council had mentioned about the need for consultation exercise, as the addition or deletion of a holiday would affect the operation of banks, educational institutions, offices of public organizations, and government departments. As such, the then Government consulted some principal employers' and employees' organizations as well as the financial sector, to gauge their views on the proposed deletion of two existing general holidays and the creation of two proposed holidays. Results of the consultation indicated that most respondents considered that the two holidays, namely the War Victory Day and 2 October, could be abolished and substituted by the present holidays on Labour Day (the first day of May) and the Buddha's Birthday (the eighth day of the fourth lunar month).
President, the Holidays (Amendment) Bill 1998 serves to remind us that Hong Kong has all along been adhering to rules. Without rules, nothing can be done properly. As a number of Members have said just now, Hong Kong people are busy dealing with the hustle and bustle of city life and making ends meet 14190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 every day, sometimes they just can find no time to stay with their children or to have some entertainment. Certainly, the Civic Party will not oppose to an additional holiday. However, it is necessary for us to put it down on record that the way the SAR Government deals with the 3 September special holiday should indeed be queried.
Naturally, we all concern about the special holiday. In my view, people should not exaggerate the matter by referring to the questions we raise as our attempts to hinder the China ― Hong Kong integration, or our failure to show understanding for the threats China faces during this time in history, in particular Japan's threats to the national security of China. I consider that such allegations overstatements. We want to put it down on record because we want to make sure whether the SAR Government will still act without adhering to long-standing rules in the future, and we wish to add a footnote to this question.
In fact, the President should understand that as well. Let me cite an example. When the Government conducted consultation on the Holidays (Amendment) Bill 1998 that I mention just now, different views were received; but then, it was still criticized for conducting the consultation under certain premises. As regards the present case, the State Council ― if I remember correctly, the announcement was made on 3 May ― announced on 3 May that a nation-wide holiday should be introduced to commemorate the victory in the Sino-Japanese War. Subsequently, on 13 May, the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying promptly announced that he would make 3 September a holiday accordingly. Of course, from our perspective and standpoint of monitoring the act of the Government and its executive authorities, this move could at least be considered a boot-licking attempt. If we act according to the long-standing practice, the proper approach is to decide the coming year's general holidays and labour holidays (statutory holidays) one year beforehand. In other word, the entire process, starting from the decision to designate a holiday up until the actual date of holiday, should not be completed in just four months. It seems that the Government's approach this time around is unprecedented. If we have to draw reference to precedents, of course the entire legislative process of the Holidays (Amendment) Bill 1998 is the best precedent. According to the relevant information, even the Labour Advisory Board has not been consulted this time around, let alone banks or government departments and so on.
A number of colleagues have also mentioned about the difference between the 12 days of labour holidays and 17 days of general holidays. The President LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14191 should note that people who are entitled to labour holidays cannot enjoy the three-day Easter holidays and holiday on the Buddha's Birthday. Besides, regarding the Christmas Day holiday and the New Year Day holiday, they can only choose either one of the two holidays but not both. In this connection, the Civic Party has all along found this arrangement unfair, and we consider that the Government should rectify the situation by adding five days to their holiday entitlement, so that at least half of Hong Kong's population can be benefited.
However, the Government, the business sector and employers have all claimed that this move would eat up a huge amount of productivity. I remember someone even pointed out during the discussion that the cost for one additional day of holiday would be around HK$ 1.3 billion. When I mentioned about the relevant proposal, both the business sector and the Government indicated that they resisted the addition of five holidays to people who were only entitled to labour holidays. I could not help but wonder why the Government could make such a decision so hastily this time around. How come the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, could make this decision, without launching any consultation, just within a few days after the State Council's announcement made on 3 May? Regarding the arguments that the cost of one holiday stands at HK$1.3 billion or a huge amount of productivity will be eaten up, is it because LEUNG Chun-ying has made the pertinent decision that they can be put aside lightly?
So, this marks the background information of the Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill provided by the Civic Party, as well as the queries we have proposed in relation to the operation of the Bill. I also wish to put it down on record that in case our Chief Executive or the SAR Government should try to bootlick the Central Government in future by making some similar moves which are sufficient to damage our long-standing practice, the background information can be used as a footnote to help us examine such acts.
In fact, the integration of Hong Kong with China is an issue that should not be questioned, as the flag flown in Hong Kong currently is the five-starred red flag. Moreover, it is not possible for us to change our geopolitical relationship. Nevertheless, I hope this Council understands that since the 1980s, the understanding of the Hong Kong people is that "one country, two systems" is the assurance pledged by the Central Government. At that time, the Central Government used a more comprehensible concept to describe it, was assuring us that "horse racing dancing will go on as before". Such pledge allows Hong 14192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Kong to retain its values and continue with its system, and pass down the values and practices from generation to generation.
I consider the arrangement is the best option for the nation. This is because Hong Kong has been making undeniable contributions to both the political and economic modernization of China over the past 150 years or more. Only if the "one system" in Hong Kong is preserved can we continue to make such contributions and retain our values and systems.
Therefore, I hope that we need not make a mountain out of a molehill when discussing the issue of the 3 September special holiday. What we have to discuss and what we want to put down on record is that we only question whether the Government has followed the proper procedure in introducing the 3 September special holiday. Apart from not following the proper procedure, the Chief Executive and his executive team have also failed to give this Council and the public a satisfactory and thorough explanation.
I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, this year's 3 September marks the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression. Given that this is a big day, and that countries all over the world will organize various commemorative and celebrative activities this year in remembrance of the end of the Second World War, some colleagues in this Council thus point out that the SAR government cum LEUNG Chun-ying's decision to designate 3 September 2015 on a one-off basis as a general holiday is an unusual move, and the holiday is a political holiday. In my view, this is literally an unambiguous political decision, which is obviously a move to echo with the State Council's decision.
That being the case, all the government needs to do is to state the fact clearly. There is no need for Members to make lengthy explanation, recall or recapture in rage or excitement the various historic scenes or episodes during the war of resistance. In addition, it is needless to keep alerting the world and particularly China of the various signs and moves that mark the revival of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14193 militarism in the Asian region. If the decision is obviously political in nature, why do they try to avoid mentioning this?
I believe the reason is very simple. Members may worry that Hong Kong people would get it wrong and consider 3 September as just an additional holiday, which is more or less the same as other general holidays. If a public opinion survey is conducted to explore the meaning any of these holidays, be it 1 October or 1 July, and if the members of the general public are allowed to give their answer freely, the survey will easily reflect that most of the people consider the holiday as an additional rest day for them to take a break, accompany their family, have dim sum lunch, go shopping or make use of the holiday to create a longer vacation, that is all.
As such, if the SAR government or the pro-establishment colleagues are so much concerned about the political significance of this holiday and hold that a range of activities should be organized to commemorate the event and remind the people to learn a lesson from history, they have to admit that this is a political decision, a political holiday. I doubt how many Hong Kong people would follow this direction.
For me, the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War is absolutely a serious subject. I teach European Studies in the university, the studies in this area is serious as well. I therefore loathe the ridiculous and unreasonable plots of the anti-Japanese TV dramas. If Members browse the comments posted on ifeng.com, they will well understand the problems arising from a range of anti-Japanese farces or the "supernatural TV dramas" ― as the people call them ― and the four phenomena identified.
What are the four phenomena? In these dramas, all wars are like kids games. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is deified in the dramas, the troops are made idols for the people to worship and to follow their spirits and bravery. The allied armies that resisted the Japanese invasion with the PLA are presented as cowards who are afraid of troubles; the PLA, on the contrary, is presented as a group of superior and formidable fighters. Moreover, the Japanese troops are presented as idiots, morons, robbers, "carrot heads", a group of mentally retarded and idiotic persons. Lastly, all these added up together will of course turn a serious subject into an entertainment. As such, this kind of TV dramas have to be subject to regulation in the end. Nowadays, Mainland's mass media have turned such a serious subject into an entertainment, this is completely out of control and "out of shape".
14194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
On the Hong Kong side, there are outcries that we must address this subject seriously, we must learn lessons from and make reference to history, we are Chinese, long live the Chinese, the Japanese are such and such. Are we doing something weird and peculiar? This is also national education, though in another form and more about ideology. Nonetheless, this political issue can be handled in a better and more sensible way. Hong Kong people do not accept celebrative and commemorative activities that are anti-intellectual in nature. Members must dispel the misbelief that holding concerts to sing "red songs" and patriotic songs can arouse one's passion for the nation. We do not buy this kind of preaching.
Should we want to learn a lesson from history, we have to understand the meaning of anti-fascism and anti-totalitarianism. In this connection, the side against us will be labelled as the bad guy, the devil or the evil side, and all of the people on that side are described as monsters; whereas our side is always related with justice, benevolence, angels, truth, and so on. What is ironic about history is that when the extreme ideologies of the rightists and the leftists joined hands, the Second World War was triggered.
These two political powers joined hands to carve up the territories of other countries. The Second World War was triggered when they invaded the regions advocating peace or had no ability to resist their invasion. Eventually, these powers attacked each other due to the dissensions between them. I am now referring to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and Japan. We suddenly come up with the idea of anti-fascism, in fact, the communist powers and the fascist powers have been working together all along since the partition of Poland. When Members talk about history, given that Hong Kong is a world citizen and claims itself an international city, we really should talk about these issues. This is what learning from history is meant to be.
What has happened to the various countries in the world, including those in Asia, after the overturn of the fascist governments? These countries were plagued by wars, and countless people lost their lives during the fight for the freedom of the individual, the integrity and autonomy of the entire community and nation, so that the people can have their fate in their own hand, and live in a society where there is rule of law and democracy. What was the outcome finally? Even though the communist government rose into power after the overturn of the fascist authority, that made no difference to the people, as "those who kill and set fires would get gold belts". In this regard, we need to conduct LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14195 review and introspection. These are some issues that we should consider when we commemorate the end of the Second World War and the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression, and these are historical facts. An iron curtain, regardless of its height, is still an iron curtain; an iron cage, regardless of its size, is still an iron cage, a country where freedom is nowhere to be found.
The Communist authority and the fascist authority are similar in some way, as they both have concentration camps and labour correctional camps under their dictatorship. The unconformable who challenge or stand up to these dictating powers will be subject to terrible consequences. When commemorating the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression, our discussion should also be focused on the following areas: Anti-dictatorship, anti-totalitarianism, fight for freedom, recovering our national dignity, and so on. As such, I have no confidence at all in the celebrative and festive activities that will soon be organized by the Government. This is all about ideology, and the whole thing is a political decision made by the State Council. If the activities are well organized, they should not be as idiotic and anti-intellectual as the "supernatural TV dramas" currently banned on the Mainland. I believe concerts are must-have programmes, during which the song "I am a Chinese" will be sung repeatedly, and some guests will be invited to perform singing and dancing. These are what they call the celebrative and commemorate activities. In fact, the commemoration should not be conducted in this way.
A mature nation that is genuinely responsible for its own history ― including Germany as mentioned by some Members earlier on ― has to seriously and humbly understand that during war times, regardless of the cause, process and outcome of the war and post-war consequences, we are all very insignificant, and that every person, every country, every nation is likewise very insignificant. As such, we should pursue stable and long lasting peace instead of making empty talk. Making an apology is not enough, we need to leave our heavy baggage behind. It does not matter how many times apologies have been made, as deeds and actions are most important. Let me cite the peaceful rise of China as an example. When China suddenly carries out a reclamation project in the South China Sea, is this a provocative action? Some say no, their argument is that it is within China's territory, so China can do whatever it wants to do. The price for doing so is simple: the United States now joins hands with other Asian countries (including Vietnam), they are finding ways to besiege China. The entire East 14196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Asian region is in the midst of great instability, this is a time bomb. Should we review and conduct introspection in this regard?
If we are in pursuit of genuine peace, we can make reference to the experience of the European Union. Europe Day is held on 9 May every year. For centuries, these countries had been at war with each other, and in the end they had to let go of one thing ― the concept of sovereignty, the life-and-death mindset and zero sum competition. However, this is exactly the thing we are still unable to let go. These political games are indeed most dangerous, highly instigating and can easily cross the line as far as international politics are concerned. Hence, Germany being the defeated country ― of course you can argue that it has very few choices ― must learn to let go of its pride if it want to return to the international stage. Under the objective limitations in history, if Germany wants to re-start a new page, it ought to give up the concept of sovereignty in a bid to set up a new platform, a new starting point, together with all other countries, and particularly those attacked, invaded and victimized by it before.
If sovereignty is nothing that can be compromised, how about the right of development and sharing of resources? We can learn a lot from the experiences of the European Union. Just to think a bit more, we can turn a zero sum game into a win-win situation and scenario, this is really a test of wisdom. Having listened to Members' speeches during the last one or two days, it came to my attention that we heard only criticism and accusations in this Council. Why do we not think out of the box when considering issues? We should address this issue seriously, reflect seriously and make reference to history. If the HKSAR government or LEUNG Chun-ying himself wish to set a good example, he must jump out of the framework imposed on him by the Communist China. But then, can he really do that? If he fails to do so, it will still be fine. I believe that on 3 September, many academic and civil organizations and groups will faithfully play their parts to rethink, publish articles and conduct discussions. When we say "making reference to history", we should not make empty talk; rather, this is a far-reaching objective that can only be achieved with persistence, resolution and perseverance.
