Borrison/hk-legicost huggingface dataset:
另一項新改動是增設傷殘人士免稅額，這是張超雄議員為傷殘人士爭取的。
A new change is the introduction of a personal disability allowance for which Dr Fernando CHEUNG has striven for persons with disabilities PWDs
當然，給予他們免稅額亦是一項舉措，讓市民大眾知道，政府會聽取立法會議員的意見，亦會照顧不同階層的需要。
Certainly the provision of a tax allowance to PWDs is also an initiative that enables the general public to know that the Government will listen to the views of Legislative Council Members and cater to the needs of people of various social strata
我記得在去年或前年，在類似的法案委員會中，有議員問及這些免稅額為何不每年按消費物價指數予以調整。
I recollect that at similar Bills Committees last year and the year before last some Members asked why such allowances were not adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index each year
我希望政府2019年提交一項類似法案時，好好解答這個問題。
I hope that when submitting a similar bill in 2019 the Government will give us a proper reply to this question
我很想聽財經事務及庫務局局長解釋一下。
I look forward to listening to the explanation of the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury
就暫繳薪俸稅及利得稅的緩繳，《條例草案》第6及8條修訂《稅務條例》第63E2及63J2條。
Regarding the holding over of payment of provisional salaries tax and provisional profits tax clauses 6 and 8 of the Bill seek to amend sections 63E2 and 63J2 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance
稅務改革是今屆政府其中一個重要項目，稅務改革其中兩個最重要的政策目標是：第一，促成社會資源再分配；第二，刺激一些產業的發展。
Tax reform is one of the important tasks of the current - term Government . Two of the most important policy objectives of tax reform are first to facilitate the reallocation of social resources; second to stimulate the development of certain industries
當然，這不是《條例草案》會涵蓋的範圍。
Of course such objectives are out of the scope of the Bill
當然，每個人的家庭狀況或個人狀況均會影響他能否在《條例草案》中得益。
Certainly family or personal circumstances of an individual person will have a bearing on whether he can benefit from the Bill
代理主席，我謹此發言，並支持《條例草案》恢復二讀。
With these remarks Deputy President I support the resumption of the Second Reading of the Bill
不過，很可惜，當時的建議相當可笑，就是如果僱員要求復職，必須先得到僱主的同意。
Unfortunately the proposal was ridiculous in the sense that consent of the employer was required if the employee demanded reinstatement
這是很奇怪的，僱員被僱主解僱後，要得到僱主的同意才能復職，除非僱主精神分裂，否則怎可能在作出解僱後，又同意僱員復職呢？
That was absurd . The employee could only be reinstated after dismissal if consent was obtained from the employer . Unless the employer was schizophrenic how would he consent to reinstating the employee after dismissing him?
其間政府沒有進行甚麼檢討，也不曾認真地跟勞工界討論有關問題，到最近才提出來討論。
During this time the Government has neither conducted any review nor held any serious discussion with the labour sector and the issue was only recently raised for discussion
主席，我仍然感到非常失 望，因為《條例草案》作出最大的改變，只是對於遭不合理及不合法解僱的僱員，勞資審裁處不再像以前要得到僱主同意，才能作出復職或再次聘用的命令。
President I am still very disappointed because the biggest change introduced by the Bill is that for employees who are unreasonably and unlawfully dismissed the Labour Tribunal will no longer seek the consent of employers before issuing an order for reinstatement or re - engagement
除非僱主連72,500 元也不肯繳付，才有機會構成刑事罪行。
The employer will only commit a criminal offence if he is unwilling to pay 72,500
換言之，在勞工處或勞審處裁定有關解僱屬不合理及不合法時，僱員能否真正復職，仍然取決於僱主。
In other words even if the Labour Department or the Labour Tribunal has ruled that the dismissal was unreasonable and unlawful the decision of reinstating the employee still rests with the employer
所以，《條例草案》對僱主來說，仍然沒有任何阻嚇力，對僱員來說，仍然欠缺完全復職的可能性。
Thus to employers the Bill still has no deterrent effect; and to employees there is still no certainty about reinstatement
事實上，由2011年至2017年，有超過5,000宗不合理及不合法解僱的申索個案，當中僱員勝訴的個案超過3,600宗，但當中有多少宗要求復職或再次聘用的個案，僱員獲得復職或再次被聘用？
In fact from 2011 to 2017 among more than 5 000 applications regarding unreasonable and unlawful dismissals judgment in favour of the employees were granted in more than 3 600 cases . However how many employees in these cases were reinstated or re - engaged as requested? . Members could have guessed the answer none
對一些希望再次獲得聘用的僱員來說，解僱不但令他們失去工作的尊嚴，甚至會影響生計，因為到最後，如果法庭裁定他們能夠復職，但僱主不同意，他們最多只獲賠償72,500元。
For those employees who want to be reinstated dismissal not only deprives them of the dignity of work but also affects their livelihood . If the court rules that they are entitled to reinstatement but the employer disagrees they can at most obtain compensation of not more than 72,500
對一名僱員來說，有多少保障？
How much protection is that for an employee?
