LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5477
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 9 January 2014
The Council continued to meet at half-past Two o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P. 5478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5479
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, J.P. 5480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5481
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (2.30 pm to 4.30 pm on 9 January 2014)
MS FLORENCE HUI HIU-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (from 4.30 pm on 9 January 2014)
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE EDDIE NG HAK-KIM, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
5482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council now resumes and continues with the motion debate on "Assisting young people in their development on all fronts".
ASSISTING YOUNG PEOPLE IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT ON ALL FRONTS
Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 8 January 2014
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Young people are the future pillars of society, but in the face of globalization and the rapid development of the neighbouring regions, our young people not only have to face many challenges during their growth, but also lack upward mobility opportunities, and their aspirations are particularly salient in respect of education, employment, housing, home acquisition and business start-up. Regrettably, there are still inadequacies in the Government's comprehensive support measures targeting young people in these aspects. We in the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) hope that the Chief Executive can, in his coming Policy Address to be delivered next Wednesday, put forward target-specific measures to assist young people in concentrating on their studies, developing career, and resolving their problems in housing and business start-up, which will be conducive to the future development of Hong Kong society.
The DAB has all along considered that it is necessary for the Government to draw up forward-looking policies on young people, with a view to resolving at root the problems faced by young people in education, employment, home acquisition, business start-up, and so on. My colleague, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, already expounded the views of the DAB yesterday, suggesting ways to assist young people to resolve their education and employment problems. Therefore, I would like to mainly explain our views on how we can assist young people in home acquisition, business start-up and actively participating in social affairs.
At present, many young people think that they lack upward mobility opportunities and so, they have grievances about society and taken a passive attitude of muddling along. A major reason for this is that property prices are high in Hong Kong. Although the Government has adopted some measures, a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5483 home acquisition ladder is still lacking for young people in general, thus making it difficult for young people to get married and pursue career development. They have also lost a sense of belonging towards society.
Therefore, the provision of a home acquisition ladder for young people will not only create the conditions for young people to get married and pursue career development, but will also enhance their sense of belonging towards society. Better still, it will make young people take up greater responsibilities, thereby changing their passive life attitude of muddling along.
The unemployment rate and the interest rate are both on the low side now. The biggest difficulty faced by young people in home acquisition is that they cannot afford the down payment required for buying a property and there is a lack of less expensive residential flats within the affordability of young people in society. In view of this, the DAB hopes that the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) can expeditiously implement the Youth Hostel Scheme in order to provide youth hostels at lower rent for young people to live in for a limited period of time. This can temporarily address the housing problem of young people and enable young people to save up money to pay for the down payment for home ownership in the future. The Government should also introduce the new Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) expeditiously while ensuring an annual housing production of not less than 5 000 new HOS flats and 20 000 private residential flats, in order to build an integrated home acquisition ladder for young people. In the meantime, the Government has to increase the provision of public rental housing (PRH) and comprehensively review the current eligibility criteria for PRH application, so as to draw up a more reasonable and fairer method for waiting for and allocation of PRH for young people who are financially less well-off and lacking the means to buy a property.
After talking about ways to assist young people in home acquisition, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest ways to assist young people in starting a business. In Hong Kong, there are many young people who are creative, enterprising and dynamic, and they hope to set up a business with their own efforts. However, these young people often face various problems, such as lacking the start-up capital as well as the knowledge and experience required for operating a business, thus inhibiting them from making the first step to start a business. Of course, all young business starters worldwide face the same problems. However, the governments of many big and midsized cities in the Mainland have drawn up many target-specific support measures to address the 5484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 problems faced by young business starters. For instance, granting collateral-free low-interest loans or revolving loans to young business starters, whose applications have been approved, as start-up capital. The education department has also worked jointly with the business sector to provide business start-up training for young business starters, so that they can obtain the knowledge and experience required for starting and operating a business.
These policies adopted by the Mainland Government to assist young people in starting a business are worthy of reference by the SAR Government. In this connection, the DAB hopes that the SAR Government can establish a start-up fund for young people, so as to provide start-up capital for young business starters who have business start-up plans but lack the capital, and also offer business start-up training programmes to provide necessary business start-up knowledge, thereby assisting young people who wish to start their own business in devising and implementing their business start-up plans.
I also wish to express our views on how young people can be encouraged to actively take part in social affairs. At present, young people in Hong Kong are faced with various difficulties and problems, but the SAR Government lacks foresight in drawing up the youth policies and has often adopted a stop-gap approach of "treating the head when the head aches and treating the foot when the foot hurts". Coupled with the lack of a platform for young people to take part in social affairs, there is no way for young people to participate in the formulation of government policies. As a result, young people are often driven to the extremes in that they are either indifferent to social affairs or they become radical and even take part in unlawful activities (The buzzer sounded) … in order to express their own aspirations.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, there was once an advertisement in support of the "post 80s" in opposing the Express Rail Link. It said that the new generation will surely win because time is on their side. This is indeed the law of nature. It is certain that the new generation will keep on taking over from the last generation the right to lead in society.
