official record of proceedingssc.legco.gov.hk/sc/«‹法會 2011年6月22日 legislative council 22...
TRANSCRIPT
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
1
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
2011 622
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
11
The Council met at Eleven o'clock MEMBERS PRESENT: G.B.S., J.P. THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN S.B.S., S.B.ST.J., J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND HO CHUNG-TAI, S.B.S., S.B.ST.J., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN G.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
2
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P. G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS SOPHIE LEUNG LAU YAU-FUN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG G.B.S. DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG, G.B.S. S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG YUNG-KAN, S.B.S., J.P. J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. J.P. THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
3
S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, S.B.S., J.P. S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LI FUNG-YING, S.B.S., J.P. S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P. S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P. S.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE AUDREY EU YUET-MEE, S.C., J.P. S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P. M.H. THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, M.H. THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P. S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HOK-MING, G.B.S., J.P. B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, B.B.S., J.P.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
4
S.C. THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C. THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG S.B.S., J.P. PROF THE HONOURABLE PATRICK LAU SAU-SHING, S.B.S., J.P. M.H. THE HONOURABLE KAM NAI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P. B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
5
THE HONOURABLE WONG SING-CHI B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, B.B.S. M.H. THE HONOURABLE IP WAI-MING, M.H. G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PAN PEY-CHYOU THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE SAMSON TAM WAI-HO, J.P. S.C. THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
6
MEMBER ABSENT: G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING, G.B.S., J.P. PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION J.P. THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
S.C., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG YAN-LUNG, S.C., J.P. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION G.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LEE SIU-KWONG, G.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
7
G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
S.B.S., J.P. PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
J.P. THE HONOURABLE EVA CHENG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH, SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
8
TABLING OF PAPERS 21(2) The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
2011 ........................ 105/2011 2011 ( ) ...................... 106/2011
Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.
Declaration of Increase in Pensions Notice 2011 .............. 105/2011 Widows and Orphans Pension (Increase) Notice 2011...... 106/2011
26/10-11 2010 ( )( 2 )
Other Papers
Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on its consideration of a complaint against Ir Dr Hon Raymond HO, Hon Jeffrey LAM and Hon Abraham SHEK
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
9
Report No. 26/10-11 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments Report of the Bills Committee on Legislation Publication Bill Report of the Bills Committee on Stamp Duty (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2010
ADDRESSES
Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on its consideration of a complaint against Ir Dr Hon Raymond HO, Hon Jeffrey LAM and Hon Abraham SHEK ( )
2009 12 31
2009 9 11 ( )
( )83A
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
10
73(1)(c) 20
( )
2010 3 26 (2009 9 11 ) ( )
83A 73(1)(c)85 2011 7 13 ( ) ( )
83A
2009 9 11
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
11
99.8% ( ) ( )2009 9 11
85 83A
2009 12 ( ) 83A 83A 83A
( 3 3.2 )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
12
83A
83A
83A 83A
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
13
5
83A
83A ( )
83A
83A 83A 2011 6 24 2011 713 83A83A
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
14
24(4) QUESTIONS UNDER RULE 24(4) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE 24(4)
Measures to Improve Fire Safety Problem of Flat Units Divided into Separate Units 1. ( 2011 6 15 ) 111 ( ) 4 19
6 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
15
6 1
7
12
4 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
16
5
100
4
1823
2008
4
(i)
(ii)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
17
(iii)
(iv)
18
2008 2008
......
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
18
2008
......
2010 5 20 111 113 ( ) 1957
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
19
......
......
......
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
20
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
21
4 1 1 300 41 000
2010 ( )
1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
22
5
Fire Safety Problems Caused by Flat Units Divided into Separate Units 2. 15 3
50 () ()
( ) 6 1
73
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
23
( )
2010 4 4 1 000
2011 400 8 000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
24
15 3 2008 1 1 2011 4 30 73
2011 4 36 37
73 1987 ( )
2008 4 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
25
2010 ( )
1 10 10 1 2 3
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
26
2011-2012
477 601 120
......
24 365 5
24 ......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
27
...... 65 ......
...... ......
8
8
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
28
8 ......
2008 12011 4 73 25
( 95 ) 9
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
29
95
2010
95 ( I)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
30
40B 40C
( ) 1 300
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
31
1
45
3 73
37 28 1 28 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
32
45 J 1 4 000 50 ......
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
33
50
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Development of Renminbi Offshore Business 1. 3 ()
( )
( )
( )
( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
34
3
( ) 2004
1 2011 4
4,4502010 3,692 2011
86%
1 600 12 3,100 4 5,100
2009 160 2010 358 5 280
4
173 151
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
35
3
2009 85,070 60%
( )
( )
2004
( )
( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
36
20% 30% 2011 86%
40% 16%
16358
(
)
2011 4 4,450
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
37
( )
( )
( ) 5 12% 2013
( )
( )
1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
38
currency mismatch
(deposit) currency mismatch currency mismatch
denominated
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
39
20
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
40
( II)
Triffin Paradox( )
Triffin Paradox
23 Management of Assets Accumulated Under MPF Schemes 2. ()2010 12 () 3,654 2000 12 5.5% 51.2%1.6% 0.8% 2009 9 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
41
()
( ) 5 7.1%
( )
( )
3
( ) 20105 4.9% 7.1%
41 422 10 ( )
2007 ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
42
2000 12 2011 3 5.4% 5 7.4% 4.5% 2000 ( 0.8%)
2000
( ) 19
2007
1
60%
2009 7
2010 6 1.82% 2006 4 2007 3 2.1% 3
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
43
( ) 2004
()
( )() 56
3 56 2009 9 1
( )
5
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
44
2.49% 3.92% 1%
5.4% 7.4%
6,000
4 2011-2012
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
45
( )
(statement)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
46
......
money market fund
23 Reduction of Coverage of Frontier Closed Area 3. 2008 2 800 400
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
47
( )
( ) (
)
( )
( ) 20062008 1 2 800 400
4 ( )
(i) 2010 2011
(ii) 2010 2012
(iii) 2012 2015
(iv) 2009 2011
( 245 ) 36(1)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
48
2012
( )
( )
( )
2008-2009
2009-2010 20 2010-2011 65 302010-2011
48 9
2011-2012 65 30
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
49
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
50
1
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
51
......
