President, today, I would like to talk about one of the points raised in the amendment, that is the necessity to “expeditiously formulate working hours regimes and overtime compensation regimes for different industries to reduce situations of excessively long working hours and uncompensated overtime work, and study the introduction of the ‘right to disconnect outside working hours’ to ensure that employees enjoy a work-life balance”. This has reminded me that the issue of standard working hours has been repackaged under a different name and brought up for discussion again after so many twists and turns. 

This time the amendment is even worse than the one concerning the standard working hours because different industries have different working hours. More than 10 years ago, a trade union strongly advocated standard working hours on the ground that it has gone too far to require property security guards to work 12 hours a day, and their working hours were subsequently shortened to 8 hours. This move was applauded by all, especially security guards, because they thought that they could earn 12-hour salary by working 8 hours only.  Who else would reject such a move? In the end, security guards found that their salaries abruptly dropped from the original level of $9,000 to $6,000. It was even more difficult for them to find another part-time job in the market, but they could not make ends meet if they did not look for part-time jobs. As such, they eventually backtracked and have now resumed working 12 hours a day because there is precisely such a need for certain trades.

As I mentioned just now, introducing the so-called “standard working hours” will only aggravate the labour shortage problem in Hong Kong. Many trade union representatives have all along opposed labour importation on the ground that it will only create a vicious circle and result in more severe labour shortage.

The Liberal Party believes that many companies have been implementing flexible working measures, which is indeed a market-led behaviour. Take the sectors represented by the three Members of the Liberal Party as an example. First of all, let me talk about the catering industry which I represent. For decades, some restaurant staff (e.g. dim sum chefs) have set off to work before sunrise because they have to prepare freshly-made and hot dim sum for customers who come for breakfast at 6:00 am or 7:00 am.  The same applies to the retail sector. Different industries have implemented flexible working hours according to their respective specific nature and there are numerous similar examples. 

Regarding the “right to disconnect outside working hours” proposed in the amendment, I must point out that the Liberal Party sets great store by the contractual spirit of employers and employees. If employees and employers have agreed upon the clause concerning the “right to disconnect outside working hours” during contract negotiation, we certainly respect such practice. In reality, it is difficult for many trades to implement the “right to disconnect outside working hours” in society. Take civil servants or Legislative Council members as an example. How should the relevant rights be stipulated for these professions?

Furthermore, the relevant measures will definitely affect the competitiveness of companies and even the overall competitiveness of Hong Kong since it will impose restrictions on contacting staff members outside office hours. Coupled with the development of social platforms and the Internet, communication has become more convenient, and thus making it difficult to define the meaning of “work” and “communication”. 

The Liberal Party certainly agrees that there is a need to improve the family-friendly policies in order to attract more female workers to return to the workplace and relieve their work pressure, while at the same time enhancing work efficiency. Most importantly, it will allow them to strike a balance between family and work.

Lastly, President, I would like to point out that trade union representatives have continually voiced their aspirations and made insatiable demand. On the one hand, they call for abolishing the offsetting arrangement. On the other hand, they call for an annual adjustment to the minimum wage after its introduction. At present, the minimum wage has been adjusted upwards every year, but the legislation on the minimum wage has specified an upward or downward adjustment. At present, the minimum wage has been adjusted upwards every year without undergoing any downward adjustment and there is an insatiable demand in this regard. Looking at the situation in the United States (“US”), why does US wilfully impose tariffs and coerce workers and factories to relocate to US nowadays? It is because minimum wage was first introduced in US, resulting in a total loss of competitiveness. All the businesses were relocated overseas and problems emerged subsequently. We should never follow suit.