Assisting young people in their growth is not just a responsibility of their family, but also a need of society, because the new generation will certainly have to take up responsibility to ensure the continuous operation of society. But there are two directions: One is to cast the new generation in the same mould and make LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5485 them follow the paths with which we are familiar because this generation is afraid of changes. But this is definitely a wishful thinking. Why? We in this generation are the perpetrator, because the many technologies that we have invented or the mode of social development under our domination has changed the growth process of the new generation. For instance, information technology and computer can change the processing function and enhance the efficiency of a lot of processing work, but the use of such hardware has indeed led to changes in the way of living of the community.
Speaking of the ways that the new generation receives information in their childhood and their way of living, the virtual world in computers has gradually become their real world. So, when the growth and development process of the new generation is obviously different from that of ours, we cannot possibly expect the new generation to tread our old path. It might as well be better to let go of them, so that they can develop freely and pave a new path through their own creativity and exploration. However, they are set to run into troubles when taking a new path and there may be times when they fall down, because it is certain that their road ahead will not always be smooth sailing. Therefore, our responsibility is to provide more opportunities for them and allow them as much latitude as possible, so that they can have a comprehensive range of choices based on their characters and aptitudes.
We in this generation should, by all means, allow the new generation the opportunities to try. However, in respect of education, employment, and even courtship, marriage, settling down in life and even how young people can give back to society in work, the current systems in society are, in fact, most unfavourable to those awkward, freakish young people who like to challenge the system. Take home acquisition as an example. Why must home ownership be the long-term solution to the housing problem in this society? Why is it that living in rented flats cannot provide reassurance and a sense of security to people in this society? So, we must pay attention to whether the logic of the current social systems is reasonable.
President, two days ago, you attempted to answer some mathematics and inference questions for kindergarten students, and I saw on television that you, with frowning and puzzled eyes, could not even be able to answer them. But under the current education system, children aged three to six who failed to answer that question and failed to link up the fruits and the animals, could not 5486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 gain admission to primary one, and they would lose at the starting line. Is it our wish to see this mode of society continuously putting restrictions on the new generation in the systems and making them losers?
In this connection, of the many amendments proposed to the motion, I actually most agree to Mr Kenneth LEUNG's amendment, for it gives the new generation the greatest latitude. Having said that, I understand that from the perspective of parents, it is certainly their wish that young people will encounter fewer setbacks and fewer disappointments in their development process, and that things can be smoother for them in life. In this connection, I understand why Mr KWOK Wai-keung has put forward a total of 22 proposals in great detail. However, these 22 proposals are meant only to patch things up under the existing systems, and they are only meant to rectify the serious inadequacies of the existing systems. The new generation is still expected to conform to the current modes without giving them too much room for imagination. For example, it mentioned that if a student has obtained good results in this examination, he should pursue further education; if not, he should make a left turn and if he does not do well even in that examination, he should make a right turn, and so on, and so forth. These proposals are still following the current modes. However, the new generation may have other views. For instance, some young people may wish to resume farming and become farmers; some young people may wish to travel around the world and bring back to Hong Kong the cultures and customs of the outside world by writing books or engaging in photography. These minor patch-ups proposals to the systems on all fronts are, in fact, not conducive to the development of these young people who hold other views.
President, I have recently assisted a group of repeaters in the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE) who were not admitted to university. We have met with a number of tertiary institutions and during our discussions, we realized that many of the HKALE candidates did not know the considerations of universities in admitting students and so, they did not hand in their applications based on their examination results and interests, resulting in their applications being rejected. This case shows that when young people walk into the "maze" built by the adults and when we cannot provide them with a good map, they would be trapped inside, failing to find a way out or they will end up wasting a lot of time and efforts. This is how they are plunged into troubles by the adults who designed the existing social systems.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5487
Therefore, I must stress that disregarding whether it is due to students' own responsibility or problems in the social systems, we should provide young people with more other opportunities, so that even if they lag behind at one time, they still have a chance to catch up.
There are many young people who have the courage to challenge the system, they dare to be innovative and dare to challenge the established culture. An example is the Scholarism. Even though their arguments on the political system may not be sufficient and their strategic considerations may not be comprehensive, we should be happy to see that a group of youngsters in the new generation have the guts to challenge the system. We must not feel unhappy when we are being challenged. We must never be like the legendary Lord YE who professed his love of dragons but actually feared them.
In fact, society is ever evolving and progressing in the interactions between the two generations. We should have the breadth of mind to accept challenges from young people and we should accept their imaginative and innovative future, even though we in this generation may find it difficult to adapt to it. Thank you, President.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, this topic of discussion is meaningful. As we adults, including the bigwigs, the rich and successful people, discuss in this Chamber on how we can assist young people in their development, this reminds me of something which is very special.
The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has set up some youth committees comprising of successful people aged over 40 to 60 who will set directions for our young people. What is wrong with this system? For those young people from rich families who study in international schools or abroad and who do not have difficulties to gain admission to universities, they obviously do not need to turn to us; whereas for those who have problems, it turns out that our social policies cannot help them at all. The overall conditions in Hong Kong are the breeding ground for disappointment and failures, and young people have no hope at all. Why do I say so?
Some two or three decades ago, the Joint School Drama Association put on a very famous drama performance which the Secretary may also recall. The name of the drama is "One Sixth". At that time, the chance of going to 5488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 university was one sixth. The chance is a bit higher after two or three decades as it is now 18%, though it is still more or less the same as one sixth. But is university education the one and only one standard? Certainly not. Mr IP Kin-yuen, who is a teacher himself, put forward a lot of views on education in this Council yesterday.
