PLC Paper No. CB(2)197
(These minutes have been seen
by the Administration and cleared
with the Chairman)
Ref : CB2/BC/19/96

Minutes of the Third Meeting of the Bills Committee on
the Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) Bill 1997 and
the Smoking (Public Health) (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 1997

held on Friday, 6 June 1997 at 8:30 am
in the Chamber of the Legislative Council Building

Members Present :

    Hon Christine LOH (Chairman)
    Hon Mrs Selina CHOW, OBE, JP
    Hon Ronald ARCULLI, OBE, JP
    Dr Hon LEONG Che-hung, OBE, JP
    Hon Michael HO Mun-ka
    Dr Hon HUANG Chen-ya, MBE
    Dr Hon Philip WONG Yu-hong
    Hon CHAN Wing-chan
    Hon Andrew CHENG Kar-foo
    Hon Paul CHENG Ming-fun
    Hon CHOY Kan-pui, JP
    Hon MOK Ying-fan
    Hon NGAN Kam-chuen

Members Absent :

    Hon James TIEN Pei-chun, OBE, JP
    Dr Hon LAW Chi-kwong
    Hon Bruce LIU Sing-lee

Public Officers Attending :

Mr Gregory LEUNG, JP
Deputy Secretary for Health & Welfare
Mr Derek GOULD
Principal Assistant Secretary for Health & Welfare
Miss WONG Yuet-wah
Assistant Secretary for Health & Welfare
Mr John WONG
Senior Assistant Law Draftsman (Acting), Legal Department

Attendance by Invitation :

The Newspaper Society of Hong Kong
Mr Keith KAM
Mr Vincent TOON

Asia Television Ltd
Mr Kenneth KWOK, Assistant Chief Executive Officer
Ms LIT Kit-ching, Sandy, Programme Manager

Cable Television
Mr Garmen CHAN, External Affairs Director
Ms Kou LI, Legal Manager (Commercial Affairs)

Television Broadcasts Ltd
Mr S K CHEONG, Assistant General Manager
Mr Alan HOO, Senior Manager

Association of Accredited Advertising Agents of Hong Kong
Mr Allen C CHICHESTER, Chairman
Mr Jeffrey YU

The Hong Kong Chinese Commercial Advertising Association Ltd
Mr WAI Kee-shun, Chairman
Mr MAK Siu-tong, Vice-Chairman

Marlboro Classics

Mirabell International Holdings Ltd
Mr Lawrence NG, Executive Director

Bueltel Worldwide Fashion (HK) Ltd
Ms Bonnie LAW, General Manager

Mondaine Swiss Watch (Far East) Ltd
Ms Domanica LEUNG, Executive Director
Mr LUK Kwok-sun

Worldwide Brands International (Hong Kong) Ltd
Miss Betty LEUNG
Mss Shirley YIP

Sign Association of Hong Kong
Mr MAK Siu-tong, Chairman

Federation of Hong Kong Restaurant Owners Ltd
Mr MAK Yiu-tong, President
Mr CHAN Kwok-leung, Executive Director

Hong Kong Arts Centre
Mrs Jackie MA, Chief Executive

Hong Kong Arts Festival Society Ltd
Mr Kau NG, Executive Director

Hong Kong Amateur Rowing Association
Mr Robert L WILSON, President

Hong Kong Rugby Football Union
Mr Stuart LECKIE, OBE, JP, immediate past President

Ken Catton Enterprises Ltd
Mr Brian CATTON, Managing Director

Spectrum Corporation
Mr Lincoln VENANCIO, Group Managing Director
Mr Charles Humphreys SMITH, Senior Vice-President (Marketing)

Donway International Ltd
Mr John DUFFUS, Managing Director

Action on Smoking or Health Association
Mr Cole CAPENER, Legal Adviser

Hong Kong Dental Association
Dr Peter S K LEUNG

People Acting for Smokeless Society Ltd
Dr Carol BETSON, Chairperson

Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control
Professor Judith MACKAY, MBE, JP

