PL report for exco on 14.11.

06

Attachment 1 is the budget paper for FS after amendments since the last
discussion. Please approve
Attachment 2 is the legco issues for the coming two weeks.
Motion debates for this coming Wed (1) co-operation with the pan Pearl River
Delta – (2) transport needs for the disabled. The only problem relates to an
amendment by Tommy Cheung deleting the reference to setting a quota for the
employment of disabled people. Fernando will liaise with DAB and the pan
democrats to see if we can have a common position on that.
For next Wed: moved by Ronny Tong (1) universal suffrage of CE in 2012 (2)
moved by James Tien on casino. Please note the wording of James Tien’s motion,
it is asking the government to consider the feasibility of a gaming centre in
Lantau and to go for territory wide consultation. We have often in the past
criticized the LP for failing even to agree to a consultation. It seems we are doing the
same if we object to even a consultation unless it is something wrong as a matter of
principle and I have already explained my personal position on this in my earlier e
mails to all of you. I do not consider it wrong as a matter of principle. Each person is
responsible for his own behaviour and gaming is not per se illegal. Thus I prefer not
to have to vote on this motion at all. As an alternative, it is suggested at the
parliamentary group meeting on Monday that CP should consider amending the
motion with a preamble asking for a territory wide consultation as to whether the
government should change its policy on gaming – namely it will not encourage
gaming and at the moment this is restricted to soccer, horse racing and mark six. In
view of my personal stance, I prefer not to have to be the one to make the amendment.
The Monday parliamentary meeting was only attended by two legislators (Fernando
and me) neither of whom is keen to make this amendment. At any rate, I have
requested my assistant to draft the wording for the consideration of exco this will be
forwarded to you later. If the amendment is not passed, then we can vote against the
original motion. Your advice is welcome.
Kindergarten voucher – FC will have to vote on this on 1st Dec. Your views
are welcome. The issue is whether the voucher should include the profit making
(they prefer to be called independent) kindergartens. The general view is that it
should – however the government is unlikely to give way and it might offer
something like a 3 year reprieve which of course does not resolve the issue at all. It
will force the profit making kindergartens to change to non profit making except for
the very few really expensive ones. CP’s representative has attended the education
panel meeting and given a view against the government’s proposal. A copy of the
submission has been sent to you earlier. My office has also done a survey of the
kindergartens. I have also held an ITV programme inviting the profit making
kindergartens to express their views. I have seen the relevant people and warned
them of the possible outcome. They have organized a march last Sunday but they did
not want to invite the legislators. Given their failure to adopt a more aggressive
attitude towards the legislators, it seems they are more or less resigned to the outcome
and it is likely that all parties will vote in favour of the proposal on FC despite the
criticism. There are some 400 non profit making kindergartens and some 300 profit
making ones. And it is expected that once this scheme is implemented, the profit
making ones will switch over. As the scheme involves 2 billion and is meant to
benefit 90% of the parents and kids who will be going to the non profit making
kindergartens, if we vote against it as a matter of principle, CP will again be sticking
out like a sore thumb. Since we have done quite a bit of work to express our stance,
we can choose either to vote against it as a matter of principle by saying it takes away
choice and it is not fair or we can vote in favour saying despite everything we have
said so far, the government is again giving us the all or nothing approach and we have
to vote in favour so as not to disappoint those who are entitled.
I am happy to report a satisfactory outcome on the cruelty to animals bill. The
only objective was to increase the penalty from the existing 6 months imprisonment
and fine of $5000. The government was originally quite adamant on increasing to a
max of $100,000 later to $200,000 and from 1 year later to 2 years and refused to
budge beyond that. It even threatened to withdraw the bill if we do not accept its final
offer. CP did a lot of co-ordination work and was instrumental in making the
government come round to finally a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment of 3 years.
Linda Wong CP member of KW was instrumental in getting the animal groups to
agree on a whole number of concerted actions including an ad in the newspaper, joint
letters, signature campaigns and a candle light vigil etc within a very tight time frame.
I was able to lobby the other legislators as well as SJ. However in doing so we did
not bring out our position as CP and we adopted a position of assisting other NGO.
This was important not to upset the DAB factions in the group but in the end this also
meant that it will not be seen as a CP issue but as a joint effort of all.

Audrey Eu