2012
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
52
......
permit
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
53
2011
( ) ......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
54
21 Non-civil Service Contract Staff 4. 1999 ()
16 000
( ) 5
( )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
55
1999
( 57 ) ( ) 2006
4 004
3 470 530
2006
2006 1 100
2010 9 30
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
56
5 2007 82011 2
9 774 3 075
( )
( )2006 11
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
57
2006 3 470 2006 1 100 4 570 4 570 3 075 1 495
10% 1 000 1 000
60
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
58
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
59
3 6 8
6 8
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
60
( )
12
24 Debundling of Textbooks and Teaching and Learning Resources for Pricing 5. 15 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
61
( )
( )
( )
( )
(
)
( ) 2010-2011 3 5
5
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
62
( )
( )
2011-2012
8 15 30% 50%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
63
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
64
( )
4,000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
65
35 1,500 2,000
5
2,000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
66
22
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
67
"Coffin-sized Units" and Sub-divided Flat Units for Lease 6. 6 3 300
( ) 3
( )
( )
( )
( ) 349 447
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
68
28
20 2 12
10 2
( ) 3
3 11 4 8 1
( )
8
( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
69
3
( )
( 123 )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
70
@ @
2009 2010 2011* 2009 2010 2011* 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011*
25 15 23 0 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 15 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 5 6 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 14 2 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 4 2 2 4 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 82 48 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 0 31 56 41 1 5 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 15 10 3 3 1 3 2 1 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 243 160 70 28 20 12 26 24 8 0 2 0 459 373 232 40 39 18 37 45 14 8 6 2 * 2011 ( 5 ) @
56
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
71
1 1 2011
12
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
72
3
12
82 3 5 30 6 9 10 12
12 28
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
73
7328 28 2012 (2011-2012 ) 1 300 300 1
1,000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
74
8
23
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
75
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Use of Information Technology in Schools 7.
( )
( ) 9
( )
155,000 484,000
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
76
(vii)
( )
3
Apprenticeship Scheme 8. ( 47 )( )
( ) 3 () 45
( ) 3 18
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
77
( ) 3
( 608 )
( ) 3
( ) ( 45
) 2011-2012
( ) 3 45
(1 )
( 3 )
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
1. 11 12 8 2. 1 0 0 3. 2 4 5 4. 1 1 1 5. 94 80 84 6. 17 18 15
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
78
(1 ) ( 3 )
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
7. 0 1 2 8. 0 0 0 9. 0 0 0 10. 49 42 65 11. 6 3 5 12. 54 54 34 13. 404 398 380 14. 69 79 48 15. 32 25 34 16. ( ) 0 0 0 17. ( ) 18 15 8 18. 0 0 0 19. 0 0 0 20. 0 0 0 21. 97 118 132 22. 29 20 14 23. 0 0 0 24. 13 15 17 25. 1 0 0 26. 0 0 0 27. 17 15 15 28. ( ) 5 4 7 29. 0 0 0 30. 21 13 9 31. 3 3 0 32. 1 2 3 33. 8 9 8 34. 0 0 0 35. 0 0 0 36. 392 374 353 37. ( ) 0 0 0 38. 2 1 0 39. 1 0 0
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
79
(1 ) ( 3 )
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
40. 49 56 52
41. 81 85 76 42. 239 254 297 43. 18 12 11 44. 0 0 0
45. 0 0 0 1 735 1 713 1 683
(1) 14 18
19
( )
3
( 18 )
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
(18 ) 1. 0 4 0 2. 2 3 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
80
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
3. 1 0 1 4. 23 30 27 5. 9 3 1 6. 0 1 1 7. 27 10 29 8. 1 1 2 9. 16 12 6 10. 146 148 156 11. 16 14 21 12. ( ) 8 2 3 13. 23 48 35 14. 2 3 3 15. 1 5 3 16. 5 3 2 17. ( ) 6 4 5 18. 13 1 6 19. 0 1 0 20. 1 1 2 21. 3 5 2 22. 115 122 99 23. 0 1 0 24. 13 17 7
25. 29 24 20 26. 91 100 115 27. 3 4 5 28. 5 12 11 29. 1 4 0 30. 6 1 2 31. 1 1 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
81
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
32. 0 4 0 33. 1 0 0 34. 51 63 72 35. 7 0 0 36. 115 173 220 37. 2 0 1 38. 0 1 0 39. 2 2 1 40. ( ) 1 0 1 41. ( ) 4 2 0 42. ( ) 1 9 11 43. ( ) 10 14 10 44. ( ) 16 19 17 45. ( ) 3 2 6 46. ( ) 0 0 3 47. 0 0 3 48. ( ) 0 5 2 49. ( ) 2 8 1 50. 18 22 16 51. 0 1 4 52. ( ) 21 17 17
53. 0 3 0 54. 38 64 57 55. 9 6 5 56. 6 21 20 57. 17 3 3 58. ( ) 0 2 0 59. ( ) 29 16 7 60. ( ) 0 0 1 61. ( ) 13 16 13 62. ( ) 2 2 0
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
82
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
63. ( ) 0 1 0 64. ( ) 0 4 0 65. 23 14 15 66. 2 0 0 67. 0 0 1 68. 0 0 1 69. 0 0 9 70. ( ) 0 0 7 71. 1 1 1 72. 14 4 2 73. 4 3 1 74. 0 0 1 75. 2 2 0 76. 1 3 1 77. 0 0 2 78. 3 1 0 79. 16 24 40 80. 4 1 2 81. ( ) 0 0 1 82. 0 4 2 83. 1 1 0 84. 1 0 0 85. ( ) 3 2 1 86. 13 10 13 87. 9 8 3 88. 0 0 1 89. 2 3 0 90. 1 7 7 91. 2 4 2 92. ( ) 5 7 4 93. ( ) 1 1 0 94. 0 0 1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
83
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
95. ( ) 1 0 1 96. ( ) 0 2 26 97. 1 0 0 98. 1 0 0 99. 0 4 6 100. ( ) 34 25 2 101. ( ) 1 0 0
102. ( ) 0 0 1
103. ( ) 7 3 0 104. 24 38 41 105. 1 0 9 106. ( ) 0 3 0 107. ( ) 4 1 0 108. ( ) 2 1 0
109. 0 0 1 110. ( ) 0 1 0
111. 0 2 0 112. 2 0 0 113. 5 13 10 114. (CTP ) 0 1 2
115. ( ) 0 1 1 116. ( ) 2 3 8 117. ( ) 18 8 1 118. ( ) 1 0 1 119. ( ) 2 3 5 120. ( ) 12 11 18 121. ( ) 3 0 7
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
84
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
122. ( ) 0 4 0 123. ( ) 4 10 8 124. ( ) 9 2 2 125. 18 5 15 126. 2 1 1 1 197 1 307 1 341
( ) ( )
( ) 14 18
( ) 3
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
1 865 1 569 2 914 14 18
18 15 2
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
85
( ) 140
Hong Kong School of Motoring 9. () 2003 20 ()
3
( )
( ) 2003 3
8
( ) 2003
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
86
( ) (
)
( )
1999 ( ) (374B )
(i) (ii) (iii)
1999
3 (1 )
2002200420062008
633
(1)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
87
( 374 ) 88K
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
3
( ) ( )
2003
2003
2003
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
88
( )
( )
30
Non-Compliant Employer and Officer Records Set up by Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority 10. () 3 700 2 300
( ) 5
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
89
( ) 2011 5
( )
( )
Voter Registration Campaigns 11.