況且，最重要的是，僱員很多時候最想得到的，未必是金錢的補償，而是工作的尊嚴和公道，以及真正復職的權利，如果可以輕輕用錢"買起"，又怎能稱為權利？
Besides most importantly what the employee wants most may not be monetary compensation but dignity of work fairness and the genuine right of reinstatement . How can we call something a right which can be bought up by money?
這種做法是完全違背了有關概念。
Such an approach completely contravenes the underlying concept of reinstatement
此外，《條例草案》的保障僅僅涵蓋同時受到不合理及不合法解僱的僱員，如果只是受到不合理解僱的僱員，便無法得到強制復職令的保障。
Moreover the protection of the Bill only covers employees who are unreasonably and unlawfully dismissed . If the employee is only unreasonably dismissed he cannot obtain any protection under an order for mandatory reinstatement
所以，對僱員來說，"不合理解僱"這一關卡很難跨越。
Thus it is very difficult for employees to meet the criterion of unreasonable dismissal
要滿足這數項條件，我認為更加困難。
I think it will be even more difficult to meet these criteria
有七成受訪者認為，如果僱主因不滿僱員的政治取向或性傾向而解僱僱員，亦應該屬於不公平解僱。
Among the interviewees 70 % thought that if an employee was dismissed because of hisher political or sexual orientation the dismissal should be regarded as unfair too
不過，現行法例並無包含這些因素，而這項《條例草案》也沒有觸及這些方面。
Nevertheless these factors are not included in the current legislation and the Bill has not touched on these areas
政府應與時並進，進一步將不合法解僱的保障範圍，擴展至因政治立場、宗教立場或性傾向立場而被僱主解僱的僱員。
The Government should keep abreast of the times and further extend the scope of unlawful dismissal to cover employees who are dismissed because of their political or religious stances or sexual orientations
因為政府在2016年已經建議修訂《僱傭條例》，並將有關法案提交立法會。
That is because the Government proposed to amend the Ordinance and tabled a bill in the Legislative Council back in 2016
不過，勞工界認為5萬元實在太少，所以民主派及勞工界的議員強烈建議，將5萬元提高至10萬元。
Nevertheless the labour sector considered the amount too little and so the democrats and Members of the labour sector strongly proposed to raise the amount from 50,000 to 100,000
勞顧會慢慢討論，經過一番討論後，才得出現時稍為增加了的金額，將5萬元加10萬元除以2，等於72,500元，這個數目就是這樣計算出來的。
LAB procrastinated by proceeding slowly with the discussion and the result of the discussion was to slightly increase the amount by adding 50,000 and 100,000 and dividing the sum by two . That is how the amount of 72,500 is arrived at
主席，金額無疑是增加了，但保障是否有效呢？
President undoubtedly the amount has increased but is the protection effective?
