MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan’s amendment urges the Government to set up a “central employees’ compensation fund” to save on the administration fees incurred for handling insurance claims in respect of industrial accidents, and to reduce frauds relating to workmen’s compensation insurance.
I respect Mr LEE Cheuk-yan’s wish for the setting up of a “central employee’s compensation fund”, but I hope he understands that the rehabilitation programme he proposes, which is now undertaken by the insurance sector, will only help workers who wish to return to work and recover. Even if the rehabilitation programme under the “central employees’ compensation fund” is launched, workers intending to deceive will not join it anyway. As a matter of fact, there are plenty of such cases. What I find even more difficult to understand is that so long as insurance frauds cannot be eliminated, private insurance companies will continue to suffer a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars year after year, whereas the Government’s “central employees’ compensation fund” will become even more bureaucratic with higher costs and greater losses. As such, why does Mr LEE Cheuk-yan suggest the Government to do so?
Just now, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan let slip his opinion, saying that if the fund is to be set up by the Government, increase in insurance premium should be subject to regulation. Insurance premium cannot be raised haphazardly, even if heavy loss has been incurred. But is this fair? Is this an appropriate way to deploy public coffers?
On the other hand, I wonder if Members are aware that there are nearly 10 000 intermediaries providing services relating to workmen’s compensation insurance and motor vehicle insurance. Even if the “central employees’ compensation fund” is set up in the future, services provided by the intermediaries are still necessary, and the relevant costs would have to be paid from the fund after all. Otherwise, a lot of staff will have to be recruited to do the work. Therefore, as someone must provide the services, Members should not think that this is a solution to the problem.
Furthermore, laws vary from place to place, and it is rare for a place to provide for both statutory claims and common law claims like Hong Kong. While certain deduction can be made, this is only allowed in very few places. In Singapore, for example, one can only choose either. Unlike Hong Kong, where the laws are lax, some places have adopted simpler mechanisms. Thus, no simple conclusion can be drawn. Measures adopted in other countries may not necessarily be viable in Hong Kong, especially when the current system in Hong Kong is so loose. In view of the rampant frauds, I do not think the Government will take over the hot potato.
Nevertheless, I welcome the Hong Kong Government to look seriously into the matter and make comparison to see if there is really big differences between the centralized approach and the win-win approach. If it is really better to adopt a centralized approach than leaving the matter to the business sector, I will support it. However, this is unlikely to me because the Government will end up becoming even more bureaucratic, thereby driving up the costs even further. We are now suffering heavy losses and have worked very hard to combat frauds, but things still happen like that. It is very likely that the Government will be abused. As it is not the boss, there is no point for it to be so serious. I therefore predict that the public spending will continue to rise, which is absolutely no good to Hong Kong society, let alone helping combat frauds. Ignoring my hat of being a trade member, I sincerely consider it impossible to support the “central employees’ compensation fund”, which will doom to fail.
Given that the setting up of the “central employees’ compensation fund” cannot combat insurance frauds, and just now Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has not explained how the fund can combat frauds, I think the fraudsters would continue to take advantage of the loopholes in the system and the legislation to conduct fraudulent acts after the fund is set up in the future. Except for making compensation payments, the fund can do nothing and fraud cases will continue to rise. In the end, taxpayers will have to foot the bill. Hence, I will absolutely not support Mr LEE Cheuk-yan’s amendment. Thank you, President.