AL Plenary | Structure of Social Workers’ Professional Committee stirs doubts

Ng Kuok Cheong said that Hong Kong has a better accreditation system

A bill establishing new rules for the professional accreditation and registration of social workers was discussed and passed at the Legislative Assembly yesterday. The bill was passed despite the doubts posed by many lawmakers about the formation process for the “Social Worker Professional Committee” (CPAS). When established, the committee will be responsible for social workers’ accreditation and ultimately, for registering these workers with the Social Welfare Bureau (IAS).

Chan Iek Lap was the first lawmaker to voice an opinion regarding CPAS, saying that “the sector [social workers] will worry about the problem of professional independence. […] The sector is worried about having laymen to manage the experts [the committee will be formed by five members proposed by the government]. […] The regime also regulates the private sector, but does not regulate social workers within the scope of public departments. […] Some members of the public asked during the public consultation period if it [the regime] could also include public department’s social workers into this qualification?”

Chan believes the inclusion of medical professionals working in public departments into the civil service regime is inappropriate.

Ng Kuok Cheong used Hong Kong as an example when questioning the government about whether it is considering selecting more than half of the committee’s members based on the public’s opinion.

“Hong Kong’s social workers select representatives to participate in the committee, with more than half of the members of the committee being selected. This is a professional management, indeed a balanced responsible arrangement. It can improve their [the social workers’ and the public’s] confidence. […] Is the government open to this course?”

Sulu Sou pointed out that the regime “must be about professionals since you mentioned the word ‘professional’ more than ten times. Do you think this draft fully expresses a professional independence? Social workers are a little bit disappointed with CPAS. They have strong opinions about it. The majority of them hope to select more than half of the members for CPAS. […].”

The Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, Alexis Tam, when replying to the lawmakers, denied claims that CPAS does not represent social workers as it fairly as it should.

“The major purpose [of this regime] is to allow social workers to receive professional accreditation. […] I think [the regime] has good intentions. It goes against some of the lawmakers’ opinions. We pay importance to professional independence, and because of this we gave strong professional importance to them [the social workers]. Regarding CPAS, we are clear about the proportion [between the social workers’ committee members and other members]. 1.14 percent of all Macau’s social workers are [registered with] CPAS… [The CPAS equivalent in] Hong Kong has 15 members who are social workers, with the proportion being 0.07 percent.  Later, we will have eight members who are social workers,” said Alexis Tam.

After listening to Alexis Tam’s explanation, Au Kam Sam said that “CPAS must be the focus of this regime because CPAS holds the dominant rights [for the registration and accreditation regime]. You said that social workers are the majority [of CPAS], but you are deceiving yourself [by saying this]. The social workers sectors hope [the members] can be elected by the social workers.”

Agnes Lam then questioned the government representatives about whether there could be a review period for this regime and requested the schedule for the announcement of the working morality instructions for social workers.

Other lawmakers, including Pang Chuan and Song Pek Kei, were also among those who voiced doubts regarding CPAS’s formation.

Alexis Tam noted that CPAS will have two teams, one responsible for the accreditation and registration, and one responsible for disciplinary cases.

ON THE LAWMAKERS’ AGENDA

National Anthem Mak Soi Kun suggested that the government should speed up the establishment of the China Anthem laws and enhance the educational and propagandistic themes of the Chinese national anthem. “According to several residents, many associations play the anthem when organizing events. However, it is common to witness during these moments scenes where people are only concentrated on playing cellphones, cameras, or talking with other people and laughing. However, across many different countries and regions, playing the anthem is a very important thing, and even there, when friends are coming from all over the world they gather together, they act solemnly, respectfully and quietly to show their respect when listening to the anthem,” said Mak.

Mutual driving license recognition Sulu Sou expressed his doubts concerning the recent governmental proposal for the mutual recognition of driving licenses between mainland China and Macau. Sou condemned both the directors of the Transport Bureau and of the Macau Government Tourism Office for their comments on the proposal, saying that they showed no concern for the probable deterioration of the transportation situation in Macau once the proposal is enacted. “The residents, in general, are very worried about [the] mainland’s driving culture and its transportation law enforcement attitude,” said Sou, who also noted that some of the mainland’s typical driving aspects include “frequently honking, using long range lighting, changing lanes randomly and speeding up before zebra crossings.”

Rental law Vong Hin Fai suggested altering the city’s new rental law, specifically, clearly stating the legal consequences and punishment regarding non-notarized property rental contracts. The rental law, which was passed on August 10, will come into effect on February 17. The law dictates that a non-notarized property rental contract will be considered invalid. Vong did not agree with the current meaning of the law and suggested that more details should be added regarding the legal effect of a non-notarized property rental contract, “to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings when legal workers explain this article.”