議會本來就是要監察政府及催迫政府推行政策，但政府卻以這個擋箭牌阻擋所有事，令我們不能真真正正議政，我認為這種做法令人很遺憾。
The Legislative Council should be responsible for monitoring the Government and urging the Government to implement policies but the Government has used LAB as a shield to block all proposals and prevent Members from serious discussing policies . I think such an approach is highly regrettable
這是最大的問題。
That is the biggest question
否則，勞顧會對勞工界只是增添了一個關卡，令我們不能夠暢順地在議會內為勞工議政。
Otherwise LAB will only be an additional barrier to the labour sector preventing us from smoothly deliberating labour issues in the Legislative Council
根據建議的修訂，法院或勞審處亦可向不遵從復職或再次聘用命令的僱主頒令須向僱員支付一筆額外款項。
Under the proposed amendments the court or Labour Tribunal may also order the employer to pay a further sum to the employee in the event of non - compliance with the reinstatement or re - engagement order
僱主如果故意及無合理辯解而不支付該額外款項，即屬犯罪。
An employer who fails to pay the further sum wilfully and without reasonable excuse will commit an offence
主席，追溯歷史，《僱傭條例》內有關保障僱員因遭不合理解僱而獲得復職權利的條文，在1997年6月已生效。
President tracing the history of the Ordinance the provisions relating to the protection of employees entitlement to the right to reinstatement in the event of unreasonable dismissal came into effect in June 1997
然而，由於過去即使法庭判處僱主不合理解僱僱員，亦必須得到僱主同意，有關僱員才可獲復職，加上僱主拖欠罰款並非刑事罪行，故此過去確實很少被無理解僱的僱員能夠成功復職，保障可謂形同虛設。
Nevertheless given that in the past even if the employer was convicted by the court for unreasonable dismissal his consent was required for the reinstatement of the employee and non - payment of penalty on the part of the employer was not an offence hence employees who were unreasonably dismissed could seldom be reinstated . It can be said that the protection has existed only in name
針對這情況，政府及勞工顧問委員會遂提出修訂。
In order to address the situation the Government and the Labour Advisory Board LAB thus proposed to amend the Ordinance
回顧修訂《僱傭條例》的過程，可以用"一波三折"來形容。
Looking back on the course of amending the Ordinance it can be described as full of twists and turns
上屆立法會的法案委員會亦已完成有關的審議工作，但由於要按既定程序向勞顧會匯報，再由勞顧會內不同持份者諮商各自的勞方或資方團體，因而導致《2016年條例草案》無法趕及於上屆立法會會期完結前通過三讀，被迫宣告失效。
The Bills Committee of the last Legislative Council had also completed the relevant scrutiny . However since the matter had to be reported to LAB according to the established mechanism and different stakeholders in LAB would proceed to consult their respective employer or employee bodies the 2016 Bill could not pass through Third Reading before the prorogation of the last Legislative Council and was thus lapsed
其後，勞顧會經過5輪公眾諮詢，於2016年9月達成來之不易的共識，當局遂於2017年5月再度向立法會提交《條例草案》。
Subsequently a hard - won consensus was reached in LAB in September 2016 after five rounds of public consultation . The authorities then introduced the Bill to the Legislative Council again in May 2017
直至今天，《條例草案》終於可以正式進行二讀，可謂好事多磨。
Today the Bill can finally be read the Second time . It can be said that the Bill is preceded by trials and tribulations
張超雄議員的修正案破壞了勞資雙方在勞顧會及兩屆立法會法案委員會辛勤工作而爭取到的諮詢成果和共識，令人難以苟同。
Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendments have ruined the outcome and consensus of consultation that employer and employee representatives had strived for so industriously in both LAB and the respective Bills Committee of the two terms of the Legislative Council . We can hardly give our consent
張議員的行徑更導致《條例草案》被政府撤回，又再拖延接近4個月，完全罔顧"打工仔"的利益，可說是"好心做壞事"。
Dr CHEUNGs action had even caused the Bill to be withdrawn by the Government for further procrastination of about four months
勞顧會曾召開會議討論張超雄議員的修正案，惟不僅資方代表，就連勞方代表也拒絕展開談判。
LAB had convened a meeting to discuss Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendments; however not only the employer representatives but also the employee representatives refused to engage in discussion
一方面資方擔心修正案提出額外款項不設上限的建議會出現被濫用的情況，令僱主無法估計營商成本；另一方面，勞方代表亦表示，《僱傭條例》在勞顧會討論了近20年，幾經波折才能夠達成共識，得來不易，實應尊重勞顧會早前得出的共識。