I do remember that I read a book a few years ago written by a Taiwanese lady surnamed CHAN. Following her husband, she moved to live in Finland and her children all studied in Finland. The name of the book is《每個孩子都 是第一名》(Every Child is Number One), which is very interesting. It is, of course, impossible for us to adopt the Finnish system, as it is an extremely advanced country among the advanced countries. But basically they have only one principle and that is, they let their children find their own way. They hold that all jobs enjoy an equal status and university is not the only way to wealth.
What the SAR Government has been doing is all damaging to young people. If the Government thinks that the objective of the DSE is to enable young people to pursue university education, then it should let them all go to university. But sorry, this is not the case, for only 18% can go to university. Then, the institutions have introduced associate degree programmes which fall between two stools. Young people who graduated from these programmes cannot land a job. These programmes have not increased their salaries and worse still, as the graduates have higher demands and expectations, it turns out that when they are looking for a job, they are unfit for higher posts but unwilling to take up lower ones. They are like being stuck in the middle while owing debts of over $100,000 to some $200,000. When young people are not admitted to articulation programmes, they can only continue with their studies and take out more loans, only to find that they are going nowhere after completing their studies.
There are only few channels in society for them to pursue further studies. This is still alright because we are not suggesting that everyone must go to university in order to become successful. Many celebrities have not studied in university. Even the last Chief Executive, Donald TSANG, who is far from a good example, has not received university education. Many people started from the bottom and rose to the top through hard work. However, the entire education policy is meant to groom only those 10% or so students for university education. How much vocational education is provided? There used to be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5489 prevocational schools or technical institutes ― I am not referring to the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education (IVE) ― which provided young people with more choices of development, but they do not exist anymore now. We are only pushing the students to go to university and if they cannot be admitted to university, we make them study associate degree courses or articulation programmes, and so on, and so forth which do not promise them with any future.
Certainly, I do not wish to talk about property prices or starting a business, for this is just a waste of efforts. Even the only places where young people can start their own business, namely, Fo Tan and Kowloon East, have now been used for developing hotels and Grade A offices following changes in government policies, and they have, therefore, been driven away. Where else can they start a business? What business can they start? It is even worse to lend them money, for they will only lose the capital altogether and have some $200,000 added to their debt. President, the entire society is sick. We are unable to open up a path for young people. We should not wait until they fail to gain entry to university to tell them that they should not have taken this path. Should they be provided with more or sufficient vision when they are in primary and secondary school? Also, society should not put all the stakes on university graduates.
We have recently found that there is a shortage of pilots and that no one wishes to join the maritime industry, and so on. What goes around comes around. Why? Because there is only one path. The "3-3-4" academic structure reform is precisely telling us that this is the way to go to university. This is certainly the right way for many middle-class people or university graduates. As they have received university education, their children should naturally follow their path. But this is not the case for the grass-roots people, for what they need is some down-to-earth directions of life. This is why the IVE has a bunch of losers now and many of the students have learning difficulties or problems. Had they not been driven to take this path, they would not have been plunged into such a sorrowful state. Just talk to those who teach in the IVE and we will know how miserable they are. They have admitted the losers of the whole society, including students with learning difficulties and attention deficiency who have not received adequate medical assessment and treatment. How come we have such a situation? Now that the IVE has gone even crazier in saying that they would offer degree courses. All tertiary institutions offer associate degree programmes and master degree programmes. Are these programmes provided for the sake of students? They are provided only for 5490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 money sake, because education services have now become an industry which is most suitable for making money. Have we not seen the outrageous cases in connection with the Community College of Lingnan University?
What has the Education Bureau done? What about the education reforms? If we are to provide young people with another path for development in sports, the Home Affairs Bureau responsible for sports matters would be wasting their efforts as everyone just focuses on scoring high marks in the DSE and who will care to exercise? What venues are there for them to exercise? We asked the Bureau to open up schools for students to do physical exercise after school and on Saturdays or Sundays, but it has failed to achieve anything. President, I think it is very often a waste of efforts for us to speak here. But anyway, I hope that the two Directors of Bureaux will really discuss with other Policy Bureaux. We are doing a disservice to our young people.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan moves a motion on "Assisting young people in their development on all fronts" to discuss issues and policies on young people. In this connection, one should primarily have a young mindset and an attitude which is open, diversified and creative. Hence, today, I will not put forth any incisive policy. On the contrary, I hope to change the mindset of Members slightly, and if I can somewhat enlighten Members to think differently, I will be more than happy.
Be it the Government, Members, helpers, service providers or parents, they should first break away from the traditional, outmoded and parental mindsets. In other words, I should not be the one telling you what is good and correct, or making all the preparations and arrangements to pave the way for you to follow. This one-way, narrow-minded and authoritarian mindset is no longer suitable for young people today. The phrase "on all fronts" is mentioned in the title of the motion, but this mindset about "on all fronts" is already wrong. As far as creativity is concerned, the concept of "on all fronts" is not correct, as we cannot possibly have an exhaustive list, covering all the policies to help young people. We can only say to provide assistance as far as practicable.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5491
I remember a student whom I had tutored. He once wrote an article titled "My Ambition". His ambition was to be a tram driver. His teacher had, after reading his article, scolded him for not having a high ambition and even contacted his parent to discuss his problem. He was scolded by his parents at home and was ridiculed in front of his relatives. Had it not been said that all jobs enjoy an equal status? Postmen and street cleaners have both contributed to society, is that right? But this is not the case in reality. Parents do not think this way. They want their children to study in university, become professionals, get a good job, buy a flat, earn more money, get married and have children, start a business and be the boss. Today, many parents still have this mindset. When the Government assesses its success in youth policies and youth affairs, it also uses indicators such as academic qualifications, percentage of students attending universities, employment rate and monthly salary, and so on. There is nothing wrong with this. Yet I have to ask another question: Are young people in Hong Kong happy? Do they find what they are doing meaningful?
