2006年12月WTO对中国香港特别行政区贸易政策审议 -主席总结发言(英文)
Concluding remarks by the Chairperson
The fifth Trade Policy Review of Hong Kong, China has given us a much better understanding of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s (HKSAR) trade policies and practices together with the challenges that it faces. I thank Miss Yvonne Choi and her delegation as well as the Discussant, Ambassador Mario Matus of Chile, and Members of the TPRB for contributing to our fruitful exchange of views. Hong Kong, China’s response to the large number of questions was also appreciated.
Members noted that the HKSAR continued to be one of the most open economies in the world and a business friendly place, while at the same time scoring high in relation to socio-economic benchmarks. Since the last Trade Policy Review, its economy has bounced back rapidly as a result, inter alia, of sound economic policies and a favourable external environment. Nevertheless, some Members noted that given the openness of the economy, risks are largely exogenous. Some Members noted strong indications of a stable growth outlook in the years ahead. To address tax revenue concerns, certain Members encouraged the authorities to broaden the tax base with a more general tax on consumption.
Members commended Hong Kong, China’s long established active and constructive role in the WTO and its positive contribution to the DDA negotiations. Members welcomed the HKSAR’s commitment to the primacy of the rules-based multilateral trading system; they also noted the benefits from and prospects under the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA)-driven liberalization marking the closer bilateral ties with the Mainland. CEPA enhanced the flow of goods, services, capitals and persons across the border.
Members appreciated the absence of trade restrictive measures, but noted that the scope of HKSAR’s tariff bindings remained low; they urged Hong Kong, China to expand bindings coverage in the context of the Doha Round of negotiations. Several Members expressed concern over the impact of the excise duties on imports, including those of wine. Certain Members indicated that although Hong Kong, China had liberalized its rice trade regime by eliminating the import quota in 2003, some control measures remained in place.
Members noted the HKSAR’s wide-ranging improvements in the protection of intellectual property rights, but welcomed further efforts in areas such as transparency, the legal framework as well as enforcement in, inter alia, production, street vending and transit of counterfeit goods.
Members noted the lack of a comprehensive competition policy law and commended recent initiatives for improving the situation in this area. Some Members encouraged Hong Kong, China to further open its government procurement system. Concerning environmental protection, a Member enquired about the HKSAR’s experience in implementing the “polluter pays” principle. Members noted that the HKSAR had become increasingly a services-oriented economy. Certain Members encouraged HKSAR to make GATS commitments in some specific sectors. They also acknowledged liberalization in the financial and telecommunications sectors and encouraged further opening efforts in several other services sectors.
This Review has been very useful in giving us all an overview of Hong Kong, China’s trade policies and practices and the challenges it faces. I would once again like to thank the Hong Kong, China delegation for their efforts, the Discussant for his insightful comments, and Members for contributing to what has been a very enlightening two days of discussions. We look forward to receiving the remaining outstanding responses within the next month.
The fifth Trade Policy Review of Hong Kong, China has given us a much better understanding of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’s (HKSAR) trade policies and practices together with the challenges that it faces. I thank Miss Yvonne Choi and her delegation as well as the Discussant, Ambassador Mario Matus of Chile, and Members of the TPRB for contributing to our fruitful exchange of views. Hong Kong, China’s response to the large number of questions was also appreciated.
Members noted that the HKSAR continued to be one of the most open economies in the world and a business friendly place, while at the same time scoring high in relation to socio-economic benchmarks. Since the last Trade Policy Review, its economy has bounced back rapidly as a result, inter alia, of sound economic policies and a favourable external environment. Nevertheless, some Members noted that given the openness of the economy, risks are largely exogenous. Some Members noted strong indications of a stable growth outlook in the years ahead. To address tax revenue concerns, certain Members encouraged the authorities to broaden the tax base with a more general tax on consumption.
Members commended Hong Kong, China’s long established active and constructive role in the WTO and its positive contribution to the DDA negotiations. Members welcomed the HKSAR’s commitment to the primacy of the rules-based multilateral trading system; they also noted the benefits from and prospects under the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA)-driven liberalization marking the closer bilateral ties with the Mainland. CEPA enhanced the flow of goods, services, capitals and persons across the border.
Members appreciated the absence of trade restrictive measures, but noted that the scope of HKSAR’s tariff bindings remained low; they urged Hong Kong, China to expand bindings coverage in the context of the Doha Round of negotiations. Several Members expressed concern over the impact of the excise duties on imports, including those of wine. Certain Members indicated that although Hong Kong, China had liberalized its rice trade regime by eliminating the import quota in 2003, some control measures remained in place.
Members noted the HKSAR’s wide-ranging improvements in the protection of intellectual property rights, but welcomed further efforts in areas such as transparency, the legal framework as well as enforcement in, inter alia, production, street vending and transit of counterfeit goods.
Members noted the lack of a comprehensive competition policy law and commended recent initiatives for improving the situation in this area. Some Members encouraged Hong Kong, China to further open its government procurement system. Concerning environmental protection, a Member enquired about the HKSAR’s experience in implementing the “polluter pays” principle. Members noted that the HKSAR had become increasingly a services-oriented economy. Certain Members encouraged HKSAR to make GATS commitments in some specific sectors. They also acknowledged liberalization in the financial and telecommunications sectors and encouraged further opening efforts in several other services sectors.
This Review has been very useful in giving us all an overview of Hong Kong, China’s trade policies and practices and the challenges it faces. I would once again like to thank the Hong Kong, China delegation for their efforts, the Discussant for his insightful comments, and Members for contributing to what has been a very enlightening two days of discussions. We look forward to receiving the remaining outstanding responses within the next month.
智能问答