On the one hand the employers worried that the proposal of removing the ceiling of the further might be abused such that employers would not be able to estimate the business costs; on the other hand the employee representatives also stated that the Ordinance had been discussed by LAB for almost 20 years and a consensus was only reached after many twists and turns . Such a hard - won consensus should be respected
主席，僱傭保障從來都不容易解決，要得到資方和勞方達成共識更是來之不易。
President employment protection is never an easy issue to solve . It is even hard to win a consensus between employers and employees
今次勞資雙方能夠在勞顧會達成共識，實在非常值得大家支持。
A consensus reached between both sides in LAB this time around should indeed be supported by us
因此，民主建港協進聯盟支持政府提出的《條例草案》，但不會支持由張超雄議員提出的修正案。
Hence the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong supports the Governments Bill but not Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendments
沒有無緣無故的愛，沒有無緣無故的恨，沒有無緣無故對勞工顧問委員會的批評。
One does not love without a reason; one does not hate without a reason; and one does not criticize the Labour Advisory Board LAB without a reason
我不會作出這方面的討論，而會直接表明我支持張超雄議員就《2017年僱傭條例草案》提出的修正案。
Instead of discussing this subject area I will directly say that I support the amendments on the Employment Amendment Bill 2017 the Bill proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG
張超雄議員建議法例列明僱主在聘用另一人代替某僱員的時候，須證明該僱員未有通知僱主希望復職。
Dr Fernando CHEUNG proposes that the provisions stipulate that the employer has to show that he engaged the replacement for the employee without having heard from the employee that the employee wished to be reinstated
另外，張議員還建議調高僱主須向僱員支付的額外款項，由僱員每月平均工資的3倍，增至平均工資的6倍，並且取消72,500元的上限。
Besides Dr CHEUNG also proposes to increase the further sum payable by the employer to the employee from three times to six times the employees average monthly wages and abolish the ceiling of 72,500
張超雄議員在文件的附錄3建議由賦權勞工處處長修訂有關款額，改為由立法會藉決議修訂，這3項修正案我都表示支持。
Dr CHEUNG also proposes in Appendix 3 of the document that the ceiling shall be amended by the Legislative Council by resolution instead of by the Commissioner for Labour . I support all of the three amendments
事實上，《條例草案》原訂於今年年初在立法會恢復二讀辯論，政府早前撤回《條例草案》，並且表示那是因為張超雄議員的修正案屬於重大修訂，內容偏離勞顧會所達成的共識。
In fact the Second Reading debate on the Bill was initially scheduled to resume in the Legislative Council at the beginning of this year . The Government withdrew the Bill earlier for the reason that Dr Fernando CHEUNG had proposed some major amendments which deviated from the consensus reached by LAB
如今《條例草案》原封不動交回立法會，而羅致光局長又很清楚表示，勞顧會仍然未就修正案達至任何共識，那為何當初政府要把原訂進行辯論的《條例草案》撤回？
However the Government has now resubmitted the Bill in its original form to the Legislative Council and Secretary Dr LAW Chi - kwong also stated very clearly that LAB had not reached any consensus on the amendments . So why did the Government withdraw the Bill which was scheduled for debate in the first place? . Obviously the Government had a skeleton in its closet
政府明顯是心裏有鬼，因為"三一一"補選，又因為政府明知《條例草案》敏感，涉及勞工權益，擔心《條例草案》的議決，會令建制派候選人尷尬而影響選情，所以，政府刻意撤回《條例草案》。
In view of the by - election on 11 March the Government understood that the Bill which concerned labour rights would be a sensitive subject . As the Government was worried that deliberation on the Bill would embarrass the pro - establishment candidate and affect his chances of winning it deliberately withdrew the Bill
這種政治先於勞工權益的考量，最令我氣憤，亦最令人遺憾。
The decision of putting political interests before labour rights makes me furious and that is most regrettable
喜歡的時候，要議員辯論；不喜歡的時候，便立即撤回，根本不尊重立法會。
If the Government wants Members to discuss a bill it will ask us to do so; otherwise it will immediately withdraw the bill . It simply shows no respect for the Legislative Council
如今補選已經完結，支持政府《條例草案》的議員亦佔大多數，政府想通過甚麼，也有足夠票數通過。
Now that the by - election is over and Members supporting the Bill introduced by the Government form the majority of the Legislative Council the Government can pass whatever bill it likes since it will secure an adequate number of votes