I listened to Secretary TSANG Tak-sing's speech yesterday. His remark is correct. He said that young people should be instilled with positive values, so that they could have an all-round and healthy development, both mentally and physically. The most striking measure is the provision of subsidy to uniformed groups. The authorities will offer subsidy to more than 10 uniformed groups each year. The subsidy for the year 2013-2014 will be as high as $54 million, benefiting a total of 130 000 young people. As I read through the speech again, I notice that it is applicable to the situation 10, 20 or 30 years ago. However, if a measure is applicable at any period of time, it may not be too applicable. Such kind of platitude and parental talk is merely urging people to be volunteers. I am a typical example. I have been "super good" before I reached 30. My conduct, not my academic result, was excellent. I had been a prefect and a class monitor. I only become bad after I turned 30. I am not talking about engaging in wicked deeds like theft, rape or plunder, only that I have learned not to follow the establishment or the norm blindly. I used to be a boy scout, but now I will not encourage people to join the Scout, as it is a kind of pro-establishment extra-curricular activity. Boy scouts are taught to observe the discipline, stand still and do not act recklessly, which is diametrically different from the action of pushing mills barriers.
Against this background, the amendments put forth by many Members, in particular the amendment of Mr CHAN Kin-por, have such kind of parental mindset. I am not trying to judge right and wrong, I only want to bring forth the 5492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 argument. "Encourage them to occupy themselves with wholesome activities or hobbies and avoid over-indulging in the virtual network, and teach them to stay away from drugs." In discussing what is meant by positive and wholesome activities, apart from the wicked deeds like theft, rape and plunder which I mentioned earlier, it is hard to give a definition. Your definition of wholesome may be different from mine. The Secretary encourages the public to be volunteers. If so, is it wholesome to be a volunteer of the People Power? Is it wholesome to be a volunteer of the Scholarism? If it is, why members from the Scholarism are blocked by the police when they submit petition to the Chief Executive? Are the authorities not encouraging young people to have a diversified and creative mindset? What if young people take part in social movements and democratic movements, or even the Occupy Central Movement to pursue universal suffrage? In your world, all these activities are not wholesome and should not be encouraged.
Regarding the provision of assistance in respect of home purchase, business start-up or studying, I have much reservation. Certainly, it is good to deploy resources to help young people. But as I said in the past about home purchase loans, the Government dared not offer home starter loans now. With the provision of a loan, people who dared not buy a flat would get the hot potato and bought a flat. Some people may be hesitant about home purchase, but since the Government lends the money to them, they thus purchase a flat and since then, they have been trapped. No matter how bad their employers are, they cannot change jobs. This is the same case for business starters. Everyone wants to open their own shops and companies, but nine out of 10 business starters will end in failure and get into heavy debts.
The SAR Government encourages creativity, and let me cite a typical example. I have been teaching in The Open University of Hong Kong. Some students indicate that it will be desirable to have more television stations in future. They will enrol in DJ courses, as well as television and video production courses. Some ambitious students even say that they will go to Taiwan to attend some courses. As there are many television stations in Taiwan, the universities there offer a wide range of production courses. But unexpectedly, the Government refused to grant a television licence. For those students who are now studying the relevant courses in Taiwan, they say to me: "Slow-beat Sir, you must strive for the establishment of the television station, otherwise I cannot find a job when I come back after graduation." It is evident that the Government is not practising what it peaches. It seems that the Government is offering help by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5493 proposing the setting up of an Innovation and Technology Bureau, the Innovation and Technology Fund and the film development fund, and so on, but the policies formulated and the bureaucratic mindset have run contrary to these measures.
Finally, I would like to talk about upward mobility mentioned by many Members, that is, the provision of assistance for young people to move up the social ladder. However, do Members know that young people nowadays have no desire to move upward, and they want to move downward instead? Today, I read an article about how a young man of the "post-80s" generation has given up his career in order to be eligible for public rental housing (PRH). He has no intent to find a good job; he only wants to get a job that offers a salary that is just enough for him to make ends meet and will not exceed the income limit for PRH. As for some couples, one of them will rather quit the job and the other one will ask his or her employer to cut his or her salary or find another job with a lower pay. The young man is capable of getting a better job, but he considers getting a PRH unit more important for the time being, for he can find another better job in future. This is a distorted situation. Young people do not give full play to their talents to get the best job but instead settle for a less desirable one. In the few years when they should be making all-out efforts to establish their career, they choose to quit the job simply to be eligible for PRH. PRH is meant to help the grassroots. People who should be in the middle-class are now at the grass-roots level, or pretending to be the grassroots. All these are serious problems in society. Hence, when we discuss the policies for young people, we cannot single out this issue.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, first, I would like to thank Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for proposing this motion today. Young people are the future pillars of society. Regrettably and unfortunately, we notice today that many young people have become the group who are most worried about the future and have the least confidence in future development. Some time ago, according to a survey on the happiness index and views on future prospect of young people, over 60% of the respondents considered their lives in Hong Kong unhappy and 47% of the respondents were pessimistic about their prospect. As for the reasons, they are mostly related to the lack of social ladder and opportunities for upward mobility, the depreciation of the value of university degrees, the lack of opportunities to demonstrate their strengths and the heavy pressure on their livelihood, and so on.