( ) 4
( ) 4
( )
2007 2008 2009 2010
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
90
( ) 4 ( )
(A)
(B)
(A) (B)
2007
2008
2010
( )
( )
( ) 4 ( )
( ) 2007 16 2008 25.4 2009 5.8 2010 4.8
2007 2008
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
91
( ) 4
2007 124 142 192 2008 72 166 380 2009 31 63 536 2010 19 85 860
( ) 4
(1 )
(A)
(1 ) (B)
(A)
(B)
2007
147 559 176 221 28 662
2008
166 859 183 716 16 857
2010
86 949 85 005 (2 )
(1) (2) 2010 2010 5 16
2010 5 17
( )
(i)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
92
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
( )
2010 343 73%
Regulation of Breast-milk Substitutes 12. 46 12.7% ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
93
( ) 0 6
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( 132X ) 31 ( ) ( 132AQ )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
94
( )1981
() 1 2010 ( 0 3 )
( )
2010 6
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
95
( )
( )
2011 2012
Children Born in Hong Kong to Non-Hong Kong Residents 13. ()
( ) 30 15 65 15 64 () 30 30 ( 5 )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
96
( )
39,000()
( )
( )
( ) ( ) 2007 1 3 2009 1 2 2009 10 12
5% 95% 50% 21 52%
2010 7 2010-2039 2009
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
97
(1 )
2010* 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039
162 154 173 188 189 181 171
172 196 247 317 391 432 454
334 350 420 505 580 612 625
*
2039
( 15 64 )
( )
(1) 15 15 64
65 15 64 15 65 15 64
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
98
1
( )
( )
( )
Filing of Tax Returns and Payment of Taxes 14.
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
99
( )
( )
( )
( )
5
( ) ( ) 51(8)
80(1)
1 58(2)
58(3)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
100
( ) 2009 1 1
( )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
101
60 6
7 80(2)
1 82
3 5
580 82
80
82 2006-2007 1 3 2007-2008 2 8 2008-2009 1 1 2009-2010 0 3 2010-2011 0 4
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
102
80 4 1 54,65082 240 23,000 130 6 24
Works Projects Affected by Court Judgment Regarding Environmental Impact Assessment Reports for Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge 15.
4 ()
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
103
2010 1 22 2011 4 18 7 6 ( )
( )
2011 5 13
Disposal of Waste Car Batteries 16.
( ) 3 23
( )
3
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
104
( ) 3
( )
( )( )()
( )1 700
23
20 6 4
( )
3 ( ) 1 200
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
105
( )
3 1 070 ( )
( )
( ) 3
2008 55 0 55 2009 34 0 34 2010 29 4 33
( )
Transfer Schemes for Overcrowded Public Rental Housing Households 17. () 5.5 7 ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
106
( ) 4 5.5 7
( ) 3
( )
( )
( ) 5.5
7
(1 )
2005 10
10
(1) ( i)
(i i) (i i i)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
107
5
( ) 2011 3 5.5 3 230 1 4901 00010730
7 25 060 11 030 8 160 130 5 740
( ) 3 ( 2008-2009 2010-2011 )
5 330 5 140 5 460 2 620 1 810 1 850
2 070 1 490 1 520 ( )
( 2010-2011 ) 1 500
( )
10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
108
( )
5.5
Safety of Computer Networks 18. () 4PlayStation Network(PSN) Sony Computer Entertainment Hong Kong Limited(SCEH) SCEH 4 17 19PSN 40PSNPSNSCEH
( ) 40
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
109
( ) SCEHSCEH SCEH SCEH
( ) PSN
SCEHPSNPSN
3
( ) SCEH 40
PSNPSNSCEHSCEH
( )
( ) SCEH
6 8Sony Global Solutions Inc. (SGS)Sony Network Entertainment International LLC SGS
( ) SGS Sony CorporationSony PSN SGS
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
110
( ) SCEHSCEH
SCEHSGS ( ) SCEH 6 14PSN
Regulation of Debt Collection Agencies 19. 2010 6 23
( ) 6 23
( )
( ) 2002
( )
2006 16 953 2010 13 690 3
( ) 2010 1 896
11 794 2009 25% 5 2011 15
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
111
819 4 038 20%
( )
2005 9
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
112
( )
Relocation of Tsim Sha Tsui Star Ferry Pier and Development of a Piazza 20.
( )
( )
2011 2 23 3 2007 8
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
113
2009 6 5 000
2010 9 ( )
2010 10 13 000
15 ( 11 ) 3 700 15 16
40%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
114
5 31
23
9
BILLS Second Reading of Bills Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills LEGISLATION PUBLICATION BILL 2010 10 20 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 20 October 2010
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
115
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( BLIS)
44(1) 4(2)
4(1) 4(2)4(1)
4(1)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
116
4(2)(c)
4(2)(c) 5 5 ( ) () 98(1) 5
5 12
12
13 15 4(1)(c) 16
12 12 17 17 12 13 1516 98A 98B 98C 98A
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
117
98A 12(1)(a)
12 1315 16 17
17
20(1)
( ) 1997 6 30 1991 1997 6 29
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
118
45 10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
119
4(1)(b) 3
4(2)(c)
4(1) 4(2)(c)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
120
2627 32
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
121
( ) ( )
12 17
2010 7 12
(DVD-ROM ) 2A
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
122
4 4(1)
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
123
( )
Council went into Committee. Committee Stage LEGISLATION PUBLICATION BILL
3 13 15 16 1822 27 29 35
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
124
3 13 15161822 27 29 35 ( ) ( )
124 1214171920 21 6 28
1241011121417 19 20 21 6 28 5 9 1
2
(as made Ordinance) (gazetted copy) (authenticated copy) (verified copy)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
125
(official verification mark) (database instrument)
4 4 (2) (1) ( ) 4(2)(c) 5 9 4A 2A 5 9 10 10(2) (2) (6) (2) 11 11 (a) (b) 12 12 4 12(1) (c)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
126
12(1) (a) (d) (e) (g) (i) (ii) (i) 1712(1) (b) (f) (h) (d) 12(2) 17 11(a)
14 1614(1) 14(3) (publication date) 1717 12
17(c) 1965
19 1990 ( ) 20A 20A 19 20A 20 20A 11 16
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
127
20 20A 21 3A (1) (2)2 4A 3A(3) (official verification mark) 6 6 6 28 13(1)
1 ( I) 2 ( I) 4 ( I) 5 ( I) 6 ( I) 7 ( I) 8 ( I)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
128
9 ( I) 10 ( I) 11 ( I) 12 ( I) 14 ( I) 17 ( I) 19 ( I) 20 ( I) 21 ( I) 6 ( I) 28 ( I)
( )
( )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
129
5 9 5 9
1 2 4 10 11 12 14 17 19 20 21 6 28 1241011121417192021 6 28 ( )
( )
4A
10A 2A 10A 10B 10C
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
130
10D 20A 2A 2B
4A 10A 10A 10B 10C 10D 20A 4A 4A
10A 10D 2A 2A 4 10A 3 2A 3 (official booklet) (official storage medium) (storage medium) 10B 10C
10D 20A 20A
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
131
4A 10A 10A10B10C10D 20A
( ) 4A 10A 10A10B10C10D 20A ( )
( )
4A 10A 10A10B 10C 10D 20A 4A 10A 10A 10B 10C 10D 20A 4A ( I) 10A ( I)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
132
10A ( I) 10B ( I) 10C ( I) 10D ( I) 20A ( I)
4A 10A 10A 10B10C 10D 20A
( )
( )
Council then resumed.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
133
Third Reading of Bills LEGISLATION PUBLICATION BILL
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
134
( )
( ) ( )
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills 2010 ( )( 2 )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
135
2010 ( )( 2 ) STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 2010 2010 12 8 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 8 December 2010
2010 ( )(2 ) 2010 1119 2010 ( )( 2 ) ( ) 2010 11 20 24 2010 11 20
2010 1120
( option to
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
136
purchase) (option to purchase)
( )
( ) 11 20
24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
137
24
24
2012 5 19
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
138
( ) 24 3
24
100 confirmor sales( )
11 2011 20 11
10%15%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
139
15% ( ) ( )
15% 300 45
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
140
2009 9 10 2009
Donald 200 200 200 200 2010 ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
141
2010 40%
Hansard
10 1
10
5 000
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
142
5
20052010 5 1 2005 2010
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
143
1991 100
1 1
1,000
5 000 2000 1977 2003 1977 2006 2000 30% 40%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
144
5 0002000 25 000 5 000
4 90%
10 50 60 SOCO 6,0007,000 2,500 28 10
6,000 7,000 28 30
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
145
