With the Legislative Council closed for summer until early October, I would like to use this opportunity to reflect on the past year. Looking back, I would say that the going was never easy. Even during Legco's final meeting for the year 2001- 02 held last month, a number of major controversial issues were tackled, including the civil servants' pay cut.

Announcement of the cut stirred heated social debate, and civil servants' unions organised demonstrations to show their opposition to the cut. But with the general public increasingly in favour of cutting their salaries, the unions changed their position, which originally was to reject the plan. They "clarified" that their objection was not with the government's decision to cut their salaries, but rather using legislation to push through the pay cuts. The change in attitude made me suspicious of their intentions, and I wondered if their real goal was to use this excuse to delay the implementation of the initiative.

The cuts of 1.58 to 4.42 per cent are minimal compared to those in the private sector. Civil servants' wages, on average, are still 40 to 50 per cent higher than those of the private sector. The government decided to legislate the cuts because its authority to adjust civil servants' pay according to actual needs was not clearly stated in the Civil Service Regulations, and as such it would probably have faced legal action. The purpose of passing legislation was to avoid endless legal action -- which would have wasted public money -- and to authorise the salaries cut. I think the unions have no grounds to reject the move since legislation is only a technical requirement, yet the only means to achieve an end.

Prior to passing the bill in Legco, I faxed Chamber members questionnaires to see whether they supported legislating the cuts or not. Among the 315 replies that I received, 90 per cent said "yes," and most of you even called for a higher pay cut. Since the majority of respondents supported the government, I voted in Legco in support of the move.

I think both the business sector and general public shared the same view. Results of the Liberal Party's telephone survey showed 71 per cent of the 3,281 respondents agreed with the plan to cut civil servant's pay. I hope representatives of the civil servants' unions can understand social expectations and accept this modest adjustment. To protect the image of the civil service and interests of the community, they should refrain from taking legal action.

The MPF Schemes (Amendment) Bill 2002 was also passed in Legco's last meeting for the year. The key issue in the bill is the adjustment of the minimum relevant income from HK$4,000 to HK$5,000 to help low-income earners make ends meet in light of the prevailing economic malaise. Under the new policy, employees earning less than HK$5,000 per month are exempt from making MPF contributions, though employers will still need to make contributions.

I have also noted that low-income earners have had to endure substantial pay cuts as companies try to reduce costs. Many of them are experiencing economic hardship because they have had their salaries cut from HK$8,000 or HK$9,000 to HK$4,000 or HK$5,000. As such, I agree with the government that they should be allowed to keep the several hundred dollars that ordinarily would have been paid into the MPF scheme, because they desperately need the money now. I also supported this proposal, which was passed by a majority vote in Legco, as it represents a consensus reached among representatives of employees, employers and the administration after due consideration.

Ultimately, improving the lives of Hong Kong citizens and the business environment will only be possible when the economy improves. The government is proactively looking into ways to boost the economy and create more jobs. I hope that it will initiate effective measures as soon as possible to help start Hong Kong's economic recovery.