5494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
The worries of young people are not unfounded. In fact, behind the prosperity of Hong Kong, we have various problems, such as the homogenous nature of our industrial structure, the lack of diversified prospects for young people, and the restrictive areas of success in the financial and real estate industries, and professionals such as doctors or lawyers. In the face of the homogenous and crowded path to success, young people will easily develop negative emotions. Hence, we consider it necessary to provide additional support to young people on various fronts.
First, in the area of education. Many colleagues in the Chamber have urged the authorities to increase the number of subsidized places in tertiary institutions, so as to meet the demand for tertiary education of students who meet the university entrance requirement. Some amendments have also mentioned this point. I agree with this point, and we had urged the Government time and again to implement the relevant policies in this Chamber in the past. Take last year's Diploma of Secondary Education Examination as an example. Over 28 000 candidates were qualified for university entrance, but the number of subsidized places maintained at 15 000 over a dozen of years. In other words, half of the qualified candidates will be rejected by universities, and the overall percentage for further studies is less than 20%. As Hong Kong is an advanced cosmopolitan city, we should make greater commitment in nurturing talents.
Meanwhile, the authorities should make some changes to the existing student loan scheme. The authorities should set up a loan scheme for capable students with financial difficulties to take up undergraduate courses in places outside Hong Kong so as to broaden their horizons. The scheme can also help to nurture talents with good knowledge in various places for Hong Kong. Students studying in the Mainland or Taiwan should be allowed to get loans. Moreover, with the economic development in the Greater China, there is increasing need for us to have talents who understand the situations in the Mainland. Hence, I hope that the authorities will carry out such reform seriously.
In respect of employment, many people criticize the younger generation of Hong Kong for lacking competitiveness. With globalization and the emergence of China, the opportunities for upward mobility have decreased rather than increased. Young people cannot find a job that meets their expectations; they have to work excessively long hours, their salary increase rate can hardly offset inflation and they have limited opportunities for promotion. As a result, some people have become negative, or they will blame the Government and their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5495 employers, by and by, an antagonistic and confronting attitude is formed. In actuality, it is understandable that young people have such worries and aspirations. As I have emphasized repeatedly in the past, the authorities must deal with the vicious cycle of our industrial structure and education programmes being homogenous, so as to give students more choices in choosing academic discipline and employment prospect.
Not long ago, the previous-term Government had been ambitious in developing the six industries which Hong Kong enjoyed a clear advantage. Regrettably, over the years, the industrial policies had remained fragmentary and patchy, or even comparable to drawing cakes to allay hunger. Take the policy on cultural industry as an example. Over the years, the Government had set up the Create Hong Kong, the Film Commission, the Hong Kong Design Centre and the Comix Home Base, and so on. All these bodies have been working with limited scope and resources. We fail to see a comprehensive industrial policy, under which proper and effective support are provided in terms of manpower, financial resources and policies. Young people who intend to join various industries have been baffled by these piecemeal, fragmentary and small scale supporting policies.
President, for people in our generation who are relatively older, even if we failed to get good academic results, our parents would usually encourage us by saying that "every trade has its master", and if we work hard, we could still acquire our own homes and support a family. However, for this generation, parents start pressing their children since birth, telling them that they should take business study and engage in the finance or real estate industries after graduation. Over time, young people are cast in the same mould. They become soulless and take up jobs that are recognized by society instead of those which allow them to give full play to their strengths and are suitable for them.
I recall that last year, there was a media report about an academically outstanding student who gave up a high-paid job in an accounting firm and be a bus driver. At that time, many people praised the young man for his courage to pursue his dream. But, honestly, how many young people or their parents are willing to take such kind of risk? I know many young people who are interested in or have potentials in sports and arts and culture. However, under the influence of social atmosphere, they have given up their dreams to engage in other trades with good prospect. I think the authorities should take the lead to break away from the old mindset. Apart from promoting the financial industry, 5496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 the service industry and professionals in general, the authorities should also promote different job types and encourage young people to choose their occupation according to their strengths.
President, another important concern is about integrity. We hope to nurture our next generation to be young people with integrity, talents and contribution. According to the traditional mindset of Chinese, "integrity" is more important than "talents". But time has changed. Nowadays, many parents as well as schools are only concerned about academic results, and they will focus on nurturing the competitiveness of their children or students to the neglect of moral education. As time passes, the new generation will become an examination machine. They do not know how to get along with people, they do not know how to face adversities, they lack a sense of responsibility and they are lackluster towards society and people. Hence, they are often criticized for having "high scores but low competence". It is the responsibility of schools, parents and society to support young people, and help them develop correct values and healthy personality. Take the military life experience camp for university students which I had taken part in organizing as an example. It is hoped that by means of military training, we can train the willpower, broaden the horizons and mould the personality of young people. Regrettably, the Government has not offered any subsidy for such event.