MR ABRAHAM SHEK: Deputy President, let me tell you a story. In the winter of 2008, against the United States Federal Reserve Chairman Ben BERNANKE's decision to sharply cut the federal funds in just four months, Milton FRIEDMAN, the world-renowned economist, once critically commented BERNANKE as "the fool in the shower", referring a bather who, thinking his shower water is too cold, turns the hot water all the way up and hurts himself in the process. Today, herein the debate on the Stamp Duty (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2010, nothing shall I find it more appropriate than this analogy which I shall dedicate to our Administration which seems to fall on deaf ears to the cri de coeur in reality. Prelude to elaborating my view on the Bill, I shall thank the Committee chairman Mr James TO for his leadership under which a total of 13 meetings have been held, reflecting the inadequacies of the draft Bill. In tapping the hot shower in the property market, I recognize our Government's attempt in adjusting the cold switch to the extent that a stable and healthy private sector property market could be maintained. Time and again, during the earlier discussions on the Bill, however, I find our Government always bears benign intention, but acts as a bull raging in the china shop. I understand that our Government proposes to curb short-term speculative activities in the local residential property market, bearing the hope that at least the residential property prices will not have climbed further. In fact, Deputy President, it misses the logic that the two are not directly and necessarily related: the short-term speculative activities are only one but not the most significant reason contributing to the current property price level many may see as exorbitantly high, also worded by our Chief Executive recently as "frightening". Firstly, we have to concede that with the two rounds of "quantitative easing" (the QE) in the United States following the financial tsunami in 2008, there is an excess of money supply while most of which flows to the East for investments. Hong Kong, under the low interest-rate environment with our free and open economy, and pray for its continued existence without which we will not be having the success that we are now enjoying. This free and open economy allows unrestricted capital inflows and outflows, becomes a paradise for our local, Mainland and even global investors. Against this backdrop, it is not hard to understand that due to the strong external demand and the limited supply of land previously released, another blunder of the Administration, the property prices have been on a rapid rise since 2009. It is worthwhile to note that it is under this environment that the short-term speculative activities are
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
146
groomed, adding fuel to the fire-hot property market. Although I have no qualms with our Government's efforts in combating the short-term speculative activities, I do have much reservation of whether the property market will go as our Government's plot. If not, where will we be eventually led to by the Government? The cloud-cuckoo-land which is heaven-distance away from Hong Kong? They are leading us farther and farther away from reality. ( ) One of the prominent features found in the Bill is that the special stamp duty (SSD) was imposed on transactions of residential property acquired on or after 20 November 2010 and resold within 24 months after acquisition at the regressive rates from 15% to 5% for different holding periods, thereby treating every honest transaction, with the exception of those having granted the exemption, as speculation to be taxed indiscriminately. Surely this is not the Spirit nor the Letter of the Bill. Now half a year has gone, according to the latest statistics, the average number of monthly residential property transactions in the first five months of 2011 was 9 200, recording a 30% decrease from 13 200 transactions in last November. While it is relieved that the speculative activities in residential properties is seen as a sharp decline, nonetheless, it is interesting to learn that the property prices remain at the same level, if not increasing and breaking new records. A question has popped up: if the end in curbing speculative activities in the local residential property market has already been achieved, thanks to the SSD, should our Government agree with the CSA which I shall later propose to include a sunset-clause on the SSD mechanism? If not, then it means that the SSD is an integral part of our Government's long-term tax revenue policy rather than the short-term cure in curbing speculative activities. If they want to catch the thief, they catch everybody. This is the whole essence of this SSD. If the SSD is in fact seen as a means in achieving the ultimate aim in stabilizing the residential property prices, it is doomed to be "on the fool's errand of history". On top of the SSD, our Government has kept switching on the cooling button in the shower: for example, the rate of stamp duty has earlier been increased from 3.75% to 4.25% for transactions of immovable property valued at more than $20 million. A week ago, the mortgage loans for residential property
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
147
valued at between $10 million and $12 million were tightened from 60% to 50% while for properties valued at between $7 million and $10 million, the maximum loan-to-value ratio was lowered from 70% to 60%. In addition, the total loan value must not exceed $5 million. By greatly increasing the borrowing costs with a couple of measures all in one go, it is important to stay vigilant of whether a hard landing will be resulted if the interest rate will subsequently increase following the United States Federal Reserve's decision of whether the QE practice will be aborted next month. Due attention also needs to be paid to the public who may find it increasingly hard in purchasing their homes with the increase in borrowing costs. In other words, our Government ought not go too far and do too much in flip-flopping between the hot and cold switches lest the near 8 million Hong Kong people in the shower will be in peril. Like most Hong Kong people, I am also in favour of a stable property market. I understand the limits of the SSD and the aforementioned tightening measures of mortgage loans. In addressing the huge surplus in property demand over its supply, the only and the most feasible way out is to increase land supply so that the discrepancy between the demand and supply of the residential properties will be narrowed. As Mr LEE Wing-tat also pointed out, the resumption of the HOS is another area which the Government should look into in order to give confidence to the people that they could also own property. In light of this, I propose that the SSD shall not be chargeable where there are internal transfers or sale of the bare site between the associated corporations within the 24 months. On contrary to the hypothetical claim by our Government that certain loopholes will be created for the possibility of speculation, the truth is however opposite: the development potential of the land will be put to full use, while, with the operation cost being optimized in accordance with the principle of the economies of scale, the progress of land development for residential properties will be expedited and more importantly, the development cost of the residential project will be saved. At the other end, more prospective buyers, especially those aspiring youngsters, will be offered more affordable homes. President, in rationalizing the shower temperature of our property market, our Government should stay alert to the external economic environment, especially the United States, and Mainland economic changes from time to time. If one day is already too long in politics, equally, the abrupt announcement of the Federal Reserve over any changes in interest rate level that comes, even in a minute's time, is long enough to pull and push our residential property market to
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
148
the extreme. The memories of the negative equity days must still be fresh in our mind. After all, the chargeable rate and arrangement of the SSD have to be reviewed from time to time lest any procrastination and the Government is famous in this failing to catch up with the impending economic changes is enough to drag the public into irreparable catastrophe where we may get burnt or frozen to death, being the casualties of "the fool in the shower". Thank you, President. 2010 ( )( 2 ) 10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
149
......