I call on the Hong Kong people who consider themselves the international citizens of an international city to refrain from participating in the so-called commemorative activities that are organized for sheer entertainment. For those who have spare time at home, they can flip through the pages of history books, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14197 have a chat with family members about history, about how to advocate sustainable peace, mutual development and prosperity in this city and in this world. As for the pursuit of blind patriotism, which makes people yell in a state of frenzy and cause everyone to kneel down under the flag of nationalism, I consider this kind of pure nationalistic mindset anti-intellectual, idiotic, moronic and stupid. This kind of mindset is also a hot bed for the nurturing of fascism and other totalitarian ideologies. I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, generally speaking, we absolutely support the direction of striving for more rest time and holidays for the working class and wage earners. As 3 September is the victory day of the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression, we believe that it is worthwhile to allow the public, particularly the workers, a bit more time to commemorate this historic day. It is already an indisputable fact that our working class has to work long hours. Hong Kong is among the Asian and international cities where the longest working hours have been recorded. At the time when LEUNG Chun-ying took the helm, he once said that a study on standard working hours from the angle of legislation would be conducted. Even though the two-year study has already been extended for one more year, the Government still has not come up with any results. The Government is still reluctant to legislate in this regard.
President, a rather serious local traffic accident occurred yesterday. In this incident, a cement mixer driver had worked continuously for 23 hours ― in fact all, the three persons in the vehicle were cement mixer drivers ― and when the drivers were resting in the truck, the accident took place, sadly claiming the life of the said experienced cement mixer driver. The deceased driver had 20 years of experience in the industry. The three drivers were the employees of Gammon Construction. The spokesperson of the company admitted that the drivers need to work long hours, but according to company policy, the drivers working overnight were allowed to rest for at least six hours. However, Mr CHAN Sam-choi, General Secretary of the Concrete Industry Workers Union, pointed out that these companies in fact would not allow their drivers adequate time to rest. According to him, these three drivers who had worked overnight originally intended to rest for a few hours at home before resuming work after 14198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 lunch. Usually, the drivers need to work for 12 hours each shift and work overtime frequently. They only have two rest days a month, which is common in the industry.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Deputy President, another accident occurred the day before. An 82-year-old securing officer of a building was found lying unconsciously on the staircase of the second floor with his head bleeding. According to initial assessment, it is suspected that he fell over and got injured while patrolling the staircase and finally lost his life because no one came to his rescue. Hong Kong workers need to work for unbelievably long hours. Yesterday's accident reveals that mixer drivers need to work up to 23 hours a day. The situation of the security officer aged over 80 who "worked till his death" the day before is more or less the same.
Earlier on, I was interviewed by the media. They were concerned about the cleaning work outsourced by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, as they discovered that some foremen needed to work two shifts. The situation of the cleaning workers is even worse, the income from working one shift is inadequate to sustain their living. The $6,000 to $7,000 monthly income they earn under the minimum wage system is hardly enough to pay the rent, let alone supporting the whole family. This is not an isolated case, as many foremen need to work two shifts. While the position of foreman sounds not bad, the monthly income for a full-time foreman is only about $10,000, which is hardly enough to feed a small family. As such, they have to work two shifts, and the additional $8,000 earned from the night shift job will increase their total monthly income to nearly $20,000, which is marginally enough to feed a family of three or four. But how many hours do they need to work in return? They have to work 17 hours a day.
According to government surveys, one-fourth of Hong Kong's employees work over 51 hours a week. Try to imagine, given the long working hours of Hong Kong people … Deputy President, we had a debate on standard working hours not long ago, and hence I will not repeat my arguments here … This holiday serves to highlight the fact that the rest time for Hong Kong employees is far from being adequate. Our wish is that the labour sector will be entitled to the 17 days of general holiday. Under the existing labour legislation, workers are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14199 only entitled to 12 days of statutory holiday. What is the reason of not giving them the same holiday entitlement? Despite our strong lobbying efforts, we still do not get what we pursue. But now, when the Mainland suddenly promulgates that one extra day of holiday will be granted this year to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the victory over Japan, Hong Kong is eager to follow suit. What is more, this holiday is a one-off arrangement for this year only.
I have read an article in the Hong Kong In-media, which is about some research work conducted by CHAN Hoi-man. According to his research, designating 3 September as the anniversary day of the victory of the war against Japan is not a practice after the Mainland. He pointed out that the forerunner to do so was in fact the Nationalist Government. Before moving to Taiwan, the Nationalist Government designated 3 September as the day to commemorate the victory in the war against Japan, as the Japanese government had officially signed the instrument of surrender to the Allies on 2 September 1945. Back then, General XU Yong-chang was the representative of the Republic of China who accepted the surrender of Japan. The Nationalist Government announced the three days after 2 September as public holidays, and designated 3 September as the Victory Day.
When the Communist China came to power, it did not designate 3 September as the Victory Day of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. According to CHAN Hoi-man's research, on 23 December 1949, the Government Affairs Council of the Central People's Government formulated the "Regulation on Public Holidays for National Annual Festivals and Memorial Days", in which 15 August was designated as the Victory Day of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression. It was not until 13 August 1951 that the Government Affairs Council revised the Victory Day of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression to 3 September. As such, those who consider this as a practice following the Mainland may have some kind of misunderstanding. The forerunner designating 3 September as the Victory Day of the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression was the Nationalist Government. No matter what, we hold that all employees in Hong Kong should have reasonable work hours, and be provided with proper rest time so that they can meet with family members and friends, and pursue personal aspirations. This is a human right. As of today, the SAR government still has not taken any action. We urge LEUNG Chun-ying not to pretend any more ― he said the Government should focus on people's livelihood and the economy after the constitutional reform. Regarding the needs of workers and the grassroots, he has commented on that clearly when responding to some international media: If Hong 14200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Kong has a genuine democratic system, it will be in the favour of those earning $14,000 or less a month, because according to the statistics, this group of people represent half of the employees in Hong Kong. He was indeed very candid. If the political system remain unchanged, the SAR government under his leadership or the SAR government since the reunification ― no matter before or after he has taken the helm ― will only continue to do favour to the rich and the consortiums.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today's debate on the bill related to special holiday gives Members the opportunity to refresh their memory of history and express their views freely. For example, some colleagues have commented that the Central Government's position on the issue of comfort women is not strong enough in view of its failure to pursue compensation from Japan; and some other Members have reprimanded militarism. Despite all the arguments, I consider this bill deserves Members' support. In addition to bringing about an extra day of special holiday, which is a good news for wage earners, this bill also serves to alert Hong Kong people that we should look back at our history, and be aware of the fact that Hong Kong people's destiny is inseparable from that of the nation.
Here, I would like to reminisce about an historic episode which I had strong feelings for when I was a child, even though it may be unheard of among the young people nowadays. Today I bring with me a book for sharing with Members. It tells one of the great stories during the war against Japan. When talking about the commemoration of a particular day, different persons will certainly propose commemorating different battles. However, I would like to draw your attention to a very fiercely fought battle, and that battle took place in Shanghai on 28 January 1932, when the 19th Route Army fought against the Japanese.
The battle took place in 1932, and in 2012, the descendants of the commander of the 19th Route Army … Deputy President, can you see this picture? Have you heard about the famous general CAI Tingkai? He was a Cantonese and the Commander in Chief of the 19th Route Army. Later on, CAI left Kuomintang and joined the Communist Party of China due to his belief that it was most important to fight against the Japanese aggression. He was subsequently appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and eventually passed away on the Mainland.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14201
CAI Tingkai named his son CAI Xingmin, which carries the meaning of "the smart people" and most importantly, to the meaning of "awaking the people". His son CAI Xingmin was also a Hongkonger, and he founded an association for the descendants of the 19th Route Army soldiers and generals who had fought against the Japanese in the Battle of Shanghai. It was a fiercely fought battle. During the 19th Route Army's resistance against the Japanese invasion in Shanghai, innumerous lives were claimed. There are memorials commemorating the sacrifice and bravery of the 19th Route Army in Guangzhou. It has been said that on the memorial ceremony held for this battle, Madame HO Hsiang-ning cried painfully, while some doyens overwhelmed by grievances even passed out.
As I can recall all, there were quite a number of famous anti-Japanese generals and commanders when I was small, including those from Kuomintang. Deputy President, I believe you have heard about General CHEN Jitang, who was so smart and had acquired many land lots in Hong Kong. All of his descendants, including CHAN Wai-chow, are very wealthy. The CHANs is a very wealthy family. However, many of those who had fought in the battle and moved to Hong Kong after the liberation of the Mainland led a rather difficult life, as they had no property or asset in Hong Kong.
Some of these generals were the acquaintances of my mother's maternal family. When I was a kid, my mother took me along with her to visit them during Chinese New Year. Among these retired generals, Division Commander CHEN Guanghan was also a member of the 19th Route Army. Back then, these anti-Japanese big names were living in exile in Hong Kong. Deputy President, I am sure you know that they lived in Tiu Keng Leng or Rennie's Mill, that is where we call Tseung Kwan O today. In those days, many "Blue Sky, White Sun, and a Wholly Red Earth" flags were flown in the area. The British Hong Kong government demanded the District Office to count the number of flags on every "Double Tenth Day". As I can recall, my mother used to take me along with her to make Lunar New Year visits when I was a kid.
Another place where the descendants of many anti-Japanese generals found their shelters was Diamond Hill. At that time, many stone huts were built along the hill, and I believe they were the so-called tolerated structures allowed by the Government. I still have the memory of climbing long staircases to visit these uncles during Chinese New Year when I was a kid. I did not quite understand 14202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 what they said as all of them came from other provinces, but I knew they were not well off. Later on, all these stone huts were demolished for the purpose of development, nothing was left to the descendants except memories. A huge memorial stele was erected in Guangzhou to commemorate the martyrs sacrificed in the anti-Japanese battle in Shanghai, though the number of their descendants has been on the decrease.
Apart from the battle took place on 28 January 1932, there are many more great and memorable events in the history of the resistance against the aggression of Japan. In my opinion, to the issue of pursuing compensation from Japan is one of our country's entanglements with Japan, and I believe our nation will handle that wisely. However, given that 3 September this year marks the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression, in addition enjoying this extra day of holiday the Hong Kong people should also bear in mind that this day is a memorable occasion. As such, Deputy President, we will support the Bill. Thank you.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong supports the designation of 3 September this year as a special holiday.
Deputy President, 3 September is a national holiday. After undergoing considerable time in debate, we realized why this day should also be designated as a holiday in Hong Kong. Indeed, this is a commemorative day with an important historical meaning because all people nationwide (including those in Hong Kong) should bear this part of the history in mind.
We certainly have many supportive reasons. First, the general public can definitely be benefited because there will be an additional day of public holiday and workers in Hong Kong can take an extra day off to relax. But more importantly, designating this day of special holiday will help people to recall the history and to remember it by heart.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14203
I beg to differ with what Dr Kenneth CHAN just said. He said that whether this day was designated as a holiday made no difference to the public because they would not look back at history just because of this special holiday. Actually, precisely because this holiday is so special, I believe if this holiday is endorsed by the Legislative Council, it will prompt many people to think why this day is designated as a special holiday when 3 September draws near. Besides, parents will take this opportunity to share with their children their hard days during the anti-Japanese aggression and the meaning of the victory over the war to them. As this day of holiday is drawing near, many school teachers will also recount this part of the history to their students. Hence, I hold that to the people, especially the Hong Kong people … In the past, not many people would attach importance to history or were willing to learn about history. As we pointed out in the past, Chinese History was not such a popular subject that students would accord top priority to. To me, designating this holiday actually means a lot.
Several Members criticized just now that this special holiday was a political holiday. True, the Central Government has definitely made political considerations in designating this day as a holiday. But frankly, anything can involve political considerations, and one of which is definitely the prevailing political environment, including the latest international situation and international setting. Let us look at the game among major countries now. It must be admitted that this game among major countries is no longer in the form of a real war. After the Second World War, the United States, as the No. 1 country, has maintained its predominance by turning the US Dollar into an international currency, and also by influencing international organizations and the financial markets in different countries. Apart from the currency war, there are other "wars" breaking out in different parts of the world, including the ideology war, the Internet war, the information war, so on and so forth. I believe the political setting of this game among major countries was one of the elements in the backdrop when our nation considered designating this holiday.
The emergence of China has triggered a subtle change in the international and regional settings. The United States feel the threat as well and thus has put forth the "return to Asia Pacific" strategy earlier. We can see that disputes and clashes between our country and other adjacent countries have intensified since the launch of the United States' "return to Asia Pacific" strategy, including the disputes over the sovereignty of Diaoyu Islands and the South China Sea. 14204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Although disputes always exist, we do feel that the situation has intensified in this period of time. Our nation is of the view that designating the 70th anniversary of the victory in the war against Japanese aggression as a national public holiday will encourage people to recall the history and remember it by heart, and to encourage fellow citizens to think about the challenges and the situation our nation is facing in the midst of this international game.