President, I believe that each and every young man or woman is an independent entity, and society should offer them suitable nurturing and opportunities to develop correct values and different interests, and to give full play to their strengths. As for the Government, in addition to the strengthening "career and life planning", it is more important that it will establish diversified industrial development, so that young people may have the opportunities to bring their strengths into full play and practice what they have learnt.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
MS CLAUDIA MO: While talking about this grand topic of helping our young on all fronts, I do wonder, seriously wonder, how many people in this Council would actually think of our ethnic minority young? They are just as Hong Kong as any of us. For many of them, their families have been here for generations, a hundred years, three consecutive generations. We all care about how many of our students can get into universities, but how many of us are caring about how LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5497 many ethnic minority students can get into our local universities? Could not care less, right? They are somehow foreign, right?
I was not going to speak on this particular motion. I thought it was going to be all hullabaloo. You can talk all the sweet talk. It is all phony. If we do not work on any of the policies suggested, or seriously consider what the Members of this Council have to say, then forget it. Stop wasting time.
Our ethnic minority young face a lot of inequalities. Let us be honest about it. In many cases, they face unfairness, even injustices. I was very upset yesterday when I came across this apparently exclusive report in the Ming Pao. The headline says ethnic minorities fight for having Chinese taught as a second language, but sources say the Government would only set up career Chinese training. Excuse me, what is it about?
President, I actually talked with the Secretary for Education not too long ago about this ethnic minority demand on the language front. We all learn English, supposedly, at least as a second language. It is a complete failure on that front too, but I have no time for that today. Never mind. But then, why should ethnic minorities not learn Chinese properly as a second language?
I hope the Secretary for Education would say it is a misunderstanding, the report is not quite right, it has quoted the wrong sources. Apparently, Secretary, you or your representative have been telling the ethnic minority community that within the framework of Chinese as a second language ― I hope it is a policy ― you would be doing a bit more, including strengthening assistance to our ethnic minority students who are learning Chinese and you would be setting up assessment mechanisms. I do not know what assistance you provide at the moment, but well, I thought that is good news. Also, you said you would be subventing local teachers who are willing to get more professional training to become teachers who would be teaching Chinese as a second language.
Those are all good news. But, no, as the news report says first of all, all of the above are not sure. It is not clear if they have been included in the policy paper. Secondly, sources say as of now, the Government would only do one thing, and that is, to set up career Chinese training programmes. Excuse me? Another year of studies, consultation, consideration? If that is really the case, how could you?
5498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
I know many people would say alright, if we are not teaching ethnic minority students Chinese good enough, let us do better, let us teach better, that is all. That is indifference, and indifference is the worst form of discrimination. They are an excluded group of people. They are very different. We have special measures for them. With regard to ethnic differences, how do we answer to not just questions, but accusations like that?
After completing their secondary education, all of our ethnic minority students should supposedly have learnt quite a bit of Chinese, but they know their Chinese level could be as low as Primary Two or Primary One. Secretary, I know you of course have a lot to do, and I am not putting any personal blame on you. However, we cannot drag on and on like this. You told me there should be good news and I would be happy if I can hear that by the middle of January. If this report in yesterday's Ming Pao is real, I would practically accuse you of lying, and this is just not right. Nowadays, every Member in this Council keeps talking about the need for fair starting lines for our young, but our ethnic minority students do not even have a starting line.
Thank you.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, with the gaining of knowledge and accumulation of experience, young people can, after they have grown up, provide productivity momentum to the sustainable development of society. Therefore, they will become future pillars of society. As ageing is gathering pace in Hong Kong society, young people will have to take up increasing commitment in the future. After a period of growth, Hong Kong is now faced with the challenge of diminishing competitiveness. There is indeed an urgent need for a discussion to be held today on ways to assist the sustainable development of support for society in the future.
The development ladder for young people begins with basic education. Upon the completion of secondary education, they usually have to choose between pursuing further studies in tertiary institutions or employment. Later, when they join the community and begin their professional career, they will have to upgrade their vocational skills and technique, or even start their own business. Next, they will get married and have their own families. The development of young people involves education, employment, housing and home acquisition, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5499 and business start-up problems. Regarding these four aspects, this Council should not only show concern, but also act as a facilitator to offer assistance to young people on all fronts.
When it comes to assisting young people in their development on all fronts, the Government plays a leading role in formulating appropriate youth policies and measures to encourage and support concerted efforts made by society as a whole, including parents, schools, youth groups, voluntary organizations and business corporations, with a view to achieving the future goals of society. Education is most vital to the development of young people, for schools can nurture the moral, intellectual, physical, social and aesthetic development of students with the same degree of emphasis. In addition to learning in schools and the development of relevant interests, the Government is obligated to encourage young people to have a better understanding of society, countries and races, broaden their international outlook, and enable them to have a proper preliminary idea of occupation through, for instance, volunteer activities, services provided by uniformed groups, and visits to social enterprises, with a view to getting a more comprehensive and real picture of society to prepare them to join the job market. The financial institution I am working with will organize visits and exchange activities for secondary students from time to time, so as to give them a better idea of Hong Kong's financial development and give them an opportunity to talk to front-line bank staff to learn more about their professional career and the operation of banks. Meanwhile, the Government should also provide more post-secondary places to provide more opportunities for students to receive higher education.