1997
2010
5 10 3 3 4 5 6
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
150
10 1
10
2010 ( )(2 )
11 192010 11 20 5% 15%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
151
24 10%
4 72 11 78% 11 13 200 5 9 200 30%
3 15,560 2
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
152
100
49% 3%63%2014
2007
10 13 3 000 5 000
2009
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
153
24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
154
11 20
24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
155
24
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
156
3
11
6
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
157
2003
1
100% 95% 95%
6
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
158
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
159
......
10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
160
30 2% 80%
( )
2010 9 2009 24 32% 12 114% 912
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
161
5 11 0.65% 1% 165 19961998 10 0.57% 11
3% 6% 1 1
confirmor 1
...... 24 24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
162
12 000 5 48 33%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
163
2008 4
......
6 15% 12 10% 245%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
164
15 000 5 5 000 15 000
2 10 2 11
9% 1997 48% 1 7%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
165
6 18 7 10 5 3
6 6
percent
3 7
15 000 5 75 000
40 41 38 35 4 3 38 35 30
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
166
41 30 3538 41 15 000 600
500 ( )
15 0005 75 000
9
10 3 5
1998 13
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
167
230230
70 210 38 130 ( 18%) ( ) 120 360 ( 52%) 3 2009 745 000 393 000 ( ) 6142 109 5 40 30
70 7001 104 6 480 53 000
225 (20%) 40% 400
10 4 60020 7 60025 7 500
5 000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
168
11 19 15% 24
4 253 3 49% 3 51% 25 1,000 3 6 4
30
1
50%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
169
2010 42011 1
land-rich company
60% 70% 2.75%0.4%
( )
1,000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
170
2,000 3,000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
171
5
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
172
......
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
173
...... ......
...... ...... 1
1 60
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
174
1997 1998
1 ......
7-ELEVEN
40%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
175
1950 200 7080
700 1 000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
176
SARS
10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
177
2.75% 0.4%
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
178
2010 ( )(2 ) ( )
2010 ( )( 2 ) ( )
2,000 2010 2,000
2 4 8 10 11 2 6 4
( )2011 4 72 11 ( ) 32078% ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
179
3
2010 11 20 24
(i) 6 15% (ii) 6 12
10% (iii) 12 24
5%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
180
29A
24 24
( )
24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
181
( ) ( )
24
2010 ( )( 2 )2012 5 19 2012 5 19 2,000
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
182
2,000
6 10
7 9
24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
183
2010 ( )( 2 ) ( ) ( ) 2010 ( )( 2 ) Council went into Committee. Committee Stage 2010 ( )( 2 ) STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 2010 2010 ( )( 2 ) 2 3 6 11 13 15 18
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
184
2010 ( )( 2 )
( ) 2010 ( )( 2 )( )
( ) 24
unintended effects
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
185
...... ......
2010 ( )( 2 ) ( )
24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
186
( ) ( ) ...... 11 20 24
( ) fallback position default position( )
fallback position
( ) 3
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
187
( )
2010 ( )( 2 ) 201011 20
2010 1120
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
188
24 24
24
2 3 6 11 13 15 18 ( ) ( )
1 4 5 7 9 12 14
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
189
1457912 14 2,000
1 ( II) 4 ( II) 5 ( II) 7 ( II) 9 ( II) 12 ( II) 14 ( II)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
190
( )
( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
191
4 4 15 7 9 12 14
( ) ( )
8 10 8 10 8 29CA (2) (9) (3A) (4A) (6A) (6B) 10 29DA (1) (12) (14) (3A) (7A) (9A) (9B) (13A) 8 10 8 29CA (2) (11) 10 29DA (2) (13B)
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
192
8 10
8 ( II)
10 ( II)
MR ABRAHAM SHEK: Chairman, I move amendments to clauses 8 and 10, which concern the acquisition and disposal of bare sites and transfers between associated corporations.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
193
Chairman, clause 8, section 29CA(2) sets out that a chargeable agreement for sale is chargeable with the special stamp duty (SSD) if the residential property concerned is disposed of within 24 months beginning on the day on which the vendor acquired the property. While clause 10, section 29DA(2) sets out that a conveyance on sale is chargeable with the SSD if the residential property concerned is disposed of within a period of 24 months beginning on the day on which the transferor under the conveyance acquired the property. The two amendments I move are about acquisition and disposal of bare sites. The SSD is imposed as an extraordinary measure under current exceptional circumstances to discourage short-term speculation in residential flats, I repeat, in residential flats. Where a developer acquires a bare site and sells the site before any building is erected on the site, no speculation concerning residential units is involved and there is no justification for imposing the SSD. Imposing the SSD on the disposal of bare sites could have the unintended effect of reducing land supply, which is against the general consensus on stabilizing the residential property market by increasing land supply. This worry is not unfounded. To avoid payment of the SSD, developers could hold onto the sites for longer. A developer, in some instances, who has acquired a bare site may find himself in financial difficulties and might wish to sell the site before any building is erected on it. Moreover, in some other circumstances, a developer could, for commercial reasons, decide not to develop the bare site himself. He could decide to sell a site that is too small to be developed into a quality building to another developer who owns an adjoining site, to enable the other developer to amalgamate the two sites into a larger site for a better development. In any of the above cases, the imposition of the SSD would inhibit the disposal of the bare site by the developer, with the consequence that supply is reduced. Furthermore, the additional cost of the SSD would eventually be passed on to consumers. I therefore propose that where a person acquires a bare site and disposes of the site within 24 months, before any building has been erected, the SSD shall not be chargeable.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
194
The proposed amendments to sections 29CA(2) and 29DA(2) are intended to cover the above scenarios. The only difference between section 29CA(2) and section 29DA(2) is that section 29CA(2) deals with certain agreements for sale, while section 29DA(2) deals with conveyances on the sale of residential property. Chairman, the proposed new sections 29CA(11) and 29DA(13B) provide that where an internal transfer has taken place, the date of acquisition for the purpose of the SSD shall be deemed to be the date of acquisition by the transferor. The Administration has accepted that the SSD is not chargeable for a transfer between associated corporations where the transfer is exempted from payment of stamp duty under section 29H(3) or section 45. However, the Administration refuses to accept that for the purpose of the SSD, in the event of a disposal by the transferee, the 24-month period should count from the date of acquisition by the transferor, instead of the transferee. The Administration is saying that the period should count from the date of transfer to the transferee. These transfers are effectively internal transfers within the same group. It would be logical to count the 24 months from the date when the group first acquired the property, that is, the date when the transferor acquired the property. Chairman, I am not convinced by the Administration's flimsy explanation that it is inappropriate to provide specific exemptions for the abovementioned scenarios because the possibility of speculation cannot be ruled out, or because it could send the wrong message and create loopholes. My CSAs concerning the provision of exemptions from the SSD for acquisition and disposal of bare sites and transfers between associated corporations contain no hidden agenda or ulterior motives to weaken the SSD which I support. Instead, they are intended to minimize the negative impacts that the SSD could have on the property market in restricting the adequate supply of land. It is disappointing that the Administration is reluctant to understand the difficulties of the developers and their usual practices and accept my CSAs. If the Administration really cares about loopholes, how can it turn a blind eye to the loopholes it has created? One of the biggest loopholes in the Bill is that it separates the SSD from the Administration's housing policy, such as the resumption of the HOS. The