但是，我必須指出的是，張超雄議員的修正案，正是要維護工人的最大利益。
Nevertheless I must point out that Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendments precisely seek to protect the greatest interests of workers
所以，我想請一些經常表示與工人同行，維護工人利益的議員，認真考慮支持張超雄議員的修正案，不要再為虎作倀。
Thus I would like to urge Members who often say that they side with workers and protect their interests to seriously consider supporting Dr CHEUNGs amendments instead of holding a candle to the devil again
這次《僱傭條例》的修訂，目的是保障僱員，並賦權法庭或勞資審裁處就不合理及不合法的解僱個案，命令僱主再次聘用被解僱的僱員，或者作出強制復職。
The proposed amendments to the Employment Ordinance seek to protect employees and empower the court or Labour Tribunal to order the employer to re - engage or reinstate the employee in cases of unreasonable and unlawful dismissal
《僱傭條例》經修訂後，法院或 勞審處可以命令不尊重復職或再次聘用的命令的僱主向僱員支付一筆額外款項。
After the Ordinance has been amended the court or Labour Tribunal can order an employer who fails to comply with an order for reinstatement or re - engagement to pay the employee a further sum
但是，我必須指出的是，這筆額外款項，是基於僱主沒有按照法庭或勞審處的命令將僱員復職或再聘用時，方需要支付。
However I must point out that the further sum is only payable when the employer has failed to comply with an order for reinstatement or re - engagement made by the court or Labour Tribunal
我相信額外款項必須有足夠的阻嚇性，而《條例草案》只是將款項訂於僱員平均工資的3倍，我認為這個水平實在太低。
I believe the amount of the further sum should have a deterrent effect but the Bill only provides that the sum shall be three times the employees average monthly wages . I think such a level is too low
試想想，一位領取最低工資的全職僱員，一般只有七八千元工資，2萬多元的額外款項，便可以讓僱主繼續拖延遵守復職命令，而僱員亦只獲得3個月的工資，可維持3個月的生計。
For a full - time employee earning the minimum wage his monthly wage is generally only 7,000 to 8,000 . The further sum of 20,000 - plus will enable the employer to keep on deferring to comply with the order for reinstatement . The employee with a further sum of three times his average monthly wages can only maintain his livelihood for three months
因此，制定具阻嚇性的罰則是有必要的，而3個月工資的額外款項並不足夠。
Thus providing for a penalty with a deterrent effect is a must; and a further sum equivalent to three times the average monthly wages of the employee is not enough
另一方面，僱員在僱傭關係上，處於較弱勢的權力位置。
Besides the employee is in a weaker position of power in an employment relationship
面對不合理，甚至不合法的解僱，僱員往往需要更大的心力和氣力去討回公道。
Confronted with an unreasonable and even unlawful dismissal the employee has to make more effort both mentally and physically in fighting for justice
被解僱後，僱員要到勞審處或法庭奔波，要就僱主的不合理解僱提出證據，對於手停口停的"打工仔"來說，已經不容易。
After being dismissed the employee working hand to mouth will find difficult to attend the Labour Tribunal and the court on various occasions and provide evidence of unreasonable dismissal by the employer
當法院或者勞審處裁定他被不合理解僱，並向僱主發出復職或再次聘用的命令時，僱主仍然可以拒絕遵從指示，明顯對於整項《僱傭條例》、對法庭、對勞工權益非常不尊重，亟需嚴懲。
If the court or Labour Tribunal rules that the employee has been unreasonably dismissed and issues an order for reinstatement or re - engagement to the employer the employer can still refuse to comply with the order . If that is the case the employer who obviously shows no respect for the Ordinance the court and labour rights should be seriously punished
僱員所獲得的額外款項，只是盡量彌補他們在這段時間的損失，以應付生活的正常開支，是一項基本的補償。
The further sum given to the employee only serves as a basic award to compensate his loss during this period as far as possible and enable him to pay for the daily living expenditures
我再說一次，這只是一項很基本的補償。
Let me repeat that is only a basic compensation
因此，我支持張超雄議員調高額外款項的建議。
Thus I support Dr Fernando CHEUNGs proposal to increase the amount of the further sum
至於修訂有關款項的權力，由原屬勞工處處長，改為由立法會藉決議行使，我亦認為有一定合理性。
Regarding the proposal to empower the Legislative Council to amend the amount of the further sum by resolution instead of by the Commissioner for Labour I think it is also quite reasonable
過去政府處理調整這些款項等行政程序時，一直非常緩慢。