Insofar as employment is concerned, according to the information provided by the Census and Statistics Department, the overall unemployment rate in the third quarter this year stood at 3.3%, meaning that there were abundant job openings. However, the unemployment rate of young people in the age group between 15 and 19 was as high as 14.9%, and if underemployed young people are factored into the computation, the unemployment rate would exceed 17%. Even the unemployment rate of young people aged between 20 and 24 has remained at 8% or above for a long period. It seems that young people with relatively low academic qualifications, little or no work experience can hardly join the labour market. The situation, if not ameliorated promptly, will bring many social problems.
5500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Currently, President, support of different degrees is being provided by the Government, voluntary organizations, charity organizations and business corporations to assist the development of young people. This direction is right. As regards the issue of intergenerational poverty, the Legislative Council has approved a funding of $300 million to the SAR Government for the implementation of the Child Development Fund (CDF) to combine resources from society and the business sector to provide support for the long-term development of young people from a disadvantaged background. The CDF projects have three key components, namely targeted savings, mentorship programme and personal development plan, which seek to help children enhance their ability in resource management and planning for the future, with a view to lifting them out of poverty to facilitate their employment in the long run. In addition, in respect of helping young people upgrade their knowledge and skills, realize their potential and integrate into society, the YPTP & YWETS, the Youth Training Programme and the Traineeship Scheme launched by the Labour Department, the Employees Retraining Board and the Vocational Training Council respectively have, to a certain extent, served a positive facilitating purpose.
Certainly, assisting young people in their development on all fronts is a mammoth project, which requires collaboration between the Government, the business and people to inject enormous resources and strength. Moreover, there is still room for enhancement in various areas such as the means, methods, skills, and measures. As key players, young people must nurture their confidence, establish positive values and attitude to life, and strive to become the real masters of society in the future.
President, I so submit.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, over the past couple of years, I have been invited by some schools and youth organizations every now and then to share and exchange experience with young people. Sometimes, I would ask them about their future plans and ambitions, but unfortunately, the answers I usually got were either "I have no idea" or "I have not thought about it".
In my opinion, this is not a good sign. First of all, young people without a clear direction and goal about their future or development will have a deep sense of insecurity and anxiety. Their mental stress is thus crystal clear. Insofar as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5501 society is concerned, the failure of young people to exploit their strengths will push up their unemployment rate, thereby wasting the social resources put into them as well as the manpower and resources of society.
In 2012, I proposed a motion on the "four concerns" of young people, urging the Government to concentrate efforts on the formulation of policies in four areas to help young people, namely education, employment, housing, home acquisition and business start-up. Certainly, I understand that the Government's efforts in assisting young people cannot bear fruit in a matter of one year or two. I can also see that since the commencement of the new term of Government, the Government has made a lot of efforts in housing, home acquisition and business start-up, though it has failed to come up with new ideas to assist young people in the other two areas, namely education and employment. One of the highlights of the motion proposed by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan today, namely "career and life planning", precisely touches on my concern in these two areas.
Quite a number of parents in Hong Kong have a biased view that only students who do not do well in school will have to acquire vocational skills. Such a concept is, however, outdated. Why would parents in Hong Kong, being one of the advanced cities in the world, still think in such a conservative manner? This is really puzzling. I think one of the reasons is the education system in Hong Kong. For instance, according to the New Senior Secondary Curriculum, Applied Learning is not a compulsory course. Whether students can graduate depend mainly on the results of their core subjects. As a result, students spend most of their time on core subjects such as Chinese, English and Mathematics. Such being the case, what is the difference between the present situation and that before the implementation of the reform?
Although the so-called Other Learning Experiences (OLE) appear to allow flexibility for students to try different things, as well as learning other knowledge in various domains, the objective and focus of the course is too fragmented. If the Secretary hopes to achieve the objective of killing five birds with one stone, I am afraid his ammunition will only be wasted eventually without hitting a single bird.
Such being the case, I think that the Education Bureau and the Labour and Welfare Bureau should continue to review and study the feasibility of enabling secondary students to have more contacts with the real world outside school as well as the job market. Specifically, can the Government give a boost to 5502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 enterprises and organizations in all trades and industries to provide placement opportunities for students? Doing so can not only benefit the students, enterprises can also achieve the dual purpose of fulfilling their social responsibility as well as paying back to society.
My proposal has actually been put into implementation in western countries for a long time. One of the requirements set out in the curriculum contents for secondary schools called "CAPP" in British Columbia in Canada is that students must accumulate at least 30 hours of working experience during the last two years of their secondary education before they can graduate. It is stated clearly and specifically in the requirement that working experience does not refer to experiences other than learning. Under the "CAPP", each secondary school has a designated person responsible for liaising with organizations and companies and, in the light of the interests of the students, recommending them to voluntary placement. Although the placement is voluntary in nature, the students still have to go through a formal recruitment process (including filling out curriculum vitae forms and attending interviews) and, like everyone else, they will be scolded by their superiors if they are at fault, as if they are really in a workplace.
In order to "assist young people in understanding their interests, aspirations and ability", as proposed in the original motion, everything must be so real. As it appears that the OLE is unable to achieve such effect, I think the Secretary should allocate more resources and conduct studies to examine if further improvements can be made.
