Debate on "Certification for Employee Benefits (Chinese Medicine)

(Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005 " (28 June 2006)

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of the Certification for Employee Benefits (Chinese Medicine) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005 (the Bill).

Subsequent to the tabling of the Bill before this Council for First Reading on 15 June 2005, the Bills Committee has convened a number of meetings with the Administration and relevant organizations. As in-depth discussions have been conducted on the Bill, I believe the Bill will not cause great controversies. Hence, I hope that the Bill can be passed expeditiously to confer the relevant statutory powers, including the power to issue sick leave certificates, on registered CMPs so that employees in need can be benefited. As regards the fight of listed CMPs for the authority to issue sick leave certificates as registered CMPs, the Bills Committee was divided on this. Nevertheless, the President of the Legislative Council has already ruled that the Bill does not apply to listed CMPs, and the amendment proposed by the Bills Committee is outside the scope of the Bill.

Deputy President, next I would like to present the views of the Liberal Party on the issuance of sick leave certificates by listed CMPs. It has taken the Chinese medicine profession years of efforts for the recognition of the sick leave certificates issued by CMPs to be materialized. Yet, there has been considerable controversy in society since the beginning of the discussion. For instance, some Western MP bodies, the business and commercial sectors and representatives of employers have expressed queries and concern that the relaxation to allow CMPs to issue sick leave certificates will easily lead to indiscriminate issuance of sick leave certificates. At that time, for the sake of setting the minds of members of the community, including the business and commercial sectors and small and medium enterprises, at ease, a consensus was finally reached among all relevant parties, after negotiations and balancing of the pros and cons, to confine the authority to issue sick leave certificates to registered CMPs for the time being. Given the stringent vetting, or excessively stringent vetting, as some people put it, of the professional qualification of registered CMPs, the interest of both the employers and employees will be protected and the views and interest of both parties can be balanced.

In the opinion of the Liberal Party, as the Bill has not come into force yet and the specific details of operation are still unknown, in order to avoid complicating the matter and affecting the public's confidence in the issuance of sick leave certificates by CMPs and the establishment of the system, it is most appropriate, for the time being, to maintain the practice of recognizing the issuance of sick leave certificates by registered CMPs only.

I do appreciate that listed CMPs are dissatisfied with the absence of standard answers for the Chinese Medicine Practitioners Licensing Examination and the sole reliance on the subjective criteria laid down by moderators and, as a result, they feel at a loss as to what to do. Under the existing mechanism, candidates may appeal to the Chinese Medicine Council (CMC) against the judgement made by the Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board (PB) in respect of the examination. However, some candidates have criticized the CMC for lack of transparency. As a result, the candidates have no idea why they cannot pass the examination and gain the qualification for practice. We do have great sympathy for listed CMPs, particularly the bitter experience of the old CMPs.

We also understand their fight for more recognition, such as possessing the authority to issue sick leave certificates, as being discussed today. Deputy President, regarding the views expressed by a group of listed CMPs to the Liberal Party, we share one or two examples cited therein. First, they notice a lot of cases in which the apprentices manage to pass the qualification examination, and yet their masters cannot pass the examination. This might be attributed to the fact that the masters are more advanced in age or their Chinese is not good enough. However, they are certainly better than their apprentices in terms of medical skills. This is what we were told by the apprentices themselves. So, how can this problem be tackled? Let me cite one more example. Some old CMPs have focused merely on certain specialized disciplines, such as orthopaedics. However, when they sit for the qualification examination, they will be required to pass the examination in a wide range of areas, such as medicine, dermatology, and so on. As a result, they end up failing the examination. I think the Government should continue to deal with this situation.

Given the initial differentiation between registered CMPs and listed CMPs, there are bound to be certain differences between them in terms of exercising the authority as a CMP. I will attempt to cite another example to perhaps make listed CMPs feel better. At present, even Western MPs in possession of a practice licence recognized by overseas countries are not allowed to practise in Hong Kong legally or issue sick leave certificates, unless they have registered with the Hong Kong Medical Council in Hong Kong. Registered CMPs and listed CMPs can at least practise legally in Hong Kong, and the difference merely lies in the authority of listed CMPs to issue sick leave certificates and make certain prescriptions.

Up to the present moment, the Liberal Party feels that it is most important for the legislation to take effect. After the legislation has come into force, we hope that, in the course of operation, the confidence of employers in the business sector in registered CMPs and listed CMPs will increase. At the same time, the concern of society about the indiscriminate issuance of sick leave certificates may reach a consensus. It will then be more appropriate for us to move on dealing with the remaining issues.

Madam President, I so submit.