I am shocked by the accusation that I am the person who betrayed the profession by meeting with the LINK on 14.12.2006. I am shocked by the accusation that I am the one who engages in ¡§secret¡¨ deals with the LINK. I am shocked not because it was reported in a newspaper on 15.12.2006, I am shocked because our regular meetings on estate clinic practice with the Housing Authority and then the LINK had been held for nearly half a century. If the accusation is true, all the past chairmen, presidents, council members of EDA and now HKDU had been betraying the profession for over 40 years. Is it true?
Yes, we have had close ties with the landlord of the public estate clinics since 1966. Yes, we have the right of allocation of public estate clinics by ballot system for over 30 years. Yet the right of allocation by ballot system of EDA, our predecessor, was not even written down in any book, regulation or bylaw of the Commercial Properties Division of the Housing Authority. We are given to understand that our ballot allocation right was a ¡¥gift¡¦ from the Government. We have to understand that we do not have many trump cards at hand for negotiation. We were totally defeated in 2000 when the right of allocation by ballot system was taken away from us overnight.
Members may wish to learn about the mechanism we work with the Housing Authority in the past. We have been negotiating all through these years on public estate clinic practice affairs over tables. Very often, we have been offered promises during the meetings before any black and white documentation, and luckily the landlord used to honor her promises and all the promises during such meetings have been fulfilled. This is the usual practice of EDA and now HKDU that the Council would follow in dealings with the Housing Authority and the LINK.
In the meeting on 8.8.2006 with the LINK (as reported in this bulletin and HKDU bulletin September 2006 edition), we have been promised that there would not be any major change in estate practice for at least 5 years after the establishment of the LINK and if there is any, full consultation and agreement between the LINK and the affected estate doctors is mandatory.
Before the press conference of 3.12.2006 (please find details on page xx of this Bulletin), HKDU was told that the LINK did not accede to the requests and demands from the affected estate doctors. After the press conference, we were told the other side of the story by the LINK. As medical doctors practising evidence based medicine, the Council wish to know further details from the affected estate doctors. As such, we gathered information from as many affected doctors in Choi Ming Estate, Hau Tak Estate, Kai Tin Estate, Lok Fu Estate, Ming Tak Estate, Tung Tau Estate, Tze Wan Shan Shopping Centre and Wong Tai Sin Commercial Centre as possible. And as such the Council took a vote on (1) whether the Council should meet with the LINK on 14.12.2006 as invited; and on (2) whether the Council should agree to join the march organised by Dr. Hon Kwok Ka Ki on the request of affected estate doctors. The results of the votes are loop sided with unanimous agreement to meet with the LINK on 14.12.2006 at 4:00 pm, half an hour after the march led by Dr. Hon Kwok Ka Ki and unanimous disagreement to join the march on 14.12.2006. The wish of the Council is crystal clear - we have to clarify things before further action.
The minutes of the meeting with the LINK on 14.12.2006 was reported on page xx of this bulletin for your information. During the meeting, we have been told again and again that the LINK would honor their promises on 8.8.2006 and there is always room for discussion and collaboration between the LINK and the affected estate doctors. Only through communication as in the past that we can settle disputes. I hope that by saying such, we can have the same degree of ties with the LINK and the Housing Authority in estate practice affairs in the future as in the past.
I do not want to further bother you on affairs affecting estate doctors managed by the LINK as there are many other non-estate doctors who also deserve our utmost attention. Recently, we are negotiating with the Chief Executive of the Hospital Authority for some of our members to claim back what they deserve when they were serving in the Hospital Authority. I strongly believe that we would try our best to protect the interests and rights of our members as Union leaders. Only when we fail in the end that we would agree on more drastic actions like marching in the streets that some of our Council Members have participated in the 1.7 marches and in the silent protest to show our support for public doctors over the issue of introduction of the two tier system in the Hospital Authority years ago.
For the safety of the Profession and Community at large, I did not mind the previous Director of Health ¡§thanking¡¨ me at 9:00 am on 17.3.2003 (Monday) for acting as spokesmen for the Department of Health by making the public known on 13.3.2003 (Thursday) at Commercial Radio Hong Kong that one of our Union members in private practice has contracted SARS (known as Atypical Pneumonia at that time) as a piece of speedy warning to the Profession of the early community spread of SARS. Equally, I do not mind colleagues naming me as spokesmen for LINK in this matter as long as the profession could be told the other side of the story.
Wishing you all a happy new year of 2007!
Dr. Yeung Chiu Fat Henry