Clerk in Attendance :

Ms Doris CHAN
Chief Assistant Secretary (2)3

Staff in Attendance :

Mr LEE Yu-sung
Senior Assistant Legal Adviser
Miss Flora TAI
Senior Assistant Secretary (2)3

I.Meeting with deputations

Members noted the following papers which were tabled at the meeting and subsequently issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2612/96-97 -

  1. letter dated 5 June 1997 from Professor A J HEDLEY, University of Hong Kong;
  2. Chinese translation of the letter dated 3 June 1997 from Television Broadcasts Limited;
  3. submission from the Hong Kong Dental Association;
  4. submission from People Acting for a Smokeless Society Ltd;
  5. chinese translation of the submission from Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health;
  6. literature review list prepared by the Administration;
  7. letter dated 6 June 1997 from Dr David HILL, Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Australia;
  8. submission from Professor Judith MACKAY of Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control;
  9. submission from Mr Gerardo R CORNEJO;
  10. submission from Mr Murray LAUGESEN, Health New Zealand; and
  11. submission from Mr C K KWONG & Ms Jyoti KAKAD.

2. At the invitation of the Chairman, the deputations presented their views to the Bills Committee. The Chairman also invited questions from members and asked the deputations to respond accordingly. The gist of the discussion is summarized in the following paragraphs.

The Newspaper Society of Hong Kong

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(01))

3. Mr Keith KAM briefed members on the stance of the Newspaper Society of Hong Kong (the Society). Basically the Society did not support the idea of legislating to restrict the flow of information because it would be a dangerous precedent for the press. Moreover, cigarettes which was a legal product should not be subject to such restriction. Mr KAM also pointed out that tobacco advertising constituted only about 2% of the advertising revenue of newspapers and was concentrated in major newspapers. Restriction on tobacco advertising therefore did not actually affect the revenue of newspapers very much.

Asia Television Ltd/Cable Television/Television Broadcasts Ltd

(LegCo Paper Nos. CB(2) 2562/96-97(02) and (03) & CB(2) 2568/96-97(01))

4. Members noted that Mr S K CHEONG would be the spokesman to

present the views of these three television stations. Mr CHEONG then proceeded to make the following points -

  1. the two Bills had very serious implications on the daily operation of television stations which would have operational difficulties to fulfil the proposed legal requirements in these Bills;
  2. the Bills did not make any distinction between programmes, on air promotions and advertising which were treated differently in the code of practice for television stations;
  3. the definitions of advertisement and brand element were too wide or vague in the No. 1 Bill for interpretation;
  4. proposed section 14(1)(c) should be deleted because it seemed to prohibit appearance of a smoking act which would be impossible for the media to enforce; and
  5. the phrase "unless the contrary is proved" should not be removed from section 14(2) of the No. 2 Bill because its removal would make the media unable to make an informed judgement as to whether the material to be shown was a tobacco advertisement or not.

5. Mr Kenneth KWOK stressed that the Bills would create tremendous operational difficulties for television stations. Ms Kou LI pointed out that it was especially difficult for Cable TV because it delivered hours of programmes through satellite which were not live broadcasts. She therefore said that the exemption in section 11(4) of the No. 1 Bill should not be restricted to live broadcasts. In conclusion, Ms LI urged the Bills Committee to carefully review the drafting of the proposed provisions to avoid any unnecessary restrictions being imposed on broadcasters. In this regard, the Chairman asked the Administration to respond to the concerns expressed at the next meeting and invited Senior Assistant Legal Adviser to consider the relevant clauses as well. In this connection, members noted that these television stations would present a joint statement regarding their position on the Bills for members’ further consideration.

(Post-meeting note : The Asia Television Limited, the Television Broadcasts Limited, the Satellite Television Asia Region Limited and the Wharf Cable Limited had set out their position on the Bills in their letter dated 11 June 1997, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2666/96-97.)


