Motion Debate on Expectations for the implementation of policies

Madam President, I had chosen to speak at this very late stage because I hoped to listen to the speeches of a few more Members of the Democratic Party on their expectations for the implementation of policies.

Madam President, I very much disagree with what Mr Martin LEE said in moving his motion and I must say that I am disappointed too. In his speech he had made many slogan-like remarks, such as "for the rich", "by the rich", and so on. In today's Hong Kong, it is indeed undesirable to drive a wedge in society in this way. In fact, for people with the means to invest, it would be difficult for them to make any investment if they were not reasonably affluent. Would it be possible for him to secure loans from banks simply with the business he is doing without having to inject any capital at all? Yet, when I listened more attentively to the views expressed by Members of the Democratic Party and other Members inside and outside this Chamber, I found that many of their views relating to the people's livelihood are agreeable. The Liberal Party also found these views agreeable. So, I think there is room for us to co-operate in the future.

Madam President, as I have many opportunities to convey the views of the Liberal Party on various policy areas to all principal officials after joining the Executive Council on behalf of the Liberal Party, not many Members of the Liberal Party are going to speak today. We will only speak on a number of aspects concerning the implementation of policies in future that are considered more important by the Liberal Party.

First, we can all see that the Government has adopted a new policy and that is, the appointment of 11 new principal officials. If we keep on reminding them of what undertakings the Chief Executive had made in last year's policy address and what a particular principal official had said in the year before last, it would be tantamount to asking them to shoulder all the burden of the past. I think this will impede the new principal officials in their work, making it difficult for them to achieve anything. Should we give the accountable principal officials an opportunity to map out plans for all policy areas in the next five years, so that they can start afresh and express their own views and observations, as if they are given a blank paper to write on, without having to work within the parameters of past policies or accede to the request that they should finish all the work initiated by the first SAR Government? Certainly, I do agree that they must review and study all the previous undertakings and must not brush them all aside. In fact, when they handle a policy, be it relates to education, medical care or the economy (what we always talk about broadly come under these few areas), they should be allowed the freedom to make decisions. Let us not keep on asking them and reminding them of what undertakings were made last year and so on and so forth. As Ms Emily LAU has said earlier, when some infrastructure projects are ordered to stop, there are views that unemployment might be created as a result, but then there is a financial deficit. Which area of work should they handle first? Under this new development, that is, the implementation of the accountability system for principal officials, I think the second SAR Government should prioritize all the issues that need to be handled.

Madam President, I also wish to make several other points. Dr David CHU mentioned the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System and asked whether this System had tremendously affected the daily operation of society? I do share his view. Over $20 billion (made up by the 5% employers' contribution and the 5% employees' contribution) in society are not usable for the time being until the retirement of the relevant contributors several decades later, and 70% of these funds have been transferred overseas for investment. This, quite on the contrary, has actually benefitted many countries, such as the United States where the economy has recovered. But the community of Hong Kong at large has $20 billion less as funds for circulation. This is also a reason why the Hong Kong economy is in such a bad shape.

Madam President, the Liberal Party considers that the linked exchange rate between Hong Kong Dollar and US Dollar must be maintained in the future economy. As the economy of Hong Kong is so weak, which is like we have fallen sick and are lying in bed, it is indeed inappropriate for us to consider delinking today. Delinking was not an option even in the past when the economy was robust with high economic growth and low unemployment. It would be all the more difficult to pursue this today. I hope that one day when the Hong Kong economy has rapidly picked up, the unemployment rate has come down and when our economy has been revitalized, we can revisit this issue. Under this premise, it transpires that what we can do is confined to the internal affairs of Hong Kong. Even though tourists may exchange less money as a result of the strong Hong Kong Dollar, there is really nothing we can do in the international free market.

Then what can Hong Kong do now? The Liberal Party considers it opportune for the Government to take measures to stabilize the property market. That is to say, we think that the Government should stop selling flats under the Home Ownership Scheme and public rental housing flats. The land to be put on sale by the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation, the MTR Corporation Limited and the Urban Renewal Authority should be entrusted to the Government for central arrangement, so that policies are promulgated by one authority, rather than many different authorities. The Liberal Party considers that a moratorium on land sale should be imposed for two years, so as to give the public a clear message and to facilitate the recovery of the property market to benefit the 1.4 million property owners in Hong Kong. Certainly, I absolutely agree that the 70,000 flats currently held by property developers will also benefit. But I hope that Members will not oppose this policy on the ground that it will favour property developers, because this would make the 1.4 million property owners in Hong Kong suffer.

Moreover, another point is that with regard to population policy, apart from a quota of 150 for family reunion, the Government can give consideration to those people who wish to come to Hong Kong for investment or settlement or those who come to Hong Kong under some sort of a points system. Whether they are university graduates, people with high education level or people who can speak English, we can allow them to settle in the territory if they start a business and invest a few million dollars or buy a property here; or we may admit professionals. All these are ways to attract investment from mainlanders who can then be allowed to settle in Hong Kong. This can also provide employment opportunities for another group of unemployed people.

adam President, finally, I wish to say that our success is mainly attributed to our simple tax regime with low tax rates. Hong Kong is now caught in an extremely serious financial deficit. The Liberal Party worries that the Government will adopt such measures as increasing tax or levying new taxes. In that case, the general public and the industrial and business sector would certainly find it unaffordable and their only choice would be to cut back on expenditure. Obviously, speaking of cutting expenditure, the Liberal Party is greatly disappointed. As we have always mentioned, the Civil Service is the most feasible avenue for cutting expenditure; what we mean is both the number and salary of civil servants can be reduced. In this regard, we very much agree with what Mr Bernard CHAN has said. While he proposed that we should start with senior officials, we think that we should reconsider this issue from the angle of the Civil Service as a whole. We hope that in the new review, a survey of the pay level trend will be conducted. Certainly, even if the findings revealed that the civil service pay is on the high side, it would not be necessary to effect a substantial pay cut in one go; and under the Basic Law, the rate of the pay cut is also limited. However, the Government can do more in this regard. I think this will be helpful to the overall finance of Hong Kong; and I hope we can resolve this problem in the coming year.

As for our views in other areas, the Liberal Party plans to wait for the announcements of the Chief Executive and the 11 principal officials and then proceed to a debate in January.