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
195
SSD and other measures like mortgage loan ratio and increasing flat supply should be considered as a whole. They cannot be brutally separated. While the Administration is flaunting its declared determination to increase flat supply, is it logical for the Administration to push ahead with legislation that could defeat that purpose? I am speaking as a practitioner of the trade, and I know this will happen. As an old Chinese proverb goes, "lifting a rock only to have his own toes squashed." () That is the best illustration of how this Administration formulated the SSD. Thank you.
24 24
same property concept
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
196
18AB18A
3 3
3 3 1 2 243 reconcile format
3
2
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
197
worst case
......
(deed poll)3 3
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
198
100 99
6,000
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
199
...... ......
......
......
......
......
3
100 100
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
200
......sort of...... ...... ( )
( )
24 24 45 90%AB
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
201
45AB
ABBABBCA
ABA
......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
202
24
24
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
203
15%
......
......
CSACSA 11 CSA
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
204
......
HKMA
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
205
15%
K K
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
206
150 ......
...... ( )
8 10 2
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
207
24
24
( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
208
18
18
MR ABRAHAM SHEK: OK. Chairman, I move a further amendment to clause 8 to amend subsection (2) of the proposed section 29CA in the Bill, and a further amendment to clause 10 to amend subsection (2) of the proposed section 29DA in the Bill. 8 ( II) 10 ( II)
( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
209
Mr Abraham SHEK rose to claim a division. 3 ...... call of nature
Functional Constituencies:
Geographical Constituencies:
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
210
23 2212322
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present, two were in favour of the amendments and 21 against them; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendments. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendments were negatived.
8 10 MR ABRAHAM SHEK: Chairman, I move the amendment to clause 8 to add subsection (11) to the proposed section 29CA in the Bill, and the amendment to clause 10 to add subsection (13B) to the proposed section 29DA in the Bill. 8 ( II) 10 ( II)
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
211
( ) Mr Abraham SHEK rose to claim a division. 3
Functional Constituencies:
Geographical Constituencies:
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
212
23 6172322
THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 23 were present, six were in favour of the amendments and 17 against them; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present and 22 were against the amendments. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendments were negatived.
810 8 10 ( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
213
6A 29A ( IIIA )
11A 44
( ) 6A 11A 6A 11A 6A 11A
( ) 6A 11A ( ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
214
6A 11A 6A 11A 6A ( II) 11A ( II)
6A 11A
( ) ( )
13A 69 MR ABRAHAM SHEK: Chairman, I move the Second Reading of new clause 13A. The proposed new section 69 concerns the famous "sunset clause" which I have learned from the opposition side. A sunset clause means that certain provisions will expire by a specified time period. If this sunset clause is passed,
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
215
which is unlikely, the special stamp duty (SSD) will cease to apply at midnight on 19 May 2012, 18 months after it took effect. On the other hand, the Bill also serves to cancel the existing arrangements under the Stamp Duty Ordinance for the deferral of payment of stamp duty chargeable with certain agreements for sale of residential properties valued at $20 million or below. As the introduction of the SSD and the cancellation of the payment deferral are part and parcel of the measure to deal with the current exceptional circumstances, both should be subject to the same sunset clause. As regards the expiry date, the intention is that the SSD shall cease to be chargeable after the expiry date irrespective of the date of acquisition or disposal but this should not affect any charge to the SSD which has already arisen or crystallized on or before the expiry date. Also, payment deferral should continue to be available after the expiry date. The Administration says that the SSD is needed as an extraordinary measure under the current extraordinary circumstances in Hong Kong to address short-term speculation in residential units. As the name "special" suggests, one would expect these exceptional circumstances to disappear and evaporate into the air in the not-too-distant future for our sake because the high property price would somehow go down with the success of this SSD. In such a case, the SSD should cease to apply. One major problem with the SSD is that it will severely reduce the flexibility of homeowners and genuine investors in the disposal or transfer of their properties. What is more, a lot of innocent private homeowners, who have not in any way participated in any speculation, may be caught by the measure. An owner could be forced to sell his unit due to financial difficulties (such as losing his job or unexpected losses in his business) or changes in family circumstances, and so on. I understand that there are some 1.5 million homeowners in Hong Kong and they will be affected although the Government has kindly agreed to the recommendation of the Bills Committee to grant a number of exceptions but those are limited. Yet the Administration has refused to make provision for exemption or relief in the above circumstances. Chairman, although the SSD is not imposed as a tax for revenue purpose, the Bill does not provide a date for the cessation of the SSD, nor is a mechanism provided for its review by the Legislative Council. As it now stands, the Bill will incorporate the SSD as a permanent feature of the Stamp Duty Ordinance.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
216
