Motion Debate on Total smoking ban in workplaces

Madam Deputy, the Liberal Party agrees to the idea that smoking is hazardous to health. The Liberal Party also agrees to the idea that passive smoking is equally hazardous to health. This is because in recent years we have seen many cases in our health care system in which many people who have been exposed to second-hand smoke have developed health problems. We also appreciate the data obtained from relevant studies.

All the above are our views on the topic of a ban on smoking all through these years. But Mr Andrew CHENG has criticized the Liberal Party of saying that everything should be done in a gradual and orderly manner. What we are referring to is in fact not progress in a gradual and orderly manner as in a timetable, we are saying that in terms of scope and coverage, it should be done in a gradual and orderly manner. So we support the original motion moved by Mr Bernard CHAN, that there should be a total smoking ban in workplaces. As a matter of fact, offices are the places where most wage earners make their living. Most people from the business sector have their own offices as well. I often work in my office. When I am in my office, I also encourage my colleagues to stop smoking. This is because I am not a smoker. So with respect to the first point in the motion, if the scope of the smoking ban is limited to the offices, that is, the areas inside an office building, the Liberal Party would support it. All the 10 Members of the Council from the Liberal Party would support the idea. No one has applied for an exemption. So I think the Secretary could hear what we say on that and if he wants to put this into practice, he is welcome to take expeditious action.

However, we also notice that if some laws are to be passed to enforce some actions immediately, that would be like what the Democratic Party likes to do the most. They love to do things across the board. They love to wield a knife and chop. They want things get done right away. We feel on the other hand that it is a civilized and open society that we are living in and it is one where public opinion is heard. It is a society which the democrats, in the slogans which they are always chanting, would want to picture themselves in. So we should also listen to what the smokers have to say. This is definitely not my view, though, for I am a non-smoker. If someone happens to smoke, I would go elsewhere. But please look at what happens now. About the cafeteria in Sha Tin to which Mr Andrew CHENG has referred, if its business has really become so much better after it has imposed a smoking ban, then why do all other cafeterias not follow suit and impose a total smoking ban at their own initiative, as this will make their business grow by 20% to 30%? Put this in another way, if this is really the case, why should there be a need for legislation after all? Moreover, if the business of that cafeteria has increased by 20% to 30%, then why do we not ban smoking in all other kinds of restaurants so that their business can all increase by 20% to 30%? Would this not make those who eat at home come out to dine in these smoke-free cafeterias? On this point, Mr Tommy CHEUNG will talk to Members later.

On the other hand, we think that the problem of young smokers should be addressed. Figures from the Government show that findings of a survey done in 1982 show that only 42% of the young people aged 20 have ever smoked. But in 2003, figures show that as many as 60% of the young people aged 20 have smoked. I think the Government should do more in this respect. I also notice that smokers among young women aged between 15 to 19 number six times more than that of 20 years ago. The Government should also address this situation.

If it is suggested that smoking should be banned in schools, the Liberal Party would think that the ban should be imposed in all areas of the school, regardless of indoor and outdoor areas. The school areas are not only confined to classrooms or offices or indoor workplaces. They also mean places like the playground. A smoking ban should be imposed there as well to make the entire school smoke-free. What I am saying is that this should be done in secondary schools first. That means the ban will be imposed on pupils aged between 15 and 18. This will hopefully arrest the rising trend of smoking among young people.

On the question of how a total smoking ban is enforced, we have looked into how other countries have taken this into practice. In the United States, the country started to ban smoking in workplaces, that is, indoor workplaces in 1995. But on the other hand, bars and other places of entertainment are exempted. There are as many as 12 kinds of exemption in the State of California. In a hotel there, 65% of the rooms and 50% of the lobby area are exempted. So in foreign countries, even if a smoking ban is imposed, it will only come by and by, not in terms of time but in terms of scope where the relevant laws will come into effect. So I think if the first step we want to take now is just to ban smoking in the workplaces and that laws should be enacted now to this effect, then I think that this will work. The idea of doing things in a gradual and orderly manner means say, giving an exemption to Chinese restaurants for two or three years. How about other places like bars? If one goes to Las Vegas, one can still see smoking is permitted in the bars there. The case about karaokes is more complicated. For we do not know what do people do inside the karaoke rooms. Do they sing most of the time, drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes? Will exemption be given to karaoke rooms which people have hired for their exclusive and private use? All these could be looked into by the Government.

On the two amendments, we think that in terms of their wordings, not in terms of what we have heard, the greatest difference between the amendment proposed by Mr Albert CHENG and that proposed by Mr Andrew CHENG is that Mr Albert CHENG's amendment has the words "to introduce a bill to the Legislative Council in this Session". So the Liberal Party can support the amendment proposed by Mr Albert CHENG. This is what he writes in the wording of his amendment. But then it seemed that all of a sudden he said that he supported Mr Andrew CHENG. I can only say that this is what he says. We are just looking at the wording. We would be grateful if Mr Albert CHENG would get smarter and write the wording clearly in future, then we will know what he wants to say. For if not, we can only decide to support him or otherwise just by looking at the wording. As for today, we will support the amendment proposed by him.

As to the amendment proposed by Mr Andrew CHENG, we have said why we cannot support it. This is precisely because he said that he wanted to introduce a bill to the Legislative Council to impose a total smoking ban in restaurants, bars and karaokes all at one go and during the current Session. Members of the Liberal Party who represent their sectors, that is, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG and Mr Howard YOUNG, will speak later on their own views. Having said that, we all support the original motion moved by Mr Bernard CHAN. Thank you, Madam Deputy.