On the other hand, students wishing to pursue further studies are facing a lot of difficulties, with the biggest difficulty being inadequate university places and exorbitant tuition fees. Hence, I urge the Secretary to provide more places under the Self-financing Post-secondary Scholarship Scheme to encourage more aspiring students to strive for better results, so that they can make further progress in their studies.
Meanwhile, it is imperative for the Government to provide more publicly-funded sub-degree top-up places to enable more sub-degree graduates to articulate to in publicly-funded degree programmes, and enhance arrangements under the Student Finance Assistance Scheme to enable local grants, loans and financial assistance to be applicable to universities on the Mainland. This will provide students with more study pathways and enable them to complete their degree programmes smoothly. As regards student loans, I suggest that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5503
Government allows students to start repaying their loans one year after graduation, with a view to alleviating the financial burden on graduates.
President, in the words of Confucius, "A youth is to be regarded with respect. How do we know that his future will not be equal to our present?"1 Given the foresight of ancient people, there is no reason for us to slack off. In order to assist young people, the Government must not act like a "Tiger Mom" in restraining them. On the contrary, it should create an environment conducive to the development of young people. Indeed, it is incumbent upon the Government to give young people a helping hand when they begin to stand on their feet. I also hope that it will continue to launch youth policies and pay attention to the four problems faced by young people in education, employment, housing, home acquisition and business start-up.
I so submit.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Building a society without walls should be the general direction of social development. However, there appears to be no way out for young people nowadays. There are walls in every direction blocking their path to improvement. In respect of housing, young people are not allocated public housing. They fail to find a shelter and have even greater difficulties in purchasing private property. In respect of occupations, the choice is limited or can even be described as meagre. In respect of education, only 18% of students in Hong Kong can go to university. As regards employment, the unemployment rate of young people is particularly high. In the third quarter of 2013, the unemployment rates of young people in age groups of 15 and 19, 20 and 24, and 25 and 29 reached 14.9%, 10.9% and 3.8% respectively, compared with the overall unemployment rate of only 3.5% during the same period. It is thus evident that the unemployment rate of young people is especially high, particularly so for those aged below 24.
Many people criticize young people for being not able to endure hardships, and so they cannot find a job. However, we must look carefully at the actual situation. While young people of the new generation have creativity and many new ideas, the choice of occupation is limited, with trades and industries related
1
Furthermore, a labour union of the retail sector has held several press conferences one after another recently, pointing out the fact that many young people have joined the retail sector. In 2014, 14.6% of the employees in this sector were aged between 15 and 24, and 30% between 25 and 34. Similar to the situation in the catering industry, these two age groups combined take up approximately 40% of the workforce. Hence, Members should not complain that young people are lazy as 40% of the employees in these two sectors are young people. Despite the fact that young people are willing to join the retail sector, how are they being treated? Their treatment is simply poor. Given the exorbitant rents, the employees in this sector are paid poorly but have to work long hours, usually from 11 am to 11 pm. It must be borne in mind that employees in the retail sector have to do stock taking and put the goods on the shelves before the opening of shops and tidy up the shops before leaving. It will usually take more than 12 hours for getting everything done. In addition, the time taken to open and close the shops is not included in the working hours, that is, they are not paid. Strictly speaking, the employers are blatantly exploiting their employees. If Members do not believe me, they may go to some of their familiar chain stores to take a look. They will find that this situation is prevalent.
Given such working conditions, quite a number of young people do not have time to pursue further studies. Besides the financial, catering and retail sectors, what other sectors are available for young people in Hong Kong? Let me widen the scope a little. Can they choose farming, creative or arts jobs? I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5505 cannot say that it is impossible, but it is really very hard to find these jobs. Most importantly, there is a lack of policy support and space. Rents are exorbitant, too. Let me cite the revitalization and refurbishment of industrial buildings as an example. The Government has absolutely not considered how to retain the creative industries originally existed in these buildings. Instead, these buildings have one after another turned into property projects. In the end, arts and cultural workers who were originally stationed at these industrial buildings have been forced to move out. This situation can still be found nowadays. What I wish to point out is that premises that were supposedly reserved for the creative industries are now turned into property projects during the formulation of policies. How laughable it is!
On the contrary, there are designated areas for artists in places such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen. Let us look at the 798 Art Zone which was established a long time ago as an internationally renowned cultural landmark in Beijing, there is now a conglomeration of art galleries, studios and cafes. Let us look at the Redtown Cultural and Art Community in Shanghai, formerly the Shanghai No. 10 Steel Plant. A variety of cultural elements, such as arts exhibition venues, art galleries, design institutions, enterprises, boutiques, cafes, and so on, can now be found there. I have recently been invited again to visit Shanghai by someone who knows that I am concerned about creative industries because there are still many places in Shanghai which are worth visiting.
After looking at these places, let us look back at Hong Kong. Communities with local characteristics are disappearing one after another to give way to mega malls and chain stores. The shops and brands inside these malls are exactly the same, and even the designs of the malls are more or less identical. Under such circumstances, how can creativity be fostered and creative industries be developed? With the availability of a lot of traditional occupations in Hong Kong, it does not matter even if young people do not do well in school, for they can engage in, for instance, the crafts of making firecrackers, dragon and lion dance costumes, handmade steamers, lanterns, mooncake piggy baskets, and so on. There are even some young people who like to engage in sharpening knife and blade skills because these crafