Deep Dive delves into hot issues in Hong Kong and mainland China. Our easy-to-read articles provide context to grasp what’s happening, while our questions help you craft informed responses. Check sample answers at the end of the page.
News: Hong Kong makes swift U-turn on seat belt rule
-
City decides to suspend law requiring passengers to wear seat belts on buses five days after implementation
-
A passenger was trapped after a seat belt buckle became jammed, requiring rescue by firefighters
Hong Kong transport authorities announced they would suspend a controversial law requiring bus passengers to wear seat belts just five days after it went into effect.
The abrupt reversal decision came after strong public criticism and the revelation that the rule only covered new vehicles registered from late January.
Secretary for Transport and Logistics Mable Chan announced the U-turn on January 30, admitting that the legislation had “deficiencies”.
Chan added that the law failed to reflect the policy’s intended aim: to have passengers on public or private buses – including franchised and school services – wear seat belts where available.
She noted that the legislation was intended to extend mandatory seat belt rules, which had applied to private cars, taxis and minibuses, to all vehicles.
Chan added that the government would study ways to improve the law’s implementation, take public views gathered during this period into account and consult the Legislative Council. The law was repealed on Friday.
The government’s reversal followed comments by former lawmaker Doreen Kong Yuk-foon, a member of a subcommittee that scrutinised the proposed legislative amendment last year.
Kong said the law applied only to new buses registered from January 25, the day the seat belt rule took effect.
She said a government press release on January 8 had caused confusion by stating that passengers had to wear seat belts regardless of when the vehicles were newly registered. This contradicted the actual law.
Anyone convicted of breaching the law faced a maximum fine of HK$5,000 and up to three months’ imprisonment.
Chan said the administration would strengthen education on seat belt use to encourage the public to buckle up on buses for their own safety.
Residents had complained about poorly fitting restraints. There were also concerns that early unbuckling before alighting would breach the law.
A day before the law was reversed, a 40-year-old man was unable to unfasten his seat belt while preparing to get off a 795X service bus run by franchised operator Citybus. Firefighters and paramedics were called to the scene.
Citybus later said it had found a piece of aluminium foil lodged inside the belt’s buckle and suspected that someone had deliberately tampered with it.
Staff writers
Question prompts
1. Which of the following are false, according to the information in News?
(1) Hong Kong transport authorities said they would repeal a controversial law.
(2) According to the law, those who failed to buckle up on buses faced up to five months' imprisonment.
(3) Some Hongkongers were not in favour of the rule, citing difficulty alighting.
(4) Authorities decided to reverse the law because no one followed it.
A. (1), (2) only
B. (1), (4) only
C. (2), (3) only
D. (2), (4) only
2. List TWO reasons the Hong Kong government chose to repeal the seat belt law.
3. To what extent did you agree with the seat belt law, and will you buckle up on public buses even without a law in place? Explain using News, Glossary and your own knowledge.
Cartoon
Question prompts
1. Why might this commuter’s journey end up costing HK$2,009?
2. Why do you think seat belts were already required for passengers on minibuses, taxis and private cars, but not on trains or regular buses?
Issue: Failure on 2 fronts led to city’s seat belt repeal
-
Officials and lawmakers should put themselves in the public’s shoes when formulating policies, political analysts say
-
Experts call for more public participation
Hong Kong authorities’ swift U-turn on a law requiring bus passengers to wear seat belts was because of a lack of public consultation during policymaking and a less than thorough process for the regulatory fine print, political observers have said.
A failure on both fronts should be a wake-up call for officials and lawmakers to do better and put themselves in the public’s shoes when formulating policies, they added.
Veteran political analyst Lau Siu-kai pointed to a lack of diligence by both the government and legislators over the seat belt rules.
“You have to think about how a regulation can be enforced and if it is practicable for the general public to follow,” Lau said. “It is the responsibility of the government to think thoroughly about a policy before putting it forward to Legco, and not contract out the responsibility to lawmakers and expect them to proofread officials’ work.”
He also believed Beijing would expect lawmakers to say no to government policies if they were wrong.
“[Saying no] is not blocking the implementation of government policies, especially when the seat belt issue mainly concerns people’s welfare. A bad measure can affect public perception of and confidence in the government and Legco,” he added.
Emeritus Professor John Burns of the University of Hong Kong also said the fiasco had undermined the government’s credibility and public confidence. Burns added that the public backlash reflected inadequate consultation, while the government appeared out of touch, despite the measure being well intentioned.
Dr Hung Wing-lok of the Chinese University of Hong Kong agreed that the half-baked regulation was the result of a lack of public participation.
“Both the government and legislators underestimated the crowded conditions in Hong Kong, making it sometimes difficult to comply,” he said. “This concern could have been addressed in a public consultation.”
The seat belt regulation was one of three pieces of traffic-related legislation examined by legislators at a subcommittee meeting last September. The subcommittee gave the go-ahead to the three new regulations after a three-hour meeting.
Lillian Kwok Ling-lai, a former member of the Legislative Council, raised the issue of young children using adult three-point seat belts.
Former transport minister Anthony Cheung Bing-leung said there was no dispute that a compulsory seat belt rule was intended to safeguard passenger safety. However, the major controversies centred on whether seat belts were easy to use and whether the penalties were too stringent.