The SSD has already given rise to a lot of concerns among homeowners, investors, estate agents, the legal profession and the banking and financial community, quite apart from the developers. The imposition of the SSD without a sunset clause is unfair to homeowners and genuine investors; it will undermine Hong Kong's reputation as a free-market economy, and it will ultimately have an adverse effect and impact on the important sector of our economy. The Administration and some of my Honourable colleagues say that a sunset clause will create a wrong signal and add volatility to the market. However, as I mentioned earlier, the biggest driving force to change market expectation depends on demand and supply, rather than a sunset clause. If there is a sunset clause, it can dampen the rise in property prices. So, it should be introduced. If the Government really wishes to provide the market with a positive outlook and sentiment, it should handle the issue via steady supply of land and flats and the resumption of the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS). Earlier, the Secretary has explained that any form of subsidized housing is not to control the rising property prices. That may be so, and it is a fact. But somehow, the Secretary has forgotten that there are other people who are actually not qualified to purchase flats in the private market. They also have a right to purchase home and that is where the HOS comes in. The HOS market and the private market are two separate markets and the Government should take heed of this. It should also look into the aspect of how to improve the secondary HOS market. At the moment, the Government encourages the HOS transactions in the secondary market by imposing a premium. Chairman, that actually has put the HOS secondary market into the private sector market which is the most unhealthy. This is something which the Government should stop doing. The Government should actually only encourage people who are qualified to buy secondary HOS flats to buy from the secondary HOS market, and not the people outside who can afford to buy from the private market. Although the Administration has indicated that it will review the SSD once every 24 months or earlier after the enactment of the Bill, or as circumstances require, as presently drafted, the Administration is under no compulsion to do so, nor can the Legislative Council compel the Administration to do so. There are many such cases and earlier, Margaret has actually given a very good example. Moreover, what are the circumstances that will trigger the promised review
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
217
exercise? A 30% plunge in property prices? A fall in the number of property transactions within 24 months to pre-2008 levels? Or another global financial catastrophe? Since the Administration has not provided an objective standard for the review exercise, I am afraid the Administration will break its promise. Just as in many previous policies, that which is not explicitly mentioned is equivalent to being non-existent. Thus, the SSD would become a "standing stamp duty" instead of a "special stamp duty". So, would it not be better for the Legislative Council to be conferred with the power to take on the supervisory role rather than the Administration? In my view, it would not be right for the Legislative Council to allow the Bill to go through without providing for a mechanism whereby the Administration must review the SSD and put forward its recommendation to the Legislative Council, failing which the SSD will cease to apply. The Legislative Council will be assured of a review and the decision to continue or not to continue with the SSD will rest with Legislative Council. This means that the Legislative Council, instead of the Administration, will administer the authorities in enforcing the legislation. By so doing, the Legislative Council is doing nothing more than performing its function of monitoring the Government, which is an authority bestowed upon us by the Basic Law. I am therefore proposing a sunset date of say, 18 months from 20 November 2010, by which date the SSD will cease to apply. That is, the SSD will cease to apply at midnight on 19 May 2012, being 18 months after the SSD came into effect, and that Legislative Council will have the power to amend the sunset date by resolution. Chairman, from time to time, our Honourable colleagues say that they feel powerless to challenge the Administration's decisions. This is the opportunity you have been asking for. If you vote against it, you are rejecting this right that you should have. They also say that they do not receive due respect from the Government surely, yes, you have because you are voting with them and their recommendations are usually left neglected. This, I stand to be neglected today and I am very proud of it. Today, a prime chance is given to every Honourable Member: just cast a vote to support this sunset clause and have the dignity of the Legislative Council reinforced.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
218
150 ...... ......
150 15% 150 2012
150 24 15%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
219
( )
13A
2010 ( )(2 )( )
24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
220
( ) ......
( )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
221
18 ( ) 18
8
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
222
guilt
18
......
...... ......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
223
...... ...... (supernatural call)
3 1
150 ......
natural call
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
224
sunset clause
15%
1
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
225
18 24
18 18 18 18
sunset clause
( )
2010 ( )( 2 ) 2012 5 19 2012 5 19
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
226
2,000
2424
24
24 24
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
227
PanelBills Committee
......
5 18
2012 000 185 000 185 000
15% ...... 700 60 70
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
228
Margaret NG
......
13A ( ) ( ) Mr Abraham SHEK rose to claim a division.
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
229
3
10 2 30
Functional Constituencies:
Geographical Constituencies:
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
230
21 6 15 23 7 15 THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 21 were present, six were in favour of the motion and 15 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, seven were in favour of the motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
( II)
( )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
231
( )
Council then resumed. Third Reading of Bills 2010 ( )( 2 ) STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL 2010 2010 ( )( 2 )
2010 ( )( 2 ) ( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
232
( ) ( ) 2010 ( )( 2 ) MEMBERS' MOTIONS 155 10 7 EXPEDITIOUSLY IMPLEMENTING THE FORMULATION OF STANDARD WORKING HOURS
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
233
( )
8 44
8 84 4 46
40
2010 50 60
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
234
66 ( )
4
3 34 97%
45%
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
235
28.4%
13% 12
8 44
4 30 44
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
236
( ) ( )
( )
( )
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
237
2009 10
2009 12
2010 6
7
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
238
1930
7 5
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
239
(brainstorming)
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
240
( )
5 1
10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
241
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
242
( )
( ) ( )
......
( )
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
243
45 205 55 78 48 45 35 40 44 48 48
48 48 80 55
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
244
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
245
10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
246
work live work to live live to work work to live live to work
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
247
12 14 6
12
6 9 2008 1 2.5 2.5 240 240 ( )......
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
248
( )
9
1 dealIPO
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
249
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
250
( ) 32010 44 44 92% 80% 68% 76% 28% 22% 30% 19% 24 7 7 51 ( ) 7 45
( ) 53.5 61 ( ) 700 65 3% 100 ( ) 62% ( )
10 13
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
251
3 6 8 12
9 4 5 10 34 24 365 24
( )
burnt-out( )
10 10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
252
1
6 ( )
( )
1 10 3 9
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
253
2 14 14 14
5 1 14
88 8
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
254
888
10
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
255
6
10 6 7 15 60 70
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
256
( )
200520082010
4848 40 45 48 48
(optimum)
7 30 2020 30
-
2011 6 22 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
257
7
SUSPENSION OF MEETING 230 10 13 Suspended accordingly at thirteen minutes past Ten o'clock.
