MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, holidays in Hong Kong have long been categorized into statutory holidays (“SHs”) and general holidays (“GHs”). The general working class is entitled to 12 days of SHs, whereas general clerical staff is entitled to 17 days of GHs. There is a difference of five days each year, which is unfair and unreasonable. The Government has proposed the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2021 (“the Bill”) to align the numbers of SHs with GHs at 17 days in phases. While the Bill contains some elements that are undesirable and controversial, I support it in principle.
I have all along supported the alignment of the two types of holidays. As long as employers can bear the cost incurred by the additional holidays, the alignment should be achieved as quickly as possible. As a matter of fact, according to the report made by the Government to the Legislative Council in 2015, if the numbers of the two types of holidays were aligned at 17 days, it would only incur an additional wage cost of $1.8 billion. This amount was calculated on the basis of the wage level in 2011, and based on the assumption that about 1 million employees were entitled to SHs. Frankly speaking, a wage cost of $1.8 billion was a heavy burden for employers of small and medium enterprises (“SMEs”) at that time, but it was a small amount to the Government given its abundant fiscal reserves at that time. Therefore, I proposed that the Government pay $1.8 billion to subsidize 1 million workers to enjoy five more holidays each year, so that the business sector and the labour sector could have time to discuss and study the alignment of the two types of holidays.
Over the years, the labour sector and I have repeatedly proposed the alignment of the number of SHs with GHs to the former Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary. Today, the Government is willing to align the number of SHs with GHs, but it offers no funding and intends to spend eight years’ time to achieve the alignment progressively instead. While this approach may be slower, it actually requires a substantial number of SMEs to pay the additional wage costs in full immediately under the current circumstances. Originally, it could be a viable option with government subsidy. Now that the public coffers are in the red owing to disaster relief, I do not believe assistance can still be offered. Therefore, having considered all the factors, I am inclined to support the Government’s proposal.
Another controversy today is the entitlement of the additional SHs on foreign domestic helpers (“FDHs”). At present, over 300 000 families have to employ FDHs to take care of their living and dietary needs. The role of FDHs is very important. If the five additional SHs are to be added immediately, many families will be directly affected. Even if the employers are willing to pay additional wages, they may not be able to hire suitable substitute workers. When it comes to taking care of children and elderly people, there will be even greater difficulties and sometimes employers cannot hire any FDH even though they are willing to pay more. This may give rise to many problems.
Besides, the community has divergent views about whether FDHs should enjoy equal entitlements. However, as the Government has explained, it will be unfair to FDHs if they are excluded from the proposed alignment. This is because FDHs have all along enjoyed equal entitlements as local employees under the Employment Ordinance, and Hong Kong also is obliged to comply with the relevant international convention. I am aware that many employers have strong views on this issue. The current proposal to increase the number of SHs in phases, which allows the families to undergo transition and adapt to the changes gradually, is one that has balanced the views of various parties. All in all, the economy is still at an early stage of recovery. As the business environment is harsh and some sectors are even caught in a predicament, the business sector inevitably has reservation and even strong views about the Bill. Therefore, now is not the best time to implement the Bill. But instead of waiting, the Government has adopted a stopgap approach which I think is a reasonable and sensible way of handling.
Previously, as the Legislative Council was faced with hindrances from the opposition camp, it was difficult for the Government to enact legislation. Now that the Legislative Council is back on track, the Government tabled this Bill on major livelihood issues for voting in the Legislative Council today. While the proposed alignment will take eight years to complete in phases, it would be fair to say that the Government is determined to address livelihood issues. I hope that the current-term Government and the next-term Government will continue to adopt this attitude to resolve various deep-rooted conflicts for the people of Hong Kong. Thank you, President.