Cheung said the government could use this opportunity to consult the public again to review and fine-tune the seat belt rule and penalties.
Staff writers
Question prompts
1. Explain TWO reasons why the seat belt rule failed, based on the information in Issue.
2. Analyse ONE way the law’s repeal may affect the Hong Kong government, based on the information in Issue.
3. To what extent do you agree with Dr Hung Wing-lok that the law’s repeal was “the result of a lack of public participation”? Explain using News, Issue, Glossary and your own knowledge.
Photo
Question prompts
1. Explain what seems to have happened to these seat belts.
2. What are the challenges in enforcing a mandatory seat belt rule in the city, and what could authorities have done to make the law more acceptable to the public?
Glossary
franchised: a business model where a company or government gives formal permission, such as licences, for the selling of goods and services in a particular area
breaching: to not keep to an agreement or a promise; to break
alighting: to get off or out of a bus, train or other vehicle
tampered with: to make changes to something without permission, especially to damage it
welfare: the general health, happiness and safety of a person, an animal or a group
credibility: the quality that somebody or something has that makes people believe or trust them
three-point seat belts: a Y-shaped vehicle safety device designed to secure a driver or passenger against harmful movement during a sudden stop or collision. This type of seat belt goes across the chest and lap, but because children are generally smaller than adults, a standard-size three-point may not actually secure or protect them.
Sample answers
News
-
D
-
The Hong Kong government chose to repeal the seat belt law as it had “deficiencies” and caused confusion. This is because the legislation applied only to new buses registered from January 25, while an earlier government notice had suggested it applied to all buses. In addition, there were serious safety and public concerns, including an incident in which a passenger was trapped by a jammed seat belt buckle and required help from firefighters and paramedics, and complaints about poorly fitting seat belts.
-
I partly agreed with the seat belt law. The government's intention was reasonable because seat belts can reduce injuries in traffic accidents, and similar rules already apply to private cars, taxis and minibuses. According to News, the government wanted to extend existing seat belt rules to all buses to improve public safety. However, the law was unclear and misleading, as it only applied to newly registered buses. This caused confusion and led to people unintentionally breaching the law. There were also practical problems, such as poorly fitting seat belts and concerns that passengers would need to unbuckle early to alight in time. The incident where a passenger was trapped because the seat belt was possibly tampered with shows that safety risks were not fully considered. Even without a law in place, I would still buckle up on public buses when seat belts are available. Wearing a seat belt can reduce the risk of serious injury during sudden braking or accidents. Although the law was repealed, using a seat belt is still a responsible action to protect my own safety. (accept all reasonable answers)
Cartoon
-
The commuter’s journey might cost HK$2,009 because while the bus fare is only HK$9, the driver warns that a large fine will be issued if the passenger is caught not wearing a seat belt. The extra HK$2,000 represents the harsh penalty for violating the seat belt law.
-
Seat belts were required on minibuses, taxis and private cars because these vehicles usually travel at higher speeds, carry fewer passengers and already have individual seats fitted with seat belts. In an accident, passengers are more likely to be seriously injured without restraints. In contrast, trains and regular buses are designed for mass transport, often allowing for standing passengers and making frequent stops. It is less practical to require everyone to wear seat belts, especially when passengers are constantly boarding and alighting. Trains also run on fixed tracks and are generally considered safer, which reduces the perceived need for seat belts.
Issue
-
The seat belt rule failed because there was insufficient public consultation and participation, which meant the government did not fully understand public concerns, such as crowded conditions and practical difficulties in complying with the rule. The policymaking process was also not thorough, especially regarding enforcement and fine details, resulting in an impractical, poorly thought-out regulation.
-
The law’s suspension may undermine public confidence and the government’s credibility, as the sudden U-turn created the impression that the authorities were out of touch and had not carefully considered the policy before implementation, despite the measure being well intentioned.
-
I largely agree with Dr Hung Wing-lok. The repeal of the seat belt law resulted from a lack of public participation. According to experts in Issue, the government failed to consult the public adequately before introducing the regulation. Hung specifically noted that both officials and legislators underestimated how crowded conditions on buses would make it difficult for passengers to comply with the rule. This problem could have been identified earlier if the public had been given more opportunities to share their views. These issues suggest that the government did not fully consider how the law would work in real-life situations, such as when passengers are alighting or when seat belts are uncomfortable or unsafe. Also, the regulation suffered from poor drafting and insufficient scrutiny by both the government and legislators. Even with public consultation, unclear legal wording and too harsh penalties could still lead to policy failure. Overall, while the law was well intentioned in its aim to protect passenger safety, the lack of public input and consideration played a major role. (accept all reasonable answers)
Photo
-
It appears that some seat belts on a Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) double-decker in Ma On Shan were cut, a separate incident in which seat belts were once again deliberately tampered with.
-
Hong Kong buses are often crowded, with passengers frequently boarding and alighting, making it difficult for drivers or inspectors to check whether everyone is wearing a seat belt. This increases the risk of unintentional lawbreaking. There are also safety and design issues to consider, such as poorly fitting seat belts and potentially tampered-with seat belts and buckles. This raises the question of whether bus seat belts are safe and suitable for everyone. Authorities could have carried out broader public consultation before introducing the law, allowing passengers, bus operators and experts to raise concerns early. This would have helped policymakers better understand everyday commuting conditions.