2
2000XXX
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL XX June 2000
1
2011622
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 22 June 2011
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
2011622
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
11
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
G.B.S., J.P.
THE PRESIDENT
THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
S.B.S., S.B.ST.J., J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND HO CHUNG-TAI, S.B.S., S.B.ST.J., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE DAVID LI KWOK-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRED LI WAH-MING, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE MARGARET NG
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG MAN-KWONG
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS SOPHIE LEUNG LAU YAU-FUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
G.B.S.
DR THE HONOURABLE PHILIP WONG YU-HONG, G.B.S.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUNG-KAN, S.B.S., J.P.
J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P.
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MIRIAM LAU KIN-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW CHENG KAR-FOO
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, S.B.S., J.P.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LI FUNG-YING, S.B.S., J.P.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
S.C., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE AUDREY EU YUET-MEE, S.C., J.P.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
M.H.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE LEE WING-TAT
S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.
S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG HOK-MING, G.B.S., J.P.
B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, B.B.S., J.P.
S.C.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CHIM PUI-CHUNG
S.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE PATRICK LAU SAU-SHING, S.B.S., J.P.
M.H.
THE HONOURABLE KAM NAI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN
J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN
M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P.
J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG SING-CHI
B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, B.B.S.
M.H.
THE HONOURABLE IP WAI-MING, M.H.
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PAN PEY-CHYOU
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN
J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE SAMSON TAM WAI-HO, J.P.
S.C.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
MEMBER ABSENT:
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TIMOTHY FOK TSUN-TING, G.B.S., J.P.
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HENRY TANG YING-YEN, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
S.C., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG YAN-LUNG, S.C., J.P.
THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL SUEN MING-YEUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
G.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE AMBROSE LEE SIU-KWONG, G.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DENISE YUE CHUNG-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
S.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, S.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EVA CHENG, J.P.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MS PAULINE NG MAN-WAH, SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
TABLING OF PAPERS
21(2)
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
2011
105/2011
2011()
106/2011
Subsidiary Legislation/InstrumentsL.N. No.
Declaration of Increase in Pensions Notice 2011
105/2011
Widows and Orphans Pension (Increase) Notice 2011
106/2011
26/10-11
2010()(2)
Other Papers
Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on its consideration of a complaint against Ir Dr Hon Raymond HO, Hon Jeffrey LAM and Hon Abraham SHEK
Report No. 26/10-11 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
Report of the Bills Committee on Legislation Publication Bill
Report of the Bills Committee on Stamp Duty (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2010
ADDRESSES
Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on its consideration of a complaint against Ir Dr Hon Raymond HO, Hon Jeffrey LAM and Hon Abraham SHEK
()
200912312009911()
()83A73(1)(c)
20()2010326(2009911)
()83A
73(1)(c)852011713
()()83A
2009911
99.8%()()2009911
85
83A
200912()
83A
83A
83A
(33.2)83A
83A
83A
83A
()
583A83A
()83A83A
83A20116242011713
83A83A
24(4)
QUESTIONS UNDER RULE 24(4) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
24(4)
Measures to Improve Fire Safety Problem of Flat Units Divided into Separate Units
1.(2011615)111()41961
617
12
41
51004
1823
20084
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
18
20082008
......
......
2008
......
2010520111113()
1957
......
......
......
......
......
411300
41000
2010()
1
5
Fire Safety Problems Caused by Flat Units Divided into Separate Units
2.15350()()
()6173
()
201044100020114008000
153
200811201143073201143637
73
1987()
2008
41
2010()
11010123
2011-2012 477601120
......
24365524......
......65......
............
8 8
()
8......
20081201147325
(95)9
95
2010
95(I)
40B40C
()
1300 1
453
733728 1 28
1
45J1400050......
......
50
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Development of Renminbi Offshore Business
1.3()
()
()
()()()
3
()20041
201144,45020103,692201186%
1600123,10045,100
200916020103585280
4173151
3
200985,07060%
()()
2004
()()()
20%30%201186%40%16%16358
()
201144,450
()
()()512%2013()
()
1
currency mismatch
(deposit)currency mismatchcurrency mismatch
denominated
20
(II)
Triffin Paradox()Triffin Paradox
23
Management of Assets Accumulated Under MPF Schemes
2.()201012()3,6542000125.5%51.2%1.6%0.8%200991()
()57.1%
()
()
3
()201054.9%7.1%
4142210()2007()
200012201135.4%57.4%4.5%2000(0.8%)
2000
()192007
160%
20097201061.82%20064200732.1%3
()2004()
()()56356200991()
5
2.49%3.92%1%
5.4%7.4%
6,000
42011-2012
()(statement)
......
money market fund
23
Reduction of Coverage of Frontier Closed Area
3.20082800400
()
()()
()
()2006200812800400
4()
(i)
20102011
(ii)
20102012
(iii)
20122015
(iv)
20092011
(245)36(1)2012
()()
()2008-20092009-2010202010-201165302010-2011489
2011-20126530
1()
......
2012
......
permit
2011
()......
21
Non-civil Service Contract Staff
4.1999()16000
()5
()
()
1999(57)
()200640043470530
2006200611002010930
5200782011297743075
()
()200611
200634702006110045704570 30751495
10%1000
1000
60
36868
()
()
12
24
Debundling of Textbooks and Teaching and Learning Resources for Pricing
5.151
()
()
()
()
()
()2010-2011355
()()
2011-201281530%50%
()
4,000351,5002,000
5
2,000
22
"Coffin-sized Units" and Sub-divided Flat Units for Lease
6.63300
()3
()
()()
()349447
28202
12102
()3311481
()
8()()
3
()(123)
()
@
@
2009
2010
2011*
2009
2010
2011*
2009
2010
2011
2009
2010
2011*
25
15
23
0
4
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
15
4
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
9
5
6
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
14
2
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
4
2
2
4
1
0
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
13
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84
82
48
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
1
0
31
56
41
1
5
0
1
3
2
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
5
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
15
10
3
3
1
3
2
1
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
243
160
70
28
20
12
26
24
8
0
2
0
459
373
232
40
39
18
37
45
14
8
6
2
*2011(5)
@
56
11 2011
12
312
82353069101212
28
732828
2012
(2011-2012)1300
3001
1,000
8
23
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Use of Information Technology in Schools
7.
()
()9
()155,000484,000
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
()
3
Apprenticeship Scheme
8.(47)()
()3()45
()318
()3(608)
()3
()(45)2011-2012
()345
(1)
(3)
2008-2009
2009-2010
2010-2011
1.
11
12
8
2.
1
0
0
3.
2
4
5
4.
1
1
1
5.
94
80
84
6.
17
18
15
7.
0
1
2
8.
0
0
0
9.
0
0
0
10.
49
42