Association of Accredited Advertising Agents of Hong Kong

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2541/96-97(02))

6. Mr Allen CHICHESTER informed members that the Association ofAccredited Advertising Agents of Hong Kong (the Association) represented 19 major advertising agencies. They expressed strong and united opposition to the two Bills which sought to severely restrict tobacco advertising in Hong Kong. Mr CHICHESTER said that restriction on tobacco advertising would set a dangerous precedent as products deemed inappropriate or politically incorrect might become the targets for future advertising ban. He cautioned that a ban on tobacco advertising would affect the livelihood of many employees in related trades. He then explained to members why the Association considered that the criticism made by Dr David NEWMAN and Dr Thomas VOON on the Coopers and Lybrand Study was based on faulty assumptions and lack of understanding of the advertising and marketing industry. Members noted that the Association would respond to those criticisms in writing for members’ reference. He cautioned that the attempt to restrictor to ban advertising of a lawful product was an advertising issue and not a tobacco issue.

(Post-meeting note : The Association had responded to the criticisms by Dr David NEWMAN and Dr Thomas VOON concerning the Coopers and Lybrand study in their letter dated 12 June 1997 which was issued to members vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2675/96-97.)

7. Dr LEONG Che-hung reminded members that Coopers and Lybrand had a vested interest in the issue as they were employed to conduct the study on loss of revenue due to an advertising ban on tobacco whereas Dr NEWMAN and Dr VOON were independent academics. In response, Mr CHICHESTER stressed that Coopers and Lybrand was a professional firm which would conduct the study without bias. Dr LEONG further asked and Mr CHICHESTER said that although advertising revenue had increased in Thailand and Singapore after the imposition of a ban on tobacco advertising, he anticipated that there would be a significant drop in revenue in Hong Kong as the economy was different here. In this connection, Mr Paul CHENG drew members’ attention to the fact that there was a 50% increase in revenue of the two main local television stations by 1993 after the introductions of a ban on tobacco advertising in electronic media in 1990. However, Mr S K CHEONG pointed out that revenue of television advertising had increased at a slower rate than that of advertising in printed publications because of the ban. Mr Andrew CHENG asked and Mr CHEONG responded that the television broadcasters were not concerned about the impact of the Bills on their revenue. The main concern was about the practical difficulties in fulfilling the legal requirements proposed in the Bill. As regards the issue of personal conscience raised by Mr Paul CHENG, Mr CHICHESTER reiterated that advertising did not cause people to smoke and a ban on advertising would not help solve the issue of health problem.

Hong Kong Chinese Commercial Advertising Association Ltd

8. Mr WAI Kee-shun asked members to bear in mind that tobacco was a lawful product. If tobacco was banned because it was hazardous to health, alcohol should also be subject to the same ban or restriction. He therefore urged members to consider the possible consequences on other products if the ban was enforced.

Marlboro Classics

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2541/96-97(01))

9. Mr John GRIFFITHS informed members that Marlboro Classics was in the clothing business, not the tobacco business. He then highlighted two serious problems arising from the drafting of the No. 1 Bill as set out in the submission by the Marlboro Classics, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2541/96-97(01).

Mirabell International Holdings Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(14))

10. Mr Lawerence NG briefed members on the submission by the Mirabell International Holdings Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(14). Mr NG pointed out that although they supported the idea of banning tobacco advertising for health protection and environmental protection, the Bills Committee should carefully consider the implementation, having regard to various interests involved

Bueltel Worldwide Fashion (HK) Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(05))

11. Ms Bonnie LAW briefed members on the submission by the Bueltel Worldwide Fashion (HK) Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(05). Ms LAW stressed that the company was an independent business which did not have any connection with the tobacco business and advertising was crucial to ensure its competitiveness. She therefore urged members to give regard to the retailers’ right to run their business during the scrutiny of the Bills.

