Motion Debate on Civil Service policy

Madam President, we can see several themes from the wordings of today's original motion and amendments — requesting the Government to fully consult civil servants, to formulate a policy to stabilize their confidence, to boost their morale, and to ensure that all employees of the Government are given reasonable labour protection, and so on. Of course, no one will object on hearing these demands. However, a demand for giving a certain sector so-called reasonable labour protection is made only when it is felt that the sector is not treated reasonably. This motion moved by the FTU will impress others that Hong Kong civil servants are not protected — their working condition is deplorable, their pay is lower than that in the private sector, and all the allowances and benefits enjoyed by them are comparatively less favourable. Yet, is this really the case?

No one, including the Liberal Party, will deny the fact that Hong Kong has an excellent team of civil servants. Yet, however excellent the team is, money has to be well spent when it comes to administering a place. At present, civil servants can seek medical treatment at public hospitals free of charge. Neither are they required to apply for leave to seek medical consultation — many employees of the private sector are required to pay for medical consultation. Children of civil servants can receive free education. Being part of the community, civil servants are also wage earners. Of course, some civil servants of more senior levels are professionals and belong to the middle class; there are also a large number of grass-roots civil servants, who can be compared to the grass-roots staff in the business sector and private organizations. Is it really the case that, as commented by Miss CHAN Yuen-han, they are being treated so unreasonably that efforts have to be made to ensure that they are given reasonable labour protection?

According to an opinion survey conducted by the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC) two years ago by comparing civil servants and employees of most of the major companies under the HKGCC, the pay of civil servants was 40% higher. Other benefits, such as housing allowance, were even beyond comparison. The HKGCC already suggested the Government at that time to carry out its own survey should it consider the relevant figures incorrect. Now, two years have passed, the Government still lacks the courage to carry out its own survey. What can it do should the figures really turn out to show such a huge gap with the private sector, compounded by deflation or pay rises over the past two years?

Even the Liberal Party appreciates the difficulty confronting the Government. The Basic Law has guaranteed that the civil service pay cannot be slashed to below the pre-1997 levels. Given that civil servants are still receiving higher pay than employees of the private sector by 30% to 40%, what can the Government do? As the Chief Executive had already agreed to the "0-3-3" package, the Liberal Party could only give its support eventually, albeit with reluctance. However, the actual situation is that the Government's estimated expenditure for 2004-05 stands at $212.2 billion, with expenditure on civil servants and employees of subvented organizations accounting for 70%, or approximately $150 billion. If the civil service pay level is really higher than that of the private sector by 30% to 40%, it would translate into a sum between $30 billion and $40 billion out of the $150 billion.

If we look back and think, the Government has to distribute its resources to the entire community in order to achieve a balanced community. A discussion held on the second stage of slashing Comprehensive Social Security Assistance rates for the elderly and people with disabilities two weeks ago not only stirred up a heated controversy in the community, but also attracted a lot of views from Honourable colleagues from the social welfare sector. How much is involved? The answer is $360 million, or just a little more than $300 million. We have also talked about the new university reform, or the "3-3-4" model. How much additional spending will be incurred as a result of one extra year of university study? The answer is $1.8 billion. The diesel duty of $1.11 as proposed by Ms Miriam LAU will account for $1.1 billion of loss in revenue to the coffers. I will now come to larger figures — tax revenue raised in order to cope with the deficit for the past two years. I very much share the view of Mr SIN Chung-kai. How much has been raised in terms of salaries tax levied on the middle class in the past two years? The answer is 1.5%, or $6.8 billion. At the same time, profits tax saw a rise of 1.5%, or 3.5 billion. The two taxes represent $6.8 billion and $3.5 billion respectively. Other social issues of concern to Members of this Council add up to merely hundreds of millions of dollars, or $2 billion at the most. If the $30 billion spent on civil service pay can be saved (civil service pay is really higher than the pay of employees of the private sector), a number of problems can be resolved. As mentioned by Mr Howard YOUNG when he spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party, our current expenditure has been reduced from 23% to 22.5% of our GDP. In the absence of expenditure on national defence and diplomacy, the proportion of our public expenditure as a share of GDP should stand at 18% to 20%. The Government has always maintained that it is trying to achieve this goal. Unless its current practice is changed, it will be impossible for the Government to achieve it in the foreseeable future.

But then, the Liberal Party would like to ask, "What can the Government do to make improvement, should it have a lot of money?" Miss CHAN Yuen-han is of the view that the current problem is caused by the deficit. In our opinion, however, regardless of whether there is a deficit problem, this issue has to be addressed. Back in the years 1998 and 1999, no one would take notice of this issue because the Government was extremely well-off. Now, the Government, short of money, has to raise taxes. Both the middle class and the business sector have to pay more tax. But then, the benefits of the socially disadvantaged group have to be slashed again, though only hundreds of millions of dollars can be saved in the end. In our opinion, the Government should examine the lion's share of its expenditure instead. Of course, it is another matter if the Government concludes that nothing can be done after completing its study. However, I disagree with the remark made by Miss CHAN Yuen-han on behalf of the FTU, that the Government has to ensure that all civil servants enjoy reasonable labour rights in saying that the pay of 180 000 civil servants and employees of subvented organizations is much lower than that of the ordinary members of society. This is indeed untenable.

From the angle of voters, however — I am no longer representing chambers of commerce; I am now a directly-elected Member of the New Territories East Constituency, and many of my voters are civil servants — I would like to express my sincere gratitude to some of the civil servants for still supporting us, although we are maintaining this position. For this reason, I believe civil servants do not think it is not necessary to address the issue. A better solution is: to determine the outsourcing of services according to the actual need. We feel that many obsolete allowances should be reviewed and scrapped in a legitimate manner. We do understand that it is difficult for the Government to deal with certain benefits stipulated in the contracts signed in the past. Broadly speaking, we hope the Government will address this issue again.