MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would speak on Amendment No 337 under the sixth joint debate. The amendment, which is proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, is to reduce “Head 63 ― Home Affairs Department” by $18,625,000, an amount approximately equivalent to the Home Affairs Department’s annual estimated expenditure on building management.
In judging if the Home Affairs Department’s annual estimated expenditure on building management should be reduced, we have to have an idea of the department’s work performance first. Over the years, the Home Affairs Department proactively encourages property owners to form owners’ corporations, especially those for single tenement buildings, such that owners can take up the responsibility of managing their own properties. So far, owners’ corporations have been formed in nearly 10 000 buildings. Over the past two years, I came across two requests for the formation of an owners’ corporation at the estate where I live, and the requests were vetoed by residents eventually. I went through the whole process, where I could clearly observe many loopholes in the Building Management Ordinance, which governs owners’ corporations. A government review of the ordinance is underway, but regrettably, in the Guidelines on “Proxy for the General Meeting of an Owners’ Corporation” as suggested in the interim report, there are still very serious principle-related loopholes when it comes to actual operation. My experience is only limited to the loopholes surrounding the formation of an owners’ corporation. As several Honourable colleagues pointed out earlier, many other problems ensue after the formation of owners’ corporations.
I wish to point out that in the ordinance and guideline in question, the biggest problem lies on the very serious loopholes in the proxy, or authorizations namely. Since a great deal of owners in large estates may cast votes through authorization, the loopholes in the authorization system will definitely have huge implications on the results of voting.
First, the convener is too powerful whilst monitoring is lacking. At present, any owner with the authorization by only 5% of owners may convene a meeting to decide if an owners’ corporation is to be formed, and he himself can serve as the convener as well. However, there are several major loopholes under such convener arrangement. There is no mechanism to verify the authorizations obtained by the convener himself, and in practice, no one will check if the authorizations obtained are genuine and valid, which is apparently a big loophole. Moreover, the convener has the right to decide on the validity of authorizations of others, including those against the formation of an owners’ corporation, and that is unreasonable. A more unreasonable point is that the convener is not criminally liable even though no explanation is given as to why one’s authorization is invalid. In addition, the meeting may be convened at a faraway place not quite accessible to owners, and the ballot, the counting staff, the voting procedures and so on are all arranged by the convener himself. There is clearly a conflict of interests under such arrangement, where the convener is both the player and the referee, which is really unthinkable. The Government should by no means overlook such major flaws.
Second, there is also a big loophole in the way authorizations are collected. According to the law, all authorizations should reach the convener 48 hours prior to the owners’ meeting, but the ways they are received are highly disputable. If authorizations are delivered to the convener’s mailbox, how does one confirm that the convener has received all the authorizations from owners by the deadline? By the time an owner learns that he has not received any confirmation of receipt and follows it up, the deadline for authorization has already been past, so he has to cast the votes in person, rendering his authorization useless. Moreover, owners who register through companies cannot cast votes in person, so their right to vote is in a way being deprived of, which is extremely unfair.
Our hope was that in the Interim Report of the Review Committee on the Building Management Ordinance, some effective measures would be suggested to improve the situation. Nevertheless, we have found that the Guidelines on “Proxy for the General Meeting of an Owners’ Corporation”, as currently proposed by the committee, have set out clearer instructions on several best practices to facilitate a better understanding of what the ordinance stipulates, yet the guidelines have no legal effect when it comes to actual operation, as evidenced in my personal experience. There is neither consequence nor liability for one who does not act in compliance with them. In this way, the guidelines are actually rendered nugatory in the sense that there is no deterrent effect on those with evil intentions, whereas owners may be misled into thinking that comprehensive regulation is in place. When it turns out otherwise, they will be greatly disappointed and may even feel like being cheated. Therefore, the Home Affairs Department has to make a determined effort to identify the right remedy with a view to plugging the regulatory loopholes.
Hence, my suggestion is that the Administration makes amends to the way authorizations are handled. Since authorizations have a direct bearing on the results of voting, the system for handling them has to be fair and impartial, and those who have a conflict of interests should not be the ones to collect authorizations and decide on their validity. I suggest that such important job be taken up by a third party with no interests involved, such as District Offices. District Offices may handle the job through their own staff or an appointed management company, but all is to be conducted under their supervision. For example, boxes for collecting authorizations should be set up at District Offices; authorizations should also be verified by District Offices under their supervision and guidance, and their decision should be final. I raised these views to the Home Affairs Department, but they expressed worries over the shortage of manpower. In fact, the Administration may require the estate concerned to pay them a fee and to have at least hundreds of households before such procedures are carried out.
The Home Affairs Department is about to conduct a public consultation on reviewing the Building Management Ordinance. In this connection, I hold that the Government has to plug the loopholes in relevant legislation and guidelines, and should by no means ignore the existing major flaws in respect of authorization. It has to make the system fair and impartial so as to avoid the many disputes that arise from the perception of owners in nearly 10 000 buildings that the system is flawed. Then, more owners will come out to form and join owners’ corporations for the management of their homes.
Chairman, in my opinion, building management has a direct bearing on people’s life, yet loopholes abound under the existing system. What I mentioned just now are just problems that arise before or during the formation of an owners’ corporation, and there are already many loopholes. As several Honourable colleagues pointed out earlier, problems that arise after the formation of owners’ corporations are much more than what I have imagined and recounted. If a policy has a bearing on the daily life and work of residents in nearly 10 000 buildings, it is my wish that the Home Affairs Department will conduct a critical review and deal with it seriously. It is unacceptable that the system have kept running for years without a proper way to tackle the numerous problems that have arisen.
I wish to point out that the Home Affairs Department has endeavoured to encourage the formation of owners’ corporations at estates over the past decades, and I believe that some stages of progress has already been made, as evidenced in their formation at nearly 10 000 (or 9 600) buildings. The next important step is to look into ways to optimize the practice, such that owners’ corporations will have rules to follow for their existing management work and take up any legal consequences. In this way, owners’ corporations will avoid acting recklessly and thus will not let the public down.
Hence, in my opinion, the Home Affairs Department should put in a great deal of resources to do the work and tackle the key problems surrounding building management in a concrete manner. Members’ current amendments to reduce the department’s annual expenditure are, in my opinion, heading to the opposite direction. Of course, I understand that we have no right to increase its expenditure and resources. However, if all staff members of the department are dismissed simply because of its poor performance, will it turn out to be good? Hence, it is my wish that the Home Affairs Department will have several more times of resources to increase its manpower next year, and more importantly, it has to seriously deal with the consultation soon to be conducted on the Building Management Ordinance. If the review continues to leave the key problem of authorization untouched, I will definitely say no to the legislation. It is hoped that the Government will handle it seriously.
I also hope that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) is aware of how essential the nature of the matter is. Many instances of corruption in the society ensue in the wake of the inadequacy of the legislation in question. It is my wish that the Government and the ICAC assist the Home Affairs Department in monitoring the system, such that the system becomes really fair and impartial, and that owners’ corporations have to act in accordance with the law or face the legal consequences. The Administration has to do so if it does not want to let the public down. In this respect, I believe that the ICAC also has its own unshirkable responsibility.
Chairman, I so submit.