In the past the Government has been very slow in handling the administrative procedures of adjusting such amounts
勞工處處長亦並非民意代表，在修訂款項時，無從代表市民的意見。
Besides the Commissioner for Labour is not a representative of the people and so he cannot represent public opinion in revising the amount
反之，立法會雖然有一半議席由功能界別產生，而非由市民"一人一票"普選產生，但立法會決議的代表性，一直較勞工處處長為高。
On the contrary although half of the seats of the Legislative Council are returned from functional constituencies instead of by one person one vote a resolution of the Legislative Council will have higher representativeness than a decision of the Commissioner for Labour
所以，在修訂款項的時候，其正當性亦比勞工處處長為高。
Thus it is more appropriate to empower the Legislative Council instead of the Commissioner for Labour to amend the amount of the further sum
因此，我想不到有甚麼理由不支持張超雄議員的議案。
Therefore I cannot think of any reason not to support Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendment
代理主席，我的發言不會很長，我只想清楚表明，我雖然不熟識勞工議題，或者不熟識《僱傭條例》，但我很熟識的是，張超雄議員就這項《條例草案》動議修正案的初心和初衷。
Deputy President my speech will not be very long . I would only like to state clearly that although I do not know much about labour issues or the Ordinance I know very well the original intent of Dr Fernando CHEUNG in moving his amendments to the Bill
所以，我支持張超雄議員的修正案。
Thus I support Dr CHEUNGs amendments
工人究竟是否商品？
Are workers merchandise?
我們如何對待僱員？
How should we treat employees?
國際勞工的標準亦早已訂明，僱主解僱工人必須有充分合理的理由，並作出合理的賠償。
According to the International Labour Standards established long ago the employer must have reasonable grounds for dismissing the employee and the employer must also pay reasonable compensation
如果工人得到不公平的待遇和解僱，有獲得復職的權利及相關的賠償。
If the employee is unfairly treated and dismissed he has the right to be reinstated and receive compensation
有關規定是維護工人工作的尊嚴。
These requirements seek to protect the dignity of workers
我相信這些大原則沒有人反對，不論政府、民主派同事以至建制派同事，我相信沒有人敢表示反對。
I believe no one including the Government the democrats and pro - establishment Members will object to these major principles and no one dares to raise any objection
當局以另一些法例條文取代，即現時的《僱傭條例》第VIA部。
The authorities replaced Mr LEUNGs Bill with some other provisions which are currently contained in Part VIA of the Ordinance
現時要僱主批准才可執行復職令，這豈不是很荒謬？
At present consent of the employer is required before the order for reinstatement can be enforced
眾所周知，年初時政府突然撤回《條例草案》的二讀。
As we all know the Government suddenly withdrew the Bill scheduled for a debate on its Second Reading at the beginning of the year
表面上的理由是張超雄議員提出的修正案在勞工顧問委員會未有共識，亦構成一些問題，所以要撤回《條例草案》。
On the face of it the Government claimed that since no consensus had been reached on Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendments by LAB and his amendments had created some problems it had to withdraw the Bill
但是，明眼人也知道，我相信社會上絕大多數市民也看到，實際上是臨近立法會補選，這些"非法 攔截"和"不君子行為"，我們在球場上看過不少，在議會中也經常發生。
Nevertheless people with discerning eyes and I believe the majority of the public know the real reason . As the by - election of the Legislative Council was drawing near the unlawful interception and ungentlemanly acts which are common on football pitch could also be seen in the Legislative Council
現在事過境遷，再多說亦沒有意思，我反而想利用餘下的時間，解釋為何我們支持張超雄議員的修正案。
Now that the by - election was over it will be meaningless to talk about it . Instead I will use the remaining time to explain why we support Dr Fernando CHEUNGs amendments
第三，修訂額外款項的上限方式由"先訂立後審議"改為"先審議後訂立"。
The third proposal is that amendments to the ceiling of the further sum shall be enacted through positive vetting instead of negative vetting
坦白說，數項建議也很合理，同樣希望保障勞工階層的權利。
Frankly speaking these amendments are very reasonable and all of them seek to protect the rights of the working class
事實上，勞工界多年來一直爭取復職權。
In fact the labour sector has been fighting for the employees right of reinstatement for many years
方向一致的方案，為何會構成互相指罵？
How come a proposal based on a common direction has caused Members to rebuke one another?