Mondaine Swiss Watch (Far East) Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(06))

12. Ms Domanica LEUNG briefed members on the submission by the Mondaine Swiss Watch (Far East) Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(06). She stressed that it was essential and critical to distinguish their watch product from other competitors by way of advertising and the company had not received any sponsorship from tobacco companies. Banning advertising would also adversely affect the livelihood of their employees.

Worldwide Brands International (Hong Kong) Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(07))

13. Miss Betty LEUNG briefed members on the submission by the Worldwide Brands International (Hong Kong) Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(07). She reiterated that their products were not promotional products for any tobacco-related activities and it was essential to advertise in order to build up the brand name.

Sign Association of Hong Kong

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(08))

14. Mr MAK Siu-tong briefed members on the submission by the Sign Association of Hong Kong, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(08). He emphasized that: (a) advertising sign was only an auxiliary way to advertise tobacco products, as compared with advertising in the electronic media and printed publications; (b) it aimed at competition among different brands of tobacco product; and (c) the local industry of sign manufacturing had already shrunk. Mr MAK also cautioned that shop sign and advertising sign should be clearly distinguished in the legislation seeking to ban advertising of tobacco products in order to reduce the adverse effects on sign manufacturing industry.

Federation of Hong Kong Restaurant Owners Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(09))

15. Mr MAK Yiu-tong briefed members on the submission by the Federation of Hong Kong Owners Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(09). Mr CHAN Wing-chan asked and Mr MAK Yiu-tong responded that it should be up to the restaurants, irrespective of their size, to decide whether to designate no smoking area or not. In this connection, Mr Michael HO sought the view from the Federation of Hong Kong Restaurant Owners Ltd. on the appropriate size criterion if a restaurant exceeding a certain size was required to designate no smoking area in law. Mr MAK undertook to consider the issue and might provide a written response for members’ reference. Mr CHAN further asked and Mr MAK said that it was very difficult for a restaurant operator to enforce no smoking rule in a restaurant especially when a private function was held. As regards the effectiveness of existing policy allowing restaurant operators to designate no smoking area, Dr LEONG Che-hung asked and Mr MAK Yiu-tong responded that customers would normally follow the no smoking rule even though it did not have statutory status. At Mrs Selina CHOW’s suggestion, Mr MAK agreed to consider whether the Administration’s proposal in the No. 2 Bill to empower the manager of a restaurant premises to designate the premises or part of it as a no smoking area.

16. In response to the deputations’ concerns, Dr LEONG Che-hung clarified that the No. 1 Bill only sought to ban any advertising with the commercial intent to promote tobacco products. Necessary amendment to the Bill could be made to address the concerns expressed by deputations. In this regard, the Chairman asked and Senior Assistant Legal Adviser advised that "brand element" had been defined in the No. 1 Bill as "brand name, trade mark ..... which can be reasonably associated with a tobacco product or service". It would be up to the court to decide whether the mark exposed could reasonably be associated with a tobacco product. In response to Dr HUANG Chen-ya, Ms Domanica LEUNG informed members that her company had to pay royalty to Worldwide Brands Inc. which only owned the brandname and was not associated with the relevant tobacco companies. Members noted that trade mark or logo of the products of these industries unrelated to tobacco companies might be the same as those used by the tobacco companies. Dr HUANG therefore suggested that these companies could change their trade mark or logo while keeping the brand name of the respective tobacco products, if the No. 1 Bill was enacted. At Mrs Selina CHOW’s suggestion, the Chairman invited deputations to provide additional views in writing, particularly about the effect of no display of tobacco advertisement on their revenue, for members’ reference.


Hong Kong Arts Centre

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(10))

17. Mrs Jackie MA briefed members on the submission by the Hong Kong Arts Centre, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(10). Mrs MA stressed that: (a) the programmes ran by the Hong Kong Arts Centre depended very much on commercial sponsorship and 17.5% of the commercial sponsorship income last year came from Philip Morris Limited; and (b) it was already the publicity policy of the Hong Kong Arts Centre at present that no brand name placement for tobacco product was allowed but only the company’s corporate name or logo. She cautioned that the No. 1 Bill, if enacted, would indirectly diminish the growth rate of the local arts scene, the experimentation of new ideas by local artists, and constrain the progress towards a mature Arts Centre. As regards the coverage of "brand element" in the No. 1 Bill, the Chairman asked and Dr LEONG Che-hung pointed out that title or corporate sponsorship would be allowed even if the No. 1 Bill was passed. In this connection, the Chairman suggested and Dr LEONG agreed that the drafting of its relevant provisions should be carefully studied so as to ensure that the legislative intent was reflected.

Hong Kong Arts Festival Society Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2504/96-97(10))

18. Mr Kau NG briefed members on the submission by the Hong Kong Arts Festival Society Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2504/96-97(10). He cautioned that commercial sponsorship was very competitive in the arts field and a total ban on advertising by tobacco companies would create serious financial difficulties for non profit-making arts organizations. Mr NG stressed that no promotion of tobacco products would be allowed in the Hong Kong Arts Festival and thus it would not encourage people to smoke. He pointed out that imposition of tobacco levy as an alternative source of income might create red tape and would mean centralization of funding in the Government which was not beneficial to the development of arts field.

Hong Kong Amateur Rowing Association

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2583/96-97(02))

19. Members noted the submission by the Hong Kong Amateur Rowing Association, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2583/96-97(02). Mr Robert WILSON informed members that the Hong Kong Amateur Rowing Association would not accept sponsorship from tobacco industry because its primary objective was to enhance people’s lives by introducing them to an activity which would provide considerable physical benefits and strengthen their psychological profile but tobacco products would bring about adverse effect in these two areas. He stressed that this view was shared by the International Rowing Federation which also banned tobacco sponsorship of major international championships. He favoured a levy or tax on tobacco to support sports and arts as had been done in the state of Victoria in Australia. He pointed out that the tobacco industry selectively focused on high-people events while the income from the tax to be levied would help to spread out the money.

Hong Kong Rugby Football Union

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(11))

20. Mr Stuart LECKIE informed members that neither the Hong Kong Amateur Swimming Association nor the Hong Kong Rugby Football Union had accepted sponsorship from the tobacco industry. However, as many other sport events had to rely on the tobacco industry, a gradual ban on tobacco sponsorship of sport events would be more appropriate. He also suggested that Hong Kong should consider the plan adopted by the State of Victoria in Australia where a special levy on the tobacco industry was specifically applied to sports and arts.

Ken Catton Enterprises Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(11))

21. Mr Brian Catton briefed members on the submission by Ken Catton Enterprises Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(11).

Spectrum Corporation

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2554/96-97)

22. Mr Lincoln VENANCIO briefed members on the submission by Spectrum Corporation, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2554/96-97. Mr VENANCIO pointed out that Salem Open had been the name of the major tennis tournament in Hong Kong and changing the name would affect adversely its ability to secure sponsors and to sell tickets. He stressed that a ban on tobacco sponsorship would be devastating to the events industry. Dr LEONG Che-hung then asked and Mr VENANCIO responded that Thailand and Singapore, where tobacco sponsorship was banned, had no major sport events. In response to the Chairman’s enquiry, Mr VENANCIO informed members that the total amount of tobacco sponsorship for sports was about 200 million Hong Kong dollars. In this connection, Dr LEONG Che-hung remarked that the total amount of tobacco sponsorship for arts and recreation would be much less which could be easily covered by Government funding.

Donway International Ltd

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(13))

23. Mr John DUFFUS briefed members on the submission by the Donway International Ltd, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2562/96-97(13). He stressed that commercial sponsorship was vital to the presentation of entertainment events of international standard in Hong Kong and tobacco sponsorship constituted a major part of it. According to his own experience, Mr DUFFUS said that there was a general lack of interest to sponsor entertainment events among the local business community, apart from the tobacco industry.

24. Mr Andrew CHENG asked whether the deputations had been benefited by the Government’s recent injection of 300 million dollars for the sponsorship of cultural, sports and arts events and why the deputations did not consider the feasibility of imposing a tobacco levy for the sponsorship of these events. Mr Robert WILSON said that the Government had over the past years ignored the financial need of sports and recreation and the injection was totally insufficient. He reiterated his support for a tobacco levy. Mrs Jackie MA pointed out that as the 300 million amount was spread over five years, it was quite a small amount. She also informed members that it was very difficult to secure funding from public bodies, specially for local and experimental artists. Mr Stuart LECKIE pointed out that Hong Kong should devise a model to impose a tobacco levy and to distribute the money thus collected in a non-bureaucratic manner. However, Mr Lincoln VENANCIO cautioned that although the monetary sponsorship from tobacco companies might be replaced by other source of funding, the manpower support and commitment from these companies could not be replaced. Mr John DUFFUS also pointed out that private events industry would not be able to compete with non profit-making bodies for funding from tobacco levy and they could not afford to go through the application process for such kind of funding in view of the importance of time factor for their operation.

Action on Smoking or Health Association

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2568/96-97(02))

25. Mr C K KWONG drew members’ attention to a number of established facts as follows: (a) nicotine was addictive; (b) smoking could be regarded as a kind of paediatric illnesses as a young person could be addicted before becoming an adult; (c) tobacco advertising was targeted at children and young people which had a great influence on them; and (d) juvenile smoking was curbed successfully in areas where tobacco advertising was banned. He added that it was not logical for the tobacco industry to argue that tobacco advertising was to encourage brand switching only as the tobacco market would shrink very quickly if it was not replenished with new smokers. Mr KWONG then presented their views on the legal aspects of the Bills. He pointed out that the Bills did not restrict the freedom of expression and did not contravene the Bill of Rights because: (a) they only sought to protect innocent victims from the harm of smoking; (b) there was established linkage between advertising and juvenile smoking; and (c) there were other lawful products which were subject to restriction to advertise on the grounds of public interest. The Bills also did not violate the rights of international trade marks. He cautioned that tobacco advertising was not the only use of the trade mark. Mr Cole CAPENER then proceeded to brief members on some recent developments including court cases and studies about tobacco advertising in North America and Europe.

Hong Kong Dental Association

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2612/96-97(03))

26. Dr Peter S K LEUNG briefed members on the position statement of the Hong Kong Dental Association, issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2612/96-97(03).

People Acting for a Smokeless Society Ltd

(LegCo Paper Nos. CB(2) 2541/96-97(03) & 2568/96-97(03))

27. Dr Carol BETSON briefed members on the position of the People Acting for a Smokeless Society Ltd which had been set out in LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2568/96-97(03). Mr Gerardo CORNEJO addressed the Bills Committee as set out in his speaking note which was issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2612/96-97(09).

Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control

(LegCo Paper No. CB(2)

28. Professor Judith MACKAY drew members’ attention to a misrepresentation of her paper for the Conference on Smoking and Health in 1996 in the presentation to the Bills Committee by the tobacco industry on 5 June 1997. She pointed out that she had listed, contrary to the presentation by the tobacco industry, advertising as one of the factors which encouraged young people to smoke. Professor MACKAY then briefed members on the submission by the Asian Consultancy on Tobacco Control which was issued vide LegCo Paper No. CB(2) 2612/96-97(08). Dr LEONG Che-hung asked and Professor MACKAY responded that there were practical and ethical difficulties to establish a scientific proof of the relationship between tobacco advertising and youth smoking. It was therefore necessary to rely on indirect and empirical evidence.

II.Dates of future meetings

29. The Chairman reminded members that the next two meetings had been scheduled as follows -

  1. Thursday, 12 June 1997 from 2:30 pm to 6:30 pm ; and
  2. Friday, 13 June 1997 from 8:30 am to 10:30 am.

30. There being no other business, the meeting ended at 12:05 pm.

Provisional Legislative Council Secretariat
25 July 1997

Last Udpated on 20 October 1997