Deputy President, I also note that several colleagues have criticized the SAR Government just now for changing the past strategy without conducting thorough consultation. This criticism is in fact quite unfair. When our nation announced that the day in question would be designated as a national holiday, the SAR Government only had two choices. First, it could submit the proposal to the Legislative Council in tandem with the national policy and secure Members' support for its endorsement; and second, it could conduct a consultation, but then it would not have enough time to designate the day as a holiday in time. I hold that by including this into the agenda of the Legislative Council and securing Members' support, the SAR Government is being responsible and it has discharged the duty of Hong Kong as a SAR.
Frankly, we cannot put the blame entirely on the SAR Government for the difficulty it encountered, which render it impossible to conduct consultation. The incident reflects that there is a discrepancy in the decision-making process of the two places under the "two systems" regime. The procedure that our nation has to go through in designating a national holiday is not analogous to the procedure that a SAR has to go through. What the SAR Government can do is like what I mentioned just now. I thus hold that the choice that the SAR Government has made, I mean the first choice, is in fact a responsible approach.
The designation of the holiday, if passed by this Council, has several points of significance. First, it will enable the public to recall the history and remember it by heart; and second, it will enable us to come to the understanding, through the debate just now, that there exists a discrepancy in the decision-making process of the two places under the "one country, two systems" regime. Hence, we need to have mutual respect and be accommodating before we can properly pursue the road of "one country, two systems". I hold that this is a learning process.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14205
The public may query why a holiday so special has to be designated within such a short period of time. But if they put the issue in the context of the international arena and the overall setting, they will understand why. I hold that this is a very good learning opportunity. According to my observation, Hong Kong people, the Legislative Council, as well as the various medias have predominantly adopted a Hong Kong perspective when considering different issues, seldom have they considered issues in an international or regional context. The arrangement this time, however, enables us to see that, and I absolutely believe that, our nation has considered the international setting and the overall political environment in designating this national holiday. Hence, Hong Kong people should also consider issues in the context of the international setting and the overall political environment, and break free from a purely localistic mindset.
We need to understand the international setting in decoding the designation of this national holiday. In fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, in order to build up mutual trust and an interactive relationship with the Central Government … If we do not consider the international or regional setting when considering different issues, and if we do not try to understand the challenges our nation is facing and the wrestle among different countries, we can never "reach out to the world". A practical example is the issue of universal suffrage in Hong Kong. Why is the Central Government so concerned about the issue of universal suffrage in Hong Kong being manipulated? Obviously, this is closely related to the present international setting. If we do not try to understand the issue and its changes within but rely solely on shouting slogans and voicing our own aspirations, I believe we can never build up mutual trust and respect in our relationship with the Central Government.
Hence, I hope that this debate can enable us to learn history from different perspectives and to come to the understanding that discrepancies exist in the "two systems" under the "one country, two systems" regime, and that we should consider the international setting, the overall political climate and the political arena when discussing different issues.
Deputy President, I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
14206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, four colleagues of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong have spoken. I originally did not intend to speak but having listened to Dr Kenneth CHAN's earlier comments, I changed my mind. He is a scholar, a professor, and hence his future influence on students is of utmost importance. Yet, in my opinion, his comments and views are very much different from the perceptives and feelings of many Chinese. The aggression and plunder of Japanese militarism had inflicted harm on us Chinese, particularly during the eight years of the War of Resistance. Many colleagues have mentioned a lot earlier. However, Dr Kenneth CHAN seemed to be completely apathetic in this regard and even attacked those drama series featuring the War of Resistance against Japan. He criticized them as bad, and queried why they referred to the Chinese as immortal and made various comments on the Japanese. However, he avoided mentioning the harm done to the Chinese people by Japan's militarism. Such words very much resemble those of the present right-wing regime in Japan.
Why do Chinese attach so much importance to national security and sovereignty? We all know that in the past, in the more than a century after the era of the Ching government, China had been subjected to aggression, plunder and oppression and was divided into many colonies. We Chinese have suffered a lot and thus, we take national security and sovereignty very seriously. There can be no compromise when it comes to sovereignty. Moreover, we have witnessed lately that the United States has returned to Asia and is inciting other Asian countries to besiege China. This strategy is very clear. Therefore, if we are to learn from history, we have to consider these historical facts.
Dr Kenneth CHAN also mentioned earlier that after attaining victory in the War of Resistance against Japan, the current situation could be said to be worse than before. He made this comment with the intention of vilifying the changes which had taken place in the new China after the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Ostensibly, he claimed himself to be a global citizen. We however find his words utterly unacceptable. He described those movies on the War of Resistance Against Japan as anti-intellectual, foolish, imbecile and stupid, and alluded to what he referred to as instances of "people getting gold belts for killing and setting fires" upon the establishment of the new China. I do not think that he should have said these words in the capacity of a Chinese. I cannot tolerate his so-called historical view and must therefore rise to say that we do not agree with what he has said.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14207
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Members for supporting the resumption of the Second Reading of the Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill (the Bill), and I thank also the 18 Members who spoke yesterday as well as the nine Members who speaks today for their views on the Bill.
The sole purpose of the Bill is to propose the designation of 3 September 2015 on a one-off basis as both a special General Holiday (GH) and a Statutory Holiday (SH) under the General Holidays Ordinance (GHO) (Cap. 149) and the Employment Ordinance (EO) (Cap. 57) respectively.
Hong Kong had a part in the Eight Years' War of Resistance of the Chinese People and the Pacific War. I believe many Hong Kong people (particularly the older generation) still remember the tough days under Japanese occupation which lasted three years and eight months. In 2014, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress endorsed the designation of 3 September as the Victory Day of the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression. The SAR Government also decided in August last year that official commemorative ceremonies would be held in Hong Kong every year from the following year onwards.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Chinese people's war of resistance against Japanese aggression. It has a special and solemn meaning. In order to enable people nationwide to extensively participate in commemorative activities held by the Central Government and in different regions, the Central People's Government has announced that 3 September 2015 will be designated as a National Holiday. The SAR Government will also host various commemorative activities in Hong Kong on that day, so as to enable members of the public to remember history. It has also proposed the designation of 3 September 2015 as both a special GH and a special SH on a one-off basis to facilitate community participation in these activities.
14208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Members who spoke last evening and this morning have expressed interest in knowing more about these activities. These activities are extensive in nature, including official commemorative ceremony on that day, exhibition, talk, seminar, film show, book exhibition, visit to historic sites, issuance of commemorative stamps, and so on. Actually, as Members may recall, the first of the activities, an exhibition titled "Fighting as One: Reminders of the Eight Years' War of Resistance in Guangdong and Hong Kong", has been presented in the Hong Kong Museum of Coastal Defence since May. Various activities are in the pipeline. The Government also encourages community groups to host commemorative activities for public participation, so as to recall the history of the Eight Years' War of Resistance, remember our martyrs, treasure peace and strengthen the younger generation's understanding of the status of our nation.
If the Bill is passed, 3 September 2015 will be designated as a GH under the GHO. All banks, educational establishments, public offices and government departments shall keep that day as a holiday, unless otherwise is stated in the GHO. The day will also be a SH under the EO. All employees covered by the EO, including imported workers and foreign domestic helpers, irrespective of their length of service, shall be entitled to an extra day of SH; besides, for those who meet the requirements in the EO, they will be a holiday with pay.
The Government has secured the support of the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and the Panel on Manpower of the Legislative Council to the proposal. We also note that since the Government announced the proposed special holiday, community in general has reacted positively to the proposal. I hope Members will support the Bill to enable the introduction of this special holiday, so that the business sector, establishments and members of the public can make early arrangement for the holiday.
Some Members have proposed to make 3 September every year a GH and a SH. I wish to point out that unlike the Bill's proposal of introducing an extra holiday on a one-off basis, Members' proposal will permanently increase the number of days of GH and SH, which will have a lasting implication on the employees, employers, related establishments as well as the economy. Hence, we must be prudent and have to make thorough assessment, so as to balance the interests of different stakeholders and forge a consensus among them. The Government currently has no plan to make 3 September a permanent holiday.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14209
Some Members have also proposed to increase the number of SH from 12 days to 17 days, so as to match up with the number of GH. As I have explained on many occasions, GHs are basically holidays for establishments and employers are not required to arrange their employees to take leave on GHs; besides, it is up to the employers to decide whether their employees are entitled to any pay on GHs. In contrast, SHs are holidays which all employees covered under the EO are entitled to and employees who meet the requirements are entitled to pay on SHs. The EO is a piece of legislation applicable to all employers, irrespective of their industries and the scale and status of their establishments. Some employers, including those of public and private institutions, may grant to their employees benefits more than what are required under the EO (which means better benefits), depending on the status of the individual establishments. In this connection, the employees of some establishments may be entitled to some GHs on top of the SHs. The legislative proposal to enhance the holiday benefits currently rendered by the EO for all employers' compliance may have considerable impact on employers, including those of small and medium enterprises which account for 98% of the enterprises in Hong Kong, as well as families which employ over 330 000 foreign domestic helpers in total. Hence, we must prudently assess the proposal. As I said earlier, we have to strike a balance between the interests of the employers and the employees and strive to obtain extensive approval and a consensus in society.
Regarding this subject, the Labour Department commissioned the Census and Statistics Department to conduct a survey on SHs and GHs taken by employees in Hong Kong. The Labour Department separately briefed the LAB and the Panel on Manpower of the Legislative Council early this year on the findings of the survey and listened to their views. Discussion by the LAB on this subject is in progress. The Government will carefully consider the way forward after the LAB has reached a consensus on this subject.
Among the views expressed by Members, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung mentioned that he had proposed a Committee stage amendment (CSA) in 1998 to designate the Sino-Japanese War Victory Day (the third Monday in August) as a GH. I wish to briefly point out here that the Administration did not support the CSA at that time and the simple reason was that the CSA, if passed, would increase the number of GHs from 17 days to 18 days a year. Members may still remember that the bill proposed by the Administration at that time already 14210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 included adding the Labour Day and the Buddha's Birthday as GHs. It would thus be difficult to further add a day of GH. I hope Member can understand the stance of the Government then.
Second, I wish to briefly respond to Mr IP Kin-yuen. I can understand Mr IP's concern that the proposal may affect schools' work in preparing their school calendar. However, as far as I know, according to the Education Regulations, schools are only required to submit their school calendar to the Education Bureau by 15 August every year. Hence, if the Bill is passed today, I believe schools will still have sufficient time to make preparations.
Last but not least, I wish also to answer the question raised by some Members on whether there were similar one-off holiday arrangements in the past. The answer is in the affirmative. The Government has at least made three one-off holidays in the past. It designated 29 July 1981 as an one-off GH and SH to celebrate the Prince of Wales' wedding; it also designated 22 October 1986 as a similar one-off holiday for the Royal visit; and for our reunification with China, 1 and 2 July 1997, or the day the HKSAR was founded and the day following it, were also designated as GHs and SHs. In other words, we did make similar arrangements in the past.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I urge Members to support the passage of the Bill. Thank you.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14211
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.
SPECIAL HOLIDAY (3 SEPTEMBER 2015) BILL
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 and 2.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
14212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.
SPECIAL HOLIDAY (3 SEPTEMBER 2015) BILL
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the
Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill has passed through the Committee stage without amendment. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, may I make a very short speech?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will ask whether any Member wish to speak shortly afterwards.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14213
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
Does any Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I only want to make a very short speech. I have already made a long and detailed speech during the Second Reading debate, I have nothing to add, except that I would like to correct a historical fact that I have mixed up in my Second Reading speech. I said that when JIANG Zemin visited Japan in his capacity as the President of the PRC in 1998, he was accompanied by the then Foreign Minister WU Xueqian. I was wrong in saying that, as he was actually accompanied by TANG Jiaxuan. At that time, TANG claimed himself a specialist of Japan, and he said he was very familiar with Japanese affairs upon their arrival in Japan.
Nonetheless, it was widely known that back then he had committed two mistakes. First, he estimated that …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, Members must focus their speeches on the Bill in the Third Reading stage, as the Third Reading is neither an extension of the Second Reading debate, nor an opportunity for Members to correct the information they have wrongly cited in the Second Reading debate. Please briefly state your justifications for voting for or against the Bill.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): All right, Deputy President. I only need to say a few more words. First, the then Foreign Minister was TANG Jiaxuan, who had assessed the circumstance wrongly. Moreover, he held that the compensation issue had been settled. Just now I have cited the wrong name, the then Foreign Minister was TANG Jiaxuan, not WU Xueqian. TANG was under strong criticism subsequently.
This is the end of my speech, I have no more point to add.
14214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Special Holiday (3 September 2015) Bill.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting will now be suspended for five minutes.
1.09 pm
Meeting suspended.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
1.12 pm
Council then resumed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14215
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015.
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 2015
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 29 April 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the above Bill, will address the Council on the Committee's Report.
MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as the Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015 (the Bills Committee), I submit the Bills Committee's report to the Legislative Council and report on the main deliberations of the Bills Committee.
The Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015 (the Bill) seeks to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance (IRO) to give effect to the proposals concerning tax concessions in the 2015-2016 Budget (the Budget), that is:
(1) increase both the child allowance and the additional one-off child allowance in the year of birth for each eligible child from $70,000 to $100,000 under salaries tax and tax under personal assessment with effect from the year of assessment 2015-2016; and
(2) reduce salaries tax, tax under personal assessment and profits tax for the year of assessment 2014-2015 by 75%, subject to a ceiling of $20,000 per case.
The Bills Committee has held one meeting to deliberate with the Administration. The Bills Committee notes that the proposed increases in child allowance and additional one-off child allowance will benefit about 370 000 taxpayers, and the revenue forgone is estimated to be about $2 billion a year. As regards the proposed one-off reduction of salaries tax and tax under personal 14216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 assessment for the year of assessment 2014-2015, about 1.2 million taxpayers will be benefited, whereas the proposed one-off reduction of profits tax will benefit about 130 000 tax-paying corporations and unincorporated businesses. The revenue foregone for 2015-2016 is about $17.7 billion.
The Bills Committee also notes that the eligibility for claiming the child allowance is contained in section 31(1) of the IRO.
Details of the deliberations of the Bills Committee are set out in the written report. The Bills Committee will not propose Committee stage amendments to the Bill, and will support the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill.
President, the following is my personal view on the Bill. The Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) welcomes the tax concessions proposed in this year's Budget. In the past, the Government has always resorted to offering tax rebate or tax concessions to relieve the financial pressure of taxpayers when there is a surplus for the Treasury. In February 2015, the estimated revenue announced in the Budget was almost 10 percentage point higher than the former estimation, thus giving the Government a much bigger surplus for this financial year. Among all revenues, those from stamp duty, profits tax and salaries tax all exceed the original estimation. Given a handsome surplus, returning wealth to the people by way of a reduction in salaries tax, personal income tax and profits tax can help ease the financial burden of the middle-class families and respond to our call for reducing some of the profits tax of the small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
The birth rate in Hong Kong has remained low for a long time, and many people attribute this to the heavy burden of child-raising. Thus, years ago, the BPA has begun to ask the Government to increase the child allowance to lessen the tax burden of parents. Although an increase in the allowance may not lure young couples to change their decision of whether or not to have children or the number of children they would like to have, an increase can actually ease the tax burden of those who are parents, in particular the middle-class families. Last year, we meant to propose an increase in the child allowance from $70,000 to $80,000 to the Financial Secretary. Yet, we are very happy to see that the Financial Secretary is more proactive and has raised the allowance to $100,000. The Inland Revenue Department will be issuing the tax returns in August. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14217 wish that this Bill can be passed by the Council expeditiously and smoothly, so that taxpayers and SMEs throughout Hong Kong can be benefited.
President, I so submit.
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), I speak in support of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the concessionary revenue measures proposed in this year's Budget, including increasing the child allowance and the additional one-off child allowance in the year of birth for each eligible child from $70,000 to $100,000; and reducing salaries tax and profits tax by 75%, subject to a ceiling of $20,000.
The introduction of the two concessionary revenue measures reflects that the "God of Wealth" has accepted views expressed by various stakeholders in the community, including the proposal put forward by the DAB to request the Government to relieve the financial burden of the middle class, and the motion on assisting the middle class we have moved in 2013. Therefore, the Bill has the support of the DAB.
In fact, as reported just now by Mr Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee, only one meeting has been held by the Bills Committee, revealing that this Council finds no controversy about such measures which benefit the middle class. As I can recall, when the "God of Wealth" announced an increase to the child allowance and a tax rebate capped at $20,000 in delivering this year's Budget, I received a number of messages from many the middle-class people who were glad that it was finally their turn to enjoy some benefits this year.
The 10% households with the lowest income in Hong Kong can be benefited from the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, while the 30% households with medium to low income can apply for public housing. As for people in the middle class or those who can marginally be classified as the middle class, apart from applying for flats under the Home Ownership Scheme, they are not eligible for most of the social welfare benefits. People in the middle class have to rely on their own efforts to struggle in the market to attain home ownership. In addition, while grass-roots people may benefit from the services provided by public hospitals, those in the middle class are often required to take out health insurance cover for themselves. As for children's education, we all know that middle-class families are subject to a considerable amount of tuition 14218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 fee every year for their children's schooling in private schools, schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme or other types of schools. Therefore, the call for an increase of the child allowance by the Financial Secretary has never ceased.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Those who are in regular contact with middle-class families will often hear them complain about the difficulties faced by the middle class in Hong Kong. This is because they cannot enjoy as many social welfare benefits as grass-roots people but are required to pay taxes for every cent they earn. When compared with the rich, whose major sources of income are dividends or overseas income, those in the middle class are often required to contribute a higher proportion of their income on tax payment. Hence, the DAB is in support of the Bill which seeks to relieve the burden of the middle class.
Apart from the measures proposed in the Bill, I would also like to point out that a number of suggestions have been put forward by those in the middle class in the hope that more measures would be taken by the Secretary and the "God of Wealth" to alleviate the tax burden of the middle class when a financial surplus is recorded and the financial conditions so permit. We have put forward a proposal to the Government previously for the provision of a $100,000 tax deduction for residential rental payment and the "God of Wealth" has given some consideration to the suggestion. Moreover, in order to further relieve the burden arising from children's education, we have also put forward a proposal for the introduction of tax deduction for children's education expenses, subject to a ceiling of $150,000. Further still, we have also proposed the introduction of tax deduction for private medical insurance contributions, subject to a ceiling of $12,000; as well as the introduction of tax deduction for voluntary Mandatory Provident Fund contributions, and so on. All of our proposed measures are feasible ones, and possible ways can definitely be identified to help relieve the tax burden of the middle class if the Government is willing to keep its mind open.
Even if no additional tax relief measures are introduced, assistance could still be rendered to middle-class families if we could rack our brains and introduce flexibility into some existing arrangements. For example, a flexible dependent parent tax deduction system should be introduced to enable children to share the relevant allowances or take up the allowance of more than one elderly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14219 relative, to allow children of elderly parents who have participated in the Guangdong Scheme to apply for dependent parent or dependent grandparent allowance, or to enable siblings to share the dependent parent or dependent grandparent allowance. Although the amount involved is by no means significant, quite a number of people in the middle class have indicated that the introduction of such flexible measures could help alleviate their tax burden.
The Government should also consider increasing with inflation rates the dependent parent allowance, disabled dependant allowance, child allowance, children's education allowance and personal allowances, and so on. Besides, the Continuing Education Fund has been in operation for some time but further capital injection has never been made. I hope the Government would consider injecting capital into the Fund when a financial surplus is recorded.
In short, Deputy President, people in the middle class are in fact delighted by the Budget published this year. It is hoped that the Government would, if the financial conditions so permit, introduce more tax relief measures to alleviate the livelihood pressure on middle-class families.
Deputy President, I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Bills Committee, Mr Andrew LEUNG, as well as members of the Bills Committee and colleagues of the Legislative Council Secretariat for their efforts, which have contributed to the smooth completion of the scrutiny of the Bill. I would also like to thank Members for supporting the resumption of the Second Reading debate of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015 today to 14220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 enable the speedy implementation of the tax reduction measures proposed in the Bill.
As I have said when moving the Second Reading, the Bill seeks to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance to implement the concessionary revenue measures proposed in the 2015-2016 Budget and to make provisions on transitional matters. The pertinent concessionary revenue measures cover the following two aspects.
First, to lessen the burden of taxpayers on child-raising, the Bill proposes to increase the child allowance from $70,000 to $100,000 under salaries tax and tax under personal assessment with effect from the year of assessment 2015-2016, and the additional one-off child allowance in the year of birth for each eligible child will see the same adjustment. This proposal will benefit about 370 000 taxpayers and the Government will forego about $2 billion a year in revenue as a result.
Moreover, in the 2015-2016 Budget, the Government has put forth various anti-cyclical one-off relief measures, including the reduction of salaries tax, tax under personal assessment and profits tax for the year of assessment 2014-2015 by 75%, subject to a ceiling of $20,000 per case. The reduction will be reflected in the taxpayers' final tax payable for that year of assessment. The tax reduction proposal will respectively benefit about 1.82 million taxpayers and about 130 000 tax-paying corporations and unincorporated businesses. The revenue foregone is about $17.7 billion.
Deputy President, I implore Members to support the passage of the Bill to enable us to implement the above measures which will benefit taxpayers soon. Upon the passage of the Bill, the Inland Revenue Department will begin to implement the concessionary measures in the tax returns issued from the end of July.
I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14221
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 2015
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 6.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1 to 6 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
14222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.
Council then resumed.
Third Reading of Bills
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 2015
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the
Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015 has passed through the Committee stage without amendment. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015 be read the Third time and do pass.
Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14223
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015.
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015.
ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 4 February 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the above Bill, will address the Council on the Committee's Report.
MR KENNETH LEUNG: Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Bills Committee), I report the deliberations of the Bills Committee.
14224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
The Bills Committee supports the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Amendment Bill) which seeks to:
(a) make it clear that parties opting for domestic arbitration and specifying the number of arbitrators in an arbitration agreement may still retain their rights by virtue of section 100 of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (the Ordinance) to seek assistance from courts for matters set out in sections 2 to 7 of Schedule 2 of the Ordinance; and
(b) update, for the purpose of the Ordinance, the list of parties to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (referred to as the New York Convention) by adding the new parties, namely, Bhutan, Burundi and Guyana; by adding British Virgin Islands to the entry for the United Kingdom; and by amending "Bolivia" to "Bolivia (Plurinational State of)" in the Schedule to the Arbitration (Parties To New York Convention) Order (Cap. 609 sub. leg. A).
The Bills Committee notes that, in order to remove the legal uncertainties relating to the opt-in mechanism provided for domestic arbitration under Part 11 of the Ordinance, it is necessary to, amongst other things,
(a) amend section 23(3) to clarify that if the parties fail to agree on the number of arbitrators in an arbitration and section 1 of Schedule 2 to the Ordinance does not apply, such number is to be either 1 or 3 as decided by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC);
(b) amend section 102(b)(ii) to remove the reference to section 1 of Schedule 2 so that section 100 does not apply only if the arbitration agreement has provided expressly that any of the provisions of Schedule 2, other than section 1, applies or does not apply; and
(c) amend section 1 of Schedule 2 so that for an arbitration to which section 1 of Schedule 2 applies, any dispute arising between the parties to the arbitration agreement concerned is to be submitted to a sole arbitrator for arbitration if the parties fail to agree on the number of arbitrators.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14225
The Bills Committee also notes that updating the list of state parties to the New York Convention is to comply with obligations under the New York Convention to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made in contracting parties so that arbitral awards made in new contracting states to the New York Convention, such as Bhutan, could be enforced by Hong Kong courts and vice versa.
The Bills Committee has not raised objection to a Committee stage amendment (CSA) to be moved by the Secretary for Justice to add "State of Palestine" in the Schedule to the Arbitration (Parties to New York Convention) Order, as the State of Palestine acceded to the New York Convention on 2 January 2015 and has become a new contracting party to the Convention on 2 April 2015.
The Bills Committee, Deputy President, has not proposed to move any CSA to the Amendment Bill.
Next, Deputy President, I would like to give my personal views on this Bill.
These days, arbitration has, indeed, become the most sensible option for individuals or companies wishing to settle a dispute. Gone are the days when threats to take legal action led to lengthy legal battles in the Court of Common Law with often uncertain and very expensive outcomes. Even when a judgment is finally reached, this could then be followed by years of appeals and further litigation and the difficulty to enforce the decision internationally.
Arbitration is a much cheaper and more efficient approach to dispute resolution. It finds solutions tailored to fit the problems of both sides and, unlike a full litigation in court, once a decision is reached, it is final. There are further risks of litigation and no appeals. International arbitration has the advantage of conducting dispute resolution in a neutral setting in contrast to a national court with its own local language and laws. Those laws may not be developed for international commercial disputes.
The arbitration tribunal panel is made up of industry experts and lawyers who are independent of the parties. Usually between one and three panel members are selected through discussion and agreement between the parties. The final decision of an arbitration panel is enforceable across the globe under the 14226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 provisions of the New York Convention which has 149 nation signatories. Under arbitration, any proceedings remain completely confidential in order to protect any trade secrets or competitive practices from being made public.
Now, I would like to cover why Hong Kong is often chosen as a seat for arbitration.
Hong Kong has the best facilities, indeed, and is the best location for the world for arbitration. First of all, I think Hong Kong is accessible and well connected to all other major cities of the world. Good transport links and advanced infrastructures make Hong Kong the international business preferred choice for arbitration. Hong Kong International Airport is connected to more than 180 global destinations by more than a thousand daily flights. Reliable, efficient and reasonably priced, Hong Kong's local transport system is world-class, which means that wherever one chooses to stay in the city, one is always conveniently placed.
Hong Kong's liberal visa policy also means that nationals of over 170 countries can visit us without a visa. This speeds up the process and reduces the cost for the parties involved and is another important reason why Hong Kong is such a popular choice for arbitration.