最後，主席，今次的辯論究竟是否一面"照妖鏡"？
Finally President is this debate a demon detector?
是否照出政府的偽善、"政治大於民生"？
Has the debate revealed the hypocrisy of the Government and its intent to put politics before peoples livelihood?
又是否照出"議席大於工人權利"呢？
Has it revealed that the Government puts seats in the Legislative Council before workers rights?
我相信市民心中有數。
I believe members of the public have a clear picture in their mind
主席，投票結果會令到市民有目共睹。
President the voting results will be there for all to see
我的發言到此為止。
That is the end of my speech
代理主席，我感謝各位議員支持《2018年稅務條例草案》在今天恢復二讀辯論，讓本年度政府財政預算案所建議的稅收寬減措施可以盡快落實。
Deputy President I would like to thank various Members for supporting the resumption of the Second Reading of the Inland Revenue Amendment Bill 2018 the Bill today so as to expeditiously implement various tax concession measures proposed in the Budget this year
我特別多謝法案委員會主席黃定光議員及各委員審議《條例草案》。
I would like to particularly thank Mr WONG Ting - kwong Chairman of the Bills Committee and various members for scrutinizing the Bill
就年滿60歲或有資格按政府傷殘津貼計劃申索津貼的父母或祖父母，免稅額由每名46,000元增至50,000元；就年滿55歲但未滿60歲的父母或祖父母，免稅額由每名23,000元增至25,000元； d 提升父母或祖父母的長者住宿照顧開支的扣除上限，由每名92,000元增加至100,000元；及 e 增設傷殘人士免稅額，金額為75,000元。
For each parent or grandparent who is aged 60 or above or who is eligible to claim an allowance under the Governments Disability Allowance Scheme the allowance will be increased from 46,000 to 50,000; for each parent or grandparent who is aged 55 or above but below 60 the allowance will be increased from 23,000 to 25,000; d raising the deduction ceiling for elderly residential care expenses for each parent or grandparent from 92,000 to 100,000; and e introducing a new personal disability allowance of 75,000
上述各項稅務寬減措施合共會令政府每年的稅收減少64億3,000萬元。
The above tax concession measures will together reduce tax revenue by 6.43 billion each year
除了上述恆常措施外，《條例草案》亦訂明寬減2017-2018課稅年度75%的薪俸稅、個人入息課稅，以及利得稅，每宗個案以3萬元為上限。
Apart from the above mentioned regular measures the Bill also provides for a reduction of salaries tax tax under personal assessment and profits tax for the year of assessment 2017 - 2018 by 75 % subject to a ceiling of 30,000 per case
有關扣減會在納稅人該課稅年度的最終應繳稅款中反映。
The reduction will be reflected in taxpayers final tax payable for the year of assessment concerned
這 措施會令政府的收入減少255億元。
This measure will reduce tax revenue by 25.5 billion
我們希望以上措施能減輕納稅人的稅務負擔和分享經濟發展成果。
We hope that the above mentioned measures will help relieve the burden on taxpayers and share the fruits of our economic development