Also, Hong Kong's Arbitration Ordinance is the only legislation in Asia which adopts the latest version of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. This means that once an award has been made by an arbitration tribunal, it is enforceable in over 150 countries.
The HKIAC also offers us an expedite arbitration service in which if all parties agree to speed up the process, the resolution can be done within six months. There is also the opportunity for parties to apply for an emergency interim relief award of no more than 15 days during the early stages of HKIAC arbitration.
As well as international dispute, Hong Kong is also particularly well placed to deal with disputes involving Chinese parties and is widely acknowledged as the natural choice for such arbitrations. Unlike many other arbitration locations and national courts, Hong Kong maintains an excellent track record of global enforcement, particularly in Mainland China. As well as signing up to the New LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14227
York Convention, Hong Kong has also entered into separate arrangements on mutual enforcement awards with Mainland China and Macao.
Perhaps the most important reason why Hong Kong is best suited for arbitration is our independent legal system. Our judiciaries, Deputy President, are among the most independent in the world and have a pro-arbitration attitude.
But Deputy President, I must say this with a pinch of salt, because as you maybe aware that there is a lot of pressure on the Judiciary these days and I also hope that fellow Members or our Honourable colleagues in this Chamber can refrain from making absurd and groundless comments or criticisms of the Judiciary during their speech.
The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region also guarantees the judicial independence of the Court of Final Appeal. And indeed, the Court of Final Appeal Judge Lord MILLETT once commented in October last year that while in his 14 years on the bench, he has never encountered any external interferences from China or anywhere else and he is proud to be a member of one of the strongest appellate courts in the world.
Therefore, once an award has been made by an arbitration tribunal, the courts in Hong Kong will enforce the award as a matter of common procedure. The parties can rest assured that the courts will not interfere or review an award once it has been made. Although the courts remain neutral and removed from the decision making process, they are able to offer assistance with the taking of evidence and by granting a time limit extension for an arbitral tribunal to issue an award. They can also support the work of the arbitration panel by offering legal advice.
As well as our legal system being perfectly suited to arbitration, we also have a wide range of quality professional services available with 70 of the largest 100 banks operating here and 65 of the top 100 global law firms operating in Hong Kong.
When choosing independent industry and legal experts to sit on the tribunal panel, the HKIAC provides lists of highly experienced arbitrators from a wide range of sectors. For industry-specific advice, Hong Kong has a wealth of talent, including 29 000 qualified engineers, 37 000 accountants, more than 8 500 14228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 members of the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and over 4 000 architects. And in the legal profession, we have 7 800 practising solicitors and 1 200 barristers. In addition, more than 1 400 foreign lawyers qualified in over 29 different overseas jurisdictions practise law in Hong Kong.
Outside Europe and North America, the HKIAC is most experienced in the world. It handles around 450 disputes every year, and in 2014 alone, 93% of those disputes were international cases, with the value on arbitration reaches a total of US$2.4 billion.
With all these as the background, I think I would urge the Members across this spectrum to support the Amendment Bill. Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Justice to reply. This debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 (Bills Committee) and the other members of the Bills Committee for their efforts to make the smooth completion of the scrutiny possible. I also wish to thank the various organizations concerned, including the Hong Kong Bar Association, the Law Society of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, for their valuable views.
As I said in this February when introducing the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Bill) into the Legislative Council, the Bill solely seeks to amend the Arbitration Ordinance (the Ordinance) (Cap. 609), to the effect of removing the legal uncertainties that may arise from the opt-in mechanism provided for domestic arbitration under Part 11 of the Ordinance. To this end, we have proposed to amend the Ordinance to clearly provide that parties opting for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14229 domestic arbitration can be free to decide on the number of arbitrators, while retaining their right to seek the assistance of the Court of First Instance of the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR on the matters set out in sections 2 to 7 of Schedule 2 to the Ordinance.
The Bill will also add four new parties to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (hereinafter referred to as New York Convention) in the Schedule to the Arbitration (Parties to New York Convention) Order (Cap. 609 sub. leg. A). Moreover, the amendments proposed to the Bill will also update the official name of an existing party to the New York Convention, as well as reflect an extended application of the New York Convention to a territory of another existing party.
In view of these recent new changes to the list of parties to the New York Convention, I will later move an amendment at the Committee stage. The Bills Committee was informed of the details of the amendment and did not oppose it.
The Department of Justice is all along committed to consolidating the status of Hong Kong as an Asian-pacific centre for international legal and dispute resolution services. Since the enactment of the current Ordinance in 2011, we have maintained close contact with the arbitration sector and other stakeholders to make timely adjustments to the Ordinance. Upon its passage, the Bill will effectively improve the opt-in mechanism provided for domestic arbitration, thereby further enhancing the arbitration system of Hong Kong.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I urge Members to support the Second Reading of the Bill and the amendment I will move later. Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
14230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.
ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may refer to Appendix I to the Script for the debate and voting arrangements for the Bill.
I will first deal with the clauses with no amendment. I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 8.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14231
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1 to 8 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 9.
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I move the amendment to clause 9, which is read out just now. The content of the amendment to that clause is set out in the paper distributed to Members.
As the State of Palestine has become a party to the New York Convention since 2 April 2015, we propose to add "State of Palestine" to the Schedule to the Arbitration (Parties to New York Convention) Order, so as to update the list of parties to the New York Convention.
The Bills Committee has noted the above amendment. I urge Members to support the amendment. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
Proposed amendment
Clause 9 (see Annex I)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
14232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by the Secretary for Justice be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the amendment passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clause 9 as amended.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clause 9 as amended stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes.
Council then resumed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14233
Third Reading of Bills
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading.
ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the
Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 has passed through the Committee stage with amendment. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Third time and do pass.
Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015.
14234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on Insurance Companies (Amendment) Bill 2014.
INSURANCE COMPANIES (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 30 April 2014
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the above Bill, will address the Council on the Committee's Report.
MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on Insurance Companies (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bills Committee), I submit the report of the Bills Committee to this Council and report on the key areas of work of the Bills Committee.
Under the existing Insurance Companies Ordinance (ICO), the Insurance Authority is a public officer to regulate the insurance industry with the support of the Office of the Commission of Insurance (OCI) which is a government department. The Insurance Companies (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill) aims to establish an Insurance Authority (IA) independent of the Government and the industry, and introduce a new regulatory regime for insurance intermediaries to replace the existing self-regulatory system. The Bills Committee generally supports the Bill, so as to enhance regulation of the insurance industry and ensure better protection of the interests of policy holders.
On the composition of the IA, the Bills Committee supports that the majority of the IA's members should be lay persons, and has urged the Government to ensure the composition of the IA would consist of a balanced representation of interests among different sectors. Some members support the suggestion from the industry, considering that there should be a statutory minimum proportion of IA members coming from the insurance industry to ensure that the IA has sufficient number of members conversant with the operation of the industry. However, some members have reservation about the suggestion on the grounds that it would undermine the independence of the IA as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14235 a regulator of the insurance industry. They have suggested a statutory cap on the proportion of industry members instead.
The Government has explained that it was originally proposed that the IA should have at least one but not more than two non-executive directors with knowledge of and experience in the insurance industry. However, the Government has refined the proposal after public consultation and included the new section 4AA(3)(a) that the IA should have at least two non-executive directors with industry knowledge and experience. The authorities consider that the current proposal has struck a reasonable balance between different opinions expressed by the industry and the public, tapping industry expertise on the one hand and ensuring the IA's impartiality on the other, and maintaining flexibility in appointing the appropriate mix of talents to IA.
The Bills Committee considers that disclosure requirement for IA members should not be limited to pecuniary interests only. The Government will propose a Committee stage amendment after taking into account the relevant disclosure requirements of other statutory bodies to require disclosure of interests, whether pecuniary or non-pecuniary, that appear to raise a conflict with the proper performance of the member's duties in the IA. Furthermore, the IA will be added to Schedule 1 to the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (PBO) to specify the IA as a "public body" for the purposes of the PBO. Any member or employee of the IA will be regarded as a "public servant" for the purposes of the PBO, and are subject to its regulation.
Regarding the accounting and financial arrangements of IA, the Bills Committee considers that a mechanism should be put in place to prevent IA from over-expansion, and has suggested that the IA must be required statutorily to decide on the remuneration and terms of its staff and consultants according to actual needs and in a reasonable manner.
According to the Government, in order to provide effective check and balance, the new section 5B requires the IA's annual estimates to be approved by the Financial Secretary, and the approved estimates must be tabled before the Legislative Council. The Government considers that it is necessary for the IA to have operational flexibility to enable the IA to determine the appropriate level of remuneration having regard to prevailing market situations so as to cope with regulatory challenges effectively.
To enhance the transparency of the preparation of the IA's annual estimates, the Government has taken on board the Bills Committee's suggestion to 14236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 brief the Panel on Financial Affairs of the Legislative Council on the proposed budget prior to seeking approval by the Financial Secretary. Moreover, with a view to enhancing financial prudence and discipline of the IA, the Government has also agreed to consider the suggestion put forward by the Bills Committee, so that part of the proposed start up funds from the Government to the IA will be provided in the form of a loan.
The Bill has strengthened the existing regulatory powers in respect of insurers to enhance corporate governance, and provided the IA with powers to conduct inspection, initiate investigation, as well as impose disciplinary sanctions on insurers and insurance intermediaries. The Bills Committee agrees that the IA needs to have adequate regulatory power to enhance protection of policy holders, but stresses that the powers of the IA must be subject to appropriate checks and balances, and there should be a mechanism to expressly separate the investigatory and disciplinary powers of the IA. In this connection, the Bills Committee has studied relevant checks and balances measures, including setting up an expert panel on disciplinary sanctions comprising industry practitioners, so that the IA can consult the panel before determining on disciplinary issues, in order to leverage on the industry's experience and expertise to ensure proper decisions are made. The Government has agreed to relay to the IA the suggestion of setting up an expert panel.
Regarding the question of when the IA should disclose disciplinary decisions, the Bills Committee considers that the IA must maintain transparency, and has to avoid undue disclosure which creates adverse impact on insurers or insurance intermediaries. Members agree that the IA should prepare guidelines on disclosure of disciplinary decisions to set out the details.
The Bills Committee has noted the industry's concern that the proposed level of fine for disciplinary sanction is too high, as well as the worry that individual insurance intermediaries will be put into financial jeopardy. According to the Government, the Ordinance has already required the IA to, before exercising its power to impose a disciplinary fine, publish guidelines of fining to set out the factors of consideration in determining the quantum of a disciplinary fine, and to have regard to the guidelines when imposing a fine. The authorities envisage that the IA would make reference to similar guidelines on fining currently adopted in other financial regulatory regimes when drawing up its own guidelines, and would consult the industry when formulating the guidelines.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14237
Regarding the licensing regime for insurance intermediaries, the Bills Committee notes that the new sections 64J and 64K have retained the existing restrictions on personnel of insurance agencies and insurance broker companies to avoid conflict of interests. The industry is concerned that the wordings of the new sections may unnecessarily widen the scope of the restrictions and hinder intermediaries' normal investment activities. As requested by the Bills Committee, the Government has reviewed the relevant provisions and agreed to propose amendments to ensure a clear scope of restriction.
The Bills Committee supports the imposition of conduct requirements on insurance intermediaries to enhance protection of the interests of policy holders. The new sections 89, 90 and 91 set out respectively the broad principles of conduct requirements for insurance intermediaries, as well as conduct requirements for insurance agencies and broker companies and their responsible officers. In this connection, section 89(a) requires that an insurance intermediary must "act honestly, fairly, in the best interests of the policy holder concerned or the potential policy holder concerned, and with integrity". Insurance agents worry that having the same "best interests requirement" mentioned above for insurance brokers and insurance agents can create difficulties for insurance agents. Given that an insurance agent acts on behalf of an authorized insurer in selling insurance products, he needs to act in the interests of his appointing insurer, and conflicts will thus arise if an insurance agent is required to accord priority to a policy holder's interests in carrying out regulated activities. Insurance agents are also concerned that making the "best interests requirement" statutory without qualifications may create a new statutory cause of action, rendering them susceptible to legal actions by clients. The Bills Committee has urged the Government to response to the concerns of insurance agents.
The Government has pointed out that "best interests requirement" is made statutory for insurance intermediaries in Singapore and Australia, while conduct requirements are also included under the regulatory regime for Mandatory Provident Fund intermediaries, most of them are insurance intermediaries as well.
In response to the industry's concerns, the Government has taken on board the industry's suggestion and proposed amendments to introduce section 91A which provides that a breach of a conduct requirement specified in new sections 89, 90 or 91 would not on its own render any person liable to any judicial proceedings and that section 91A will not affect a person's other rights under the 14238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 common law. Regarding the industry's concern about the "best interests requirement" creating a new statutory cause of action, the Government has stressed that there is no intention to introduce a new statutory cause of action. The IA will draw up a code of conduct on what constitutes "best interests" and will take into account the different roles of insurance agents and brokers. The new section 93(7) stipulates that the code of conduct will be admissible in evidence in any proceedings under the amended ICO before a court, and the Court must, in determining the question, take into account any compliance or non-compliance of the provision. The Government considers that this will address the concern of the trade that the "best interests requirement" for insurance agents should be different from those for insurance brokers.
The Bills Committee considers that it may not be the most desirable option to group both insurance agents and insurance brokers under a "best interests requirement" in new section 89(a) and leave their different roles to be taken into account when the IA draws up the code of conduct. But then, the Committee also notes that this approach is legally tenable and the industry has been consulted on the proposed amendment.
The new regulatory regime will set up an independent Appeals Tribunal, and details of the appointment of members and proceedings of the Tribunal are set out in new Schedule 10.
The Bills Committee notes that there is no provision to deal with the situation when the chairperson or an ordinary member of Appeals Tribunal resigns from office during a review. Upon considering members' opinions, the Government has agreed to move amendments to add section 4A to new Schedule 10 to stipulate that in case there is a change in the chairperson or a member of Appeals Tribunal when a review is in progress, the hearing may continue if there is consent from both parties to the review, and the hearing should begin anew in the absence of such consent.
The Bills Committee understands the industry's concern about the potential huge legal costs involved in the Appeals Tribunal proceedings, which may create financial burden on appellants. Sharing the above concern, some members have urged the Government to delete the provision which empowers the Tribunal to, by order, award costs to the parties to a review. Members have also suggested the Government consider introducing a cost cap for appellants or fixed costs for straight-forward appeal cases.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14239
According to the Government's explanation, the arrangement to award costs aims to discourage abuse of the appeal process to delay a disciplinary action or making unreasonable claims. The award of costs and the taxation of any costs awarded will be subject to Order 62 of the Rules of the High Court. When awarding costs, the Tribunal must take into account the conduct of all the parties. The Bills Committee welcomes the authorities' acceptance of the industry's suggestion to allow the Appeals Tribunal to review the IA's decision based on written representations, as this will help to save time and reduce potential legal costs for the parties concerned. The authorities will move amendments in this respect to add the new section 100(1A).
New Schedule 11 provides for insurance intermediaries' transition to new regulatory regime. Pre-existing insurance intermediaries validly registered with Self-Regulatory Organizations will be regarded as licensed insurance intermediaries for a transitional period of three years if they satisfy the licensing requirements. Pre-IA complaints, investigations and appeal cases which remain unresolved will be followed up by IA or Appeals Tribunal in accordance with the rules applicable in the time of the events concerned. The Bills Committee notes that the industry has made enquiries and suggestions on various transitional arrangements. Members thus urge the Government to continue holding discussion with the industry to work out the detailed arrangements to ensure a smooth transition to the new regime. The Government has advised that it has set up a Working Group on Transition to the IA to discuss with the existing Self-Regulatory Organizations and representatives of insurance intermediaries about detailed transitional arrangements, and the outcome of deliberation is posted onto the website of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau.
With respect to the transitional arrangements from the OCI to the IA, the Bills Committee has emphasized that the OCI and the IA must transfer the records in a prudent manner to ensure smooth transition and protect the personal data contained therein. Some members have suggested stating a completion time of the transfer process so that the IA's legal obligations for the transferred records under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance would officially commence. In this connection, the Government will propose amendments to provide that the transfer of records must be completed on or before the commencement date, and that the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data may, on and after "the date on which the data is transferred", exercise in relation to the IA any power under the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.
The Bills Committee considers it necessary to make proper arrangements for existing employees of the OCI and to retain the valuable experience for 14240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 ensuring a smooth transition to the new regulatory regime. The Government has advised that the dissolution of OCI would follow Government's established policies for abolition of offices. Existing staff members of the OCI can apply for jobs in the IA and it is believed that they will have edges in applications due to their regulatory experience in the OCI.
The new section 127 empowers the IA to make rules to provide for specific matters and for performance of any of its functions. These rules are subsidiary legislation subject to the negative vetting procedures of the Legislative Council. The Bills Committee understands that the rules enable the IA to set out the detailed regulatory requirements to response flexibly to changing market and global conditions. To ensure that the rules set by the IA will take into account the views of stakeholders, new section 130 requires the IA to publish a draft of the proposed rules for public consultation. Moreover, the new section 131 empowers the IA to publish non-statutory codes or guidelines for matters in relation to its functions and the operation of a provision of the amended ICO. The Bills Committee agrees that the rules can provide the industry with practical guidance to facilitate compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Lastly, the Bills Committee supports the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill, and has no objection to the amendments proposed by the Government, the details of which are set out in the Report. The Bills Committee will not propose any amendment.
Deputy President, next I will explain on its behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) our views about the Bill. Insurance products have become increasingly sophisticated and diversified nowadays, and the public expects more enhanced regulation on the integrity of the insurance industry. In this regard, the Government has proposed the establishment of the IA as a means to replace the existing self-regulatory system, so as to improve the regulation of the insurance industry in accordance with international standard, such that the regulatory structure of the insurance industry can keep abreast of the time. This can reinforce the trade's professionalism and competitiveness, and promote steady development of the insurance industry on the one hand, and offer more comprehensive protection of the interests of the insured, thereby strengthening their confidence towards the insurance industry on the other. Therefore, the DAB supports the Bill.
The Bill was submitted to the Legislative Council in April last year (2014). However, as the insurance industry has always been regulated under an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14241 organization voluntarily set up by representatives of the trade, the establishment of the IA is a major reform to them. Therefore, the Government has conducted consultancy studies and a few rounds of consultation with the public and the industry on the proposal to establish IA since 2003. The DAB has also met with and received opinions from the insurance industry on many occasions before and during the consideration of the Bill, and relayed such opinions to the authorities concerned.
At first, the insurance industry raised strong objection owing to the worries that its room for survival would be throttled under the new statutory regulation system. However, after rounds of consultation with the industry, the Government has made concessions in respect to a number of provisions of the Bill already submitted to the Legislative Council. Nonetheless, the industry was still generally concerned about a few issues, and declined to offer its acceptance. Upon negotiation with the industry and the members, the Government finally accepted some of the suggestions put forward by the industry and proposed relevant amendments. Here I would like to raise a few remarks, and I will try to make it brief as some of the issues have already been mentioned in the Report earlier.
First, it is not adequate for the governing board of the IA to have not less than two representatives with knowledge of or experience in the insurance industry. To ensure due representation of the voices of the industry, either the number of seats has to be increased or an appropriate proportion be maintained. The Government has advised that the governance structure must remain fair and impartial, and it is not appropriate to include too many regulated persons. Also, the Government believes that the IA will appoint the right talents in future.
Second, the conduct requirement that insurance agents must "act in the best interests of policy holders" is in conflict with the agents' role. Also, the vague definition of "best interests" makes it difficult for the industry to comply with the requirement. In this regard, the Government has demonstrated its goodwill and taken on board the suggestions made by the industry. As stated in detail in the Report just now, the Government will move amendments to state that intermediaries will not be subject to judicial proceedings for violating the conduct requirement. The code of conduct to be published in future will specify the requirements regarding what constitutes "best interests".
Third, the IA is empowered with excessive powers covering the areas of inspection, investigation and disciplinary sanctions. In order to maintain checks 14242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 and balances, it is hoped that a statutory disciplinary committee whose members include representatives of the industry can be set up to review disciplinary decisions, or that the IA must consult the expert panel of the industry before making disciplinary decisions. The Government does not fully agree with the above suggestions in this respect, yet it has promised that investigation personnel will not be involved in the disciplinary process and determination of disciplinary sanctions. Also, it has stated that the industry can appeal against disciplinary decision to the Appeals Tribunal. Furthermore, the authorities have also undertaken to set up a non-statutory and independent Process Review Panel.
Fourth, the restrictions on partners or directors of more than one licensed insurance agencies/broker companies are unreasonable, and will impede the development of insurance agents. In order to address the industry's concerns, the Government has agreed to move amendments to expressly provide that the restrictions apply to the "management or control" of any matter relating to a regulated activity of another insurance intermediary entity.
Fifth, it is too strict to cap a pecuniary penalty on disciplinary sanction at $10 million. It is suggested that different fine levels should be set for insurance intermediaries and insurance companies. The Government has advised that the penalty should have deterrent effect, and, in future, the IA will publish guidelines of fining, and make disciplinary decisions only after taking into account such factors as the industry's financial conditions and the seriousness of the contravention.
Sixth, the industry is concerned about the hefty legal costs to be involved in appeal proceedings, which may exceed their affordability and render them inaccessible to fair appeal. They have suggested that a cost cap for insurance intermediaries should be introduced in this regard. As mentioned in the Report just now, the Government does not agree with the introduction of such a cap, as the costs awarding mechanism aims to discourage abuse of the appeal process to delay a disciplinary action, and the award of costs and the taxation of any costs awarded will be subject to Order 62 of the Rules of the High Court. However, the Government has accepted the suggestion proposed subsequently by the industry, and agreed to allow appellants to submit written representations to the Appeals Tribunal to reduce the burden of legal costs.
Last but not least, the seventh point, which is a controversial issue raised by the industry at a later stage.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14243
Seventh, they are not sure if staff members of insurance companies taking part in regulated activities have to hold insurance intermediary licence. The Government will move amendments to clarify that those persons, namely clerical staff handling underwriting or claims, who give regulated advice incidental to the performance of their technical functions do not need to be licensed.
Deputy President, I am glad that the Government has submitted improvement proposals in respect of controversial issues of concern raised by the trade. This is made possible because the Government, members of the Bills Committee and the pertinent industry have held an open-minded attitude, maintained close communication and proposed pragmatic opinions in the course of opinion exchanges and negotiations. These amendments are proposed after making reference to other related ordinances in Hong Kong and experiences of relevant financial institutions overseas. Also, they are proposed in response to the aspirations of the industry, and based primarily on the protection of the interests of policy holders. Of course, the Government cannot accept all the suggestions made by the industry. However, the DAB considers that the existing Amendment Bill has already reduced the unnecessary compliance costs and pressure borne by the industry as much as possible, without jeopardizing the fair protection of policy holders, and has effectively struck a balance between the interests of the two parties.
The IA will promulgate a number of regulatory guidelines in future, for example, guidelines on fit and proper criteria for appointment of controllers, directors and key persons in control functions by insurance companies. Also, various guidelines on issues such as retention of business records, conduct of insurance intermediaries, disciplinary process, sanctions and pecuniary penalties will also be published. I hope the authorities can consult the industry in due course and take into account the opinions from the trade, as well as issue clear guidelines to facilitate the industry's adherence. Moreover, I welcome the Government's move to set up a Working Group on Transition to the IA whose members include representatives of the industry. The Group has already conducted a few meetings. I hope that the Government can keep on maintaining communications with the industry in respect of the transitional arrangements before the establishment of the IA, and report the progress to the Legislative Council in due course.
Finally, I wish to point out that complaints against investment-linked assurance scheme products have made up a rather large proportion among complaints against insurance products. This kind of products have become 14244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 popular in recent years, and the complaints concerned involve unfair sales practice of intermediaries, as well as the much criticized problems like long policy tenure, low proportion of insurance component, multifarious fees and charges, absence of return assurance, high surrender fees, and so on. Insured persons suffer losses as a result. I hope that the Government will monitor the market situations and strengthen regulations in a timely manner, and that the IA can implement more effective regulations in the future.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Bill and the amendments.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after deliberation by the Bills Committee for eight months, the Insurance Companies (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill) is finally submitted to this Council for endorsement.
With the passage of the Bill, the regulatory structure of the insurance industry will be changed from a self-regulatory mechanism to regulation by an independent body, thus bringing intensive and extensive impact on the whole industry. Hence, the legislative exercise has attracted great attention from the industry and a task force has been set up by the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers to follow up on every aspect of the Bill and put forward a number of proposals. Local lawyers and Queen's Counsels from the United Kingdom have also been engaged to provide independent legal advice to assist me in the deliberation of the Bill. Our goal is to strive for a proper balance in the Bill so that apart from achieving the objective of protecting consumers, efforts will also be made to ensure that the legislation to be enacted will leave no grey areas or legal traps and insurance companies and the over 80 000 insurance intermediaries can rest assured that they may continue to provide their clients with professional services without fear for being unnecessarily caught under the law. In addition to the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers, assistance has also been rendered by many practitioners in the industry, intermediary bodies in particular. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for their assistance.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
President, in the wake of the Lehman Brothers incident, the regulation of financial institutions in various places all over the world has been strengthened to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14245 such an extent that the measures implemented are sometimes more than necessary, thus giving rise to a substantial increase in compliance costs and the costs will inevitably be shifted to consumers. However, even though new regulatory measures have been introduced by regulators on an ongoing basis, consumers have not benefited from the over-regulation; rather, under the existing system, the pertinent responsibility has in fact been shifted to consumers. When purchasing financial products, consumers are first made to listen to audio recording lasted for about an hour regarding various points to note. They will then be given a document comprising several tens of pages, asked to sign their names in more than 10 different places on the document, and will even be videotaped so that in case there is anything wrong with the products they purchase in the future, they have to take up the greatest responsibility. I hope that after the establishment of the independent Insurance Authority (IIA), lessons will be learned from past experience and attempts will be made to refrain from taking measures which are more than necessary.
We have had a lot of arguments with the Government during the deliberation process and among the views expressed, some have been accepted while others have been flatly rejected by the Government. An issue which has taken up quite a lot of our discussion time is the principle of "best interests" under the conduct requirements specified in the Bill. According to the so-called "best interests" requirement, an insurance intermediary has to accord priority to the interests of the insured and in case there is any conflict of interests, he should prioritize his client's interests over the interests of the insurance company concerned. This is a concept to which I think no one will object; however, when it is put into actual practice, many technical problems will arise. Insurance companies and insurance agents are concerned that making the requirement statutory without qualifications may create a new statutory cause of action, rendering them susceptible to legal actions by clients.
In fact, there are two categories of insurance intermediaries in Hong Kong. For insurance brokers, as they act on behalf of their clients, the "best interests" requirement will pose no problem to them. On the other hand, insurance agents act on behalf of insurance companies and while insurance companies should be fully responsible for their insurance agents' sales activities, the legal liabilities of insurance agents are stipulated in the contract they enter into with insurance companies. If these two different categories of intermediaries are subject to the same "best interests" requirement, insurance agents will be in a constant state of anxiety because they may be accused of violating the "best interests" requirement due to their relationship with insurance companies. Hence, according to the 14246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 legal opinion of the Queen's Counsels engaged, the best way to solve the problem is to have the cases involving the two different categories of intermediaries handled separately in the legislation to be enacted, and this view is shared by the legal adviser to the Bills Committee.
After prolonged and repeated discussions, the Government maintains that the "best interests" requirement should apply at the same time to both types of intermediaries but agrees that guidelines on conduct requirements for intermediaries should be issued by the IIA after its establishment. When further elaborating on what constitutes "best interests", the IIA should take into account the different roles of insurance agents and insurance brokers. At the same time, the Government has accepted the industry's views and provisions will be added to clarify that a breach of the conduct requirements would not on its own render any intermediary or insurance company liable to judicial proceedings. Although we are not entirely satisfied with the decision of the Government, a positive response has after all been given and it is hoped that after the establishment of the IIA, a full consultation with the insurance industry will be carried out before the relevant guidelines are introduced.
Nevertheless, it is my opinion that some problems still remain unresolved. The IIA will be given extensive disciplinary powers and responsible for handling all of the processes involved, including the acceptance of complaints, the initiation of investigations, the conduct of an inquiry and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions, thus giving rise to concerns about the possible abuse of power. Industry practitioners have suggested setting up a disciplinary committee comprising mainly non-members from the industry such as representatives of the Consumer Council and other community members like accountants and lawyers to review the IIA's disciplinary decisions, but the suggestion has been rejected by the Government. Besides, I have also suggested that the IIA should be required to seek the views of an expert panel to be established under the IIA during the disciplinary process. However, the Government has only replied that the IIA might consult members of the panel should a disciplinary case involve a highly specialized stream of insurance business or a sophisticated product. Honestly, this is tantamount to seeking advice only as and when necessary, which has a huge difference from what I have suggested. To me, the problems have therefore remained unresolved. I hope that upon establishment, the IIA will thoroughly discuss such issues with intermediary bodies.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14247
In addition, disciplinary sanctions may be imposed by the IIA on insurance companies and insurance intermediaries, including a pecuniary penalty capped at $10 million. The proposed maximum level of fine is in fact too high. To an intermediary, a disciplinary fine of up to $10 million is really astronomical. After repeated discussions, the Government is unwilling to make a downward adjustment of the maximum level of fine. However, in order to address the concerns of intermediaries, it has undertaken to issue guidelines on fining, apart from specifying clearly that in determining the quantum of a pecuniary penalty, consideration should be given to factors such as the nature and seriousness of the contravention, the conduct after the contravention and the previous disciplinary record, it would also make it clear that the disciplinary fine imposed should not have the likely effect of putting the regulatee in financial jeopardy.
As mentioned earlier, during the deliberation of the Bill, there were arguments over a number of provisions, and in order to address our concerns, the Commissioner of Insurance (CI) had on a number of occasions in this Council elaborated the intention behind the relevant provisions and clarified some unclear points. It is my hope that after the IIA, upon establishment, will adhere strictly to the principles put forward by the Government, namely the explanation and undertaking made by the CI, and act according to such principles, instead of preaching one thing but doing another. If changes are required to be made, it is also hoped that prior consultation will be held by the IIA with various stakeholders.
As a summing-up of the deliberation work this time, many issues that are worth paying attention to have been brought up by insurance companies and intermediaries and on which detailed discussions have been held by the Bills Committee. Some of these issues have been tackled while some others have to be followed up by the IIA after its establishment. During the process, representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Insurers and intermediary bodies went hither and thither to explain their stance to Members of different political parties in order to seek their support. As a matter of fact, there are as many as over 80 000 insurance intermediaries in Hong Kong and the Bill will have far-reaching implications on them, subjecting them to more responsibilities, heavier disciplinary penalties and higher level of fines; as such, we have to be sympathetic to their situation.
Finally, I would like to thank Mr Eddie CHEUNG, Deputy Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury; and my special thanks also go to Ms Annie CHOI, the Commissioner of Insurance, who has accepted nearly every invitation 14248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 to discuss the Bill and attended almost 100 meetings held for the purpose, listening carefully to views and thoughts expressed by representatives of insurance companies and intermediary bodies which represent tens of thousands of intermediaries. In addition, Secretary Prof K C CHAN has also met several times with me and trade representatives to discuss the Bill and listen to views expressed by industry practitioners on issues which involve significant controversy.
Transitional arrangements will be the most important work after the passage of the Bill and a working group has been established to facilitate a smooth transition. The working group has already held a number of meetings and I hope the Government will continue to maintain close liaison with the industry in order to ensure the smooth establishment of the IIA, which will then take the insurance industry on the road to enhanced professionalism so that consumers will be provided with better products and services.
I so submit.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will now speak on the Insurance Companies (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill).
President, the insurance industry is currently regulated by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI), which is a government department headed by the Commissioner of Insurance (CI) and is tasked to supervise the financial condition and operation of insurance companies. In brief, the OCI is responsible for ensuring the solvency of insurers and monitoring the insurance products provided. As the OCI is not given the statutory power under the Insurance Companies Ordinance (Cap. 41) (ICO) to intervene into commercial disputes among insurance companies, insurance intermediaries and policy holders, the power vested in the government department has all along been very limited.
Insurance intermediaries are now regulated under a self-regulatory regime as stipulated by the existing ICO, and the pertinent regulatory organizations include the Insurance Agents Registration Board, the Hong Kong Confederation of Insurance Brokers and the Professional Insurance Brokers Association. In the opinion of some trade members, the existing regulatory mechanism is already adequate and a new regulatory framework is not required. Therefore, when a consultation on the proposal was first conducted in 2010, the idea has met with great opposition.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14249
Consequent to the strong opposition expressed, the discussion on the proposed establishment of an independent Insurance Authority (IIA) has been going on for six years in the community; and as mentioned by fellow colleagues earlier, it has also taken this Council eight months to deliberate on the relevant provisions. During this period of time, the proposal has gained increasing acceptance from the trade, which has gradually realized that a new regulatory framework would help to enhance the overall image of the insurance industry, rendering it a core development component of Hong Kong.
As a matter of fact, specific legislation have been enacted and statutory bodies have been appointed to put different professions in Hong Kong under regulation. For example, investment advisers, fund managers and intermediaries are subject to the supervision of the Securities and Futures Commission; estate agents are regulated by the Estate Agents Authority; and under the Property Management Services Bill, which is currently under scrutiny in this Council and seeks to provide for the regulation of property management companies, senior staff members of property management companies will also be subject to regulation under a licensing system in the future.
Insurance business touches on a number of matters of public concern and covers nearly all aspects of life with such insurance products as health insurance, life insurance, travel insurance, household insurance, and so on, and a self-regulatory regime alone may no longer be adequate to cope with the rising demands and expectations of our community. In order to keep abreast of the times, the establishment of the IIA will help to improve the quality of supervision and safeguard public interests. Moreover, the proposal will also be beneficial to the insurance industry because with the enactment of express legislation and the regulation by an independent statutory body, public confidence in the industry as well as the recognition of trade practitioners will also be enhanced.
I would then like to talk about three of the prominent issues which the Bills Committee has deliberated on; but before that, there is one point I wish to raise. During discussion with trade members as well as the deliberation process of the Bills Committee, I have a deep feeling that the Government is very keen on putting the industry under regulation and establishing the IIA which aims mainly at protecting the interests of policy holders, so much so that the interests of members of the industry have been completely neglected in the whole process. The contribution made by practitioners of the insurance industry to the 14250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 flourishing development of the industry in Hong Kong cannot be left unrecognized.
I believe we all have the experience of taking out insurance policies and during the process, have you ever thought about the following questions: Who take out the insurance policies for you? What are the reasons for taking out the insurance policies? What kind of services you are looking for after you have taken out the insurance policies? After careful examination, it can be noticed that policy holders tend to take out insurance policies through their children, friends or classmates in primary or secondary school because they know these people very well and may contact them any time for any query after the insurance policies have been taken out. Furthermore, policy holders will also try to seek assistance from these people whom they trust when there are insurance matters to deal with, because they believe that should anything happen, these people will help them follow up the case and render them appropriate support. The whole thing involves a strong element of trust between insurance practitioners and policy holders, and the attractiveness of insurance products should not be the sole determining factor. However, as this has all along been ignored by the government departments concerned in the course of negotiation, it is our feeling that the Government has failed to consider the issues involved from the perspective of protecting the interests of insurance practitioners.
Let me go back to the following three prominent issues which I would like to talk about: first, the composition of the IIA and the Industry Advisory Committees (IACs) established under the IIA; second, the "best interests" requirement, which is the point of dispute I mentioned just now; and third, the disciplinary fine pitched at $10 million.
With regard to the composition of the IIA and the IACs, although the establishment of the IIA is an irresistible general trend, there is still reservation about the composition of the IIA among members of the industry. Industry members consider that there should be an adequate proportion of trade representatives in the IIA because insurance businesses are multifarious and complex. Should there be an inadequate representation of the insurance industry in the IIA, a situation would emerge whereby the professionals would be regulated by lay persons, thus leading to misjudgments on the part of the IIA which is not conversant with the operation of the industry.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14251
Let me cite as an example the case involving Zurich Insurance (Hong Kong) which I have personally dealt with. Zurich Insurance (Hong Kong) is one of the top ten insurance companies in the territory but it has unilaterally dissolved its insurance agency service division more than a year ago, rendering self-employed insurance practitioners of the company jobless overnight and generating 160 000 "orphaned" insurance policies. Even though strenuous efforts have been made by the CI to assist and mediate between the parties involved, the attempt has only proved to be a limited success as the OCI is not empowered to deal with such cases under the ICO. As revealed by the significant number of 160 000 "orphaned" insurance policies thus generated, the protection offered to policy holders is by no means adequate.
During the deliberation of the Bill, some members of the Bills Committee have expressed reservation about the industry's suggestion to increase the proportion of trade representatives on the grounds that it would undermine the independence of the IIA. As there are dissenting views, the proportion of trade representatives in the IIA will remain unchanged but attempts will be made by the Government to appoint professionals with no direct relationship with the insurance industry to the IIA, such as accountants, actuaries or retired insurance practitioners. Although direct conflict of interests will be avoided in case an inquiry has to be conducted into individual complaint cases, it may not be possible to keep the IIA abreast of the ever and rapidly changing operation of the industry, which in turn will weaken the responsiveness of the IIA. The approach, therefore, is considered a palliative measure.
Hence, we Government urge to ensure that members who can represent the interests of front-line practitioners will be appointed to the IIA, lest the interests of front-line practitioners will be seriously undermined, given that only owners of insurance companies or individual professionals are represented in the composition of the IIA.
With regard to the IACs, it is proposed in the Bill that at least two IACs should be established under the IIA, one for long term business and the other for general business. As its name implies, there should be adequate representation of the insurance industry in the IACs so that views of the industry could be genuinely reflected. Therefore, such IACs should have a broad representation of practitioners from different levels and insurance sectors, front-line practitioners and representatives of trade unions in particular, with a view to ensuring a balanced representation of interests in the composition of the IIA.
14252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
As for the "best interests" requirement, according to the financing mechanism for the establishment of the IIA, its expenditure will mainly be met by the levy imposed on insurance premiums for all insurance policies. The rate of levy will be implemented in an incremental approach from 0.04% in the first year to 0.1% in the sixth year after the establishment of the IIA, and capped at $100 for life policies and $5,000 for non-life policies. Since this will be a levy imposed on insurance premiums for insurance policies, it is only natural for the Government to consider it necessary to protect the interests of policy holders. However, it may not have occurred to the Government that as some insurance policies have already been taken out, insurance companies would not be able to make timely adjustment to their premiums once a levy is imposed and the levy will very likely be deducted from the commission charges payable to practitioners, thus rendering them the party responsible for paying the levy.
During the deliberation of the Bill, members of the industry are very concerned about the regulation imposed by the Bill on the conduct of insurance intermediaries. With the establishment of the IIA, the public will of course have higher expectations of the regulation imposed on insurance intermediaries, who will also definitely agree that there should be effective supervision of the industry under the law, lest the reputation of the entire industry will be tarnished by the varying quality of trade practitioners. However, the imposition of regulation should not unreasonably increase the risk of rendering any practitioner liable to judicial proceedings.
Outwardly, according to one of the principles of conduct requirements specified in the Bill, intermediaries should act in the best interests of their clients. It is of course the wish of insurance practitioners to secure the best benefits for their clients when dealing with insurance policy matters for them. However, as it is stipulated in the law that an intermediary shall not act as an insurance agent and an insurance broker concurrently, and an insurance agent will generally act on behalf of an insurance company and recommend to his clients the insurance products available in the company that most suit their needs, the term "best interests" will subject insurance agents to certain limitations in making their choices.
While the "best interests" requirement has always been included only in the guidelines on conduct requirements in the past, incorporating it into the principles of conduct requirements set out in the Bill will inevitably give rise to concerns about the creation of a statutory cause of action since it is really difficult to have a clear definition for the term "best interests". The "best interests" secured from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14253 the professional perspective of insurance intermediaries may fall short of their clients' expectation in this regard; and should there be an expectation gap, the "best interests" requirement will become an easy excuse for taking legal actions against intermediaries. Will the requirement be prone to abuse? Members of the industry really find this very worrying.
Though aware of the concerns of the trade, the Government has not sought to delete the "best interest" requirement from the principles set out in the Bill but has chosen to, on grounds of reference made to overseas experience, set out the details of the requirement in the code of conduct to be issued in the future. Nevertheless, the Government will move Committee stage amendments (CSAs) to the effect that a breach of the conduct requirements would not render any person liable to judicial proceedings, but would only be a cause of disciplinary sanctions by the IIA. We welcome the moving of the proposed CSAs since they will address the concerns of the trade.
Regarding the proposed pecuniary penalty capped at $10 million, a number of trade members have indicated that insurance agents as well as insurance brokers are actually among the small and medium enterprises or micro enterprises constantly referred to by the business sector. As they are running their business with a small capital, they simply do not have the means to pay a fine of such a huge amount. As pointed out earlier by some fellow colleagues, the Government will specify clearly different penalty levels for various types of misconducts in the guidelines on fining to be drawn up in future, and we consider it a more appropriate approach to handle the issue.
The Bill seeks to provide for a regulatory framework but we should attach greater importance to the legislative amendments to be introduced to the relevant subsidiary legislation because the specific details of the regulation imposed will be incorporated fully into the subsidiary legislation and the relevant guidelines. The Government is urged to maintain close liaison with the industry when the subsidiary legislation and the relevant guidelines are formulated with a view to drawing up appropriate regulatory provisions. Provisions which are beneficial to both the industry and the public will definitely have our support, or else a review should be conducted to avoid taking measures that are more than necessary, which will smother the room for development of trade practitioners and hamper the ongoing and balanced development of the industry.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
14254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): Hong Kong is an international financial centre which enjoys free flow of capital, and its stringent and transparent regulatory regime is an important cornerstone for the steady development of the finance industry. Since the Lehman Brothers-related minibonds incident that took place in 2008 amidst the financial tsunami, the protection for investors has become an important task for the Government and the financial regulators.
At present, Hong Kong has four major financial regulators. These include the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) and the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), each of which is responsible for regulating the banking industry, the Mandatory Provident Fund schemes, the insurance industry, and the securities and futures industry respectively. Of course, there is also the Financial Reporting Council which oversees the work of listed entity auditors.
However, the OCI which is responsible for regulating the insurance industry is only a government department, not a statutory independent regulator. Under the present framework, the Insurance Authority is a public officer appointed by the Chief Executive in accordance with section 4 of the Insurance Companies Ordinance. The Commissioner of Insurance is appointed to the position to perform regulatory function over the insurance industry, with the help of the OCI staff who are all civil servants.
On the other hand, the Commissioner of Insurance does not directly regulate insurance intermediaries which include insurance agents and insurance brokers. Three industry organizations, namely the Insurance Agents Registration Board, The Hong Kong Confederation of Insurance Brokers and the Professional Insurance Brokers Association, are responsible for self-regulation, on top of handling complaints and conducting investigation about insurance intermediaries. Serious conflicts of interests actually exist in the current self-regulatory regime of insurance intermediaries, as these self-regulatory organizations are all trade bodies sponsored by their members.
Such a kind of regulatory model is inconsistent with international practices and deviates from the regulatory principles prescribed by the International Association of Insurance Supervisors, namely insurance regulators should be financially and operationally independent of the Government and the industry. The International Monetary Fund pointed out as early as in 2003 that the situation was a major weakness of the financial regulatory infrastructure of Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14255
By drawing reference from international practices, we can see that insurance regulators in the United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore are all independent of government structures and they supervise insurance intermediaries directly.
The Government clearly proposed in 2010 the establishment of an independent Insurance Authority (IIA) and has conducted two consultations concerning the proposal at that time. It is now introducing a bill into the Legislative Council for Second Reading so as to put up the legal framework for establishing the IIA. This is going to be another important reform after the implementation of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, dubbed the "magnum opus on securities", in 2003.
Conflicts of interests exist in the self-regulatory regime concerned. The current legislation regulating insurance companies focuses only on the actuarial solvency of these companies, and it aims primarily at ensuring the financial stability of the insurance market, lessening the turmoil caused to the market by reducing the risk of closure for insurance companies, and so on. A self-regulatory regime is adopted with regard to the regulation of intermediaries, as mentioned just now. This arrangement not only lags behind international requirement but also sees the problem of conflict of interests, on top of the sporadic inconsistencies in complaint handling mechanism, disciplinary procedures, and severity of punishment.
I have all along received many requests for help from members of the public with regard to complaints about the misleading sales practices of intermediaries when purchasing insurance products which contain investment elements. It is regrettable that they find themselves deprived of channels for complaints when they want to do so. Under the current self-regulatory regime, the OCI is a "toothless tiger" with inadequate locus standi, so that it cannot handle complaints concerning intermediaries but refers these cases to the trade bodies. This subsequently leads to "peer investigations", in which complainants find the officers covering up for each other, and hence the investigations are wanting in sufficient credibility. The OCI of course has no right to interfere with the decisions made by the trade bodies.
In many complaint cases, victims complained about financial consultants' use of misleading sales practices which had led them to believe they were buying fund products, only to find out after some time those products were in fact insurance contracts with investment elements, that is, investment-linked 14256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 assurance schemes (ILAS). When one of the victims tried to lodge a complaint against a financial consultant with the Professional Insurance Brokers Association, a self-regulatory organization within the industry, he found out that the Chairman of this Association was a member of the management of the finance company to which the financial consultant under complaint belonged. The management of the concerned finance company went as far as telling the victim that "There is no legislation that we have to follow". From this, we see the serious conflict of interests between the complainee and the organization responsible for handling complaints, which absolutely is an exemplary demonstration of "peer investigation". The victim has no alternative but to wait for the setting up of the IIA before lodging a formal complaint against the broker concerned.
Regarding the independence of the regulator, it actually affects significantly whether each complaint case will be handled impartially and fairly. Meanwhile, the establishment of the IIA will enhance the regulator's credibility and hence boost the confidence of the insuring public and consumers, bringing positive effects to maintaining the reputation of the insurance industry, with a view to promoting healthy development of the industry.
According to the Administration, the policy objectives of establishing the IIA are to ensure that the regulatory framework of the insurance industry is kept abreast of the times, to promote the steady development of the industry, and to provide better protection for policy holders and potential policy holders. The Democratic Party strongly supports the Insurance Companies (Amendment) Bill 2014 which the Government put forward to the Legislative Council for establishing the IIA, particularly because the forthcoming IIA will be responsible for licensing and regulating the intermediaries and will be directly responsible for conducting investigation and taking disciplinary actions. We believe that as intermediaries will be licensed and penalized by an independent organization, hopefully the conduct of intermediaries will be improved and the regulatory loopholes with regard to "peer regulation" in the industry will be plugged.
Here I would like to make a special mention about the regulation of the ILASs. Indeed, the conduct of intermediaries has for many years been an age-old subject of criticism in the insurance industry. Furthermore, with the divergent development of the market and new insurance products emerging on a daily basis, the legislation concerned is unable to keep pace with the market development.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14257
The ILASs I mentioned just now are the so-called investment products which have been highly popular in the market during recent years. Why do I use the word "so-called" on them? Very often, insurance intermediaries used investment fund as a lure in the sales process and provided financial planning and advices for customers. During the sales process, at least two regulatory problems arise, including misrepresentation and the fact that the provision of investment advices on the ILAS is exempted from SFC's regulatory purview.
Secondly, on misrepresentation. According to the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury's reply to the written question I raised at the Legislative Council meeting on 18 March, complaints involving the ILASs mostly centred on representation of insurance policies. Such complaints amounted to 283 cases in 2013 and 260 cases in 2014, representing 77% and 74% of all the complaints made against the ILASs respectively.
During the last half a year, my office has received a lot of complaint cases about ILASs. A victim who bought an ILAS product has seemingly been misled by an intermediary. He has reached 50 years old ― 50 years old ― but still he bought a product requiring 30 years of contribution, that is, contribution has to be made from when he is 50 years old until he is 80. An average person retires at 60 and gets back his Mandatory Provident Fund benefits at 65, but he has to make another 15 years of contribution after that age. After finding out this out, he resolutely withdrew from the scheme. When recommending the scheme to the victim, the financial consultant claimed that if a $330,000 annual contribution was made for the first three years, an annual return at 15% will allow the account to break even in the fourth year, that is, it would be self-sustainable even after the deduction of administration fee. By then, the victim allegedly could withdraw some of his capital and enjoy a secure retirement. This is such a wonderful story.
Regrettably, the victim suffered from loss as early as the first year of investment and still has to contribute $330,000 in the second year. As the performance of that investment scheme has been poor but the contribution needed to be made is huge, the victim has grown suspicious of it. He therefore posed an inquiry directly to the insurance company and was revealed that his investment scheme required not only a three-year contribution. If the account continued to suffer from loss, further contribution would have to be made in order to maintain the policy, in a way comparable to filling an abyss. Also, he had to wait 30 years and made contribution till he was 80 before the entire amount of investment 14258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 could be withdrawn. The victim suspects that the financial consultant has sold him the product against the rule as the latter repeatedly talked about withdrawing the majority of capital after contributing for a mere three-year period while not clearly explaining the nature of the product, so that he thought what he had bought was a fund but not an insurance policy with a 30-year term period. From this, we can see that in addition to the chances for them to commit misconduct, intermediaries are not required to obtain licences from the SFC before they provide investment advices for potential policy holders in the sale of insurance products with investment elements.
Regarding cases not subject to regulation by the SFC, the SFC issued a circular in 2009 specifying that the sale of such kind of products by insurance intermediaries were not regulated activities under the Securities and Futures Ordinance. Of course, I cannot agree with such an assertion as insurance intermediaries may not have the knowledge about investment products and it is absolutely unreasonable to exempt them from regulation in the provision of advice. I raised an oral question at the Legislative Council meeting held on 10 June, asking the Secretary for the rationale of not imposing regulation in this regard. Regrettably, the Secretary's answer was very disappointing to me. He said that the current practice was appropriate under the existing policy. I cannot understand why it is appropriate for an intermediary to provide investment advice without the need to obtain a licence from the SFC. The Secretary added that future development would be reviewed, as market regulation and consumer protection will be strengthened.
President, the SFC is now only responsible for approving the sale of these insurance products with investment elements but stops short of imposing any other regulation. After the approval is granted, persons who are ineligible or unqualified for making recommendations on products with investment elements will be allowed to sell them. I hope the Secretary would follow up on this potential loophole even after the passage of the amendment to the Insurance Companies Ordinance today. I urge the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury and the SFC to plug this loophole as early as practicable, including amending the relevant legislation or policy to require ILAS-selling intermediaries to apply for licences from the SFC.
President, we will support the Second Reading of the Bill. Just now, many colleagues have mentioned about such terms as $10 million and best interests which have in fact been discussed extensively in the Bills Committee LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015 14259 already. As a higher typhoon signal will be hoisted today, perhaps I will have to see if time is available for me to speak again during the upcoming Committee stage.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since the Observatory has announced that Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8 is going to be hoisted at or before 5 pm, the meeting will be suspended. Would Members please note that if the Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No 8 is cancelled at or before 7 am tomorrow (Friday), the meeting will resume at 9 am as scheduled. If the Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8 is cancelled between 7 am and 9 am tomorrow, the meeting will resume at 11 am. If the Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8 remains in force at 9 am tomorrow, the meeting will resume at 9 am next Monday.
Please note that the Secretariat will issue a notice to Members with regard to the meeting arrangement. I now suspend the meeting.
Suspended accordingly at 3.00 pm.
14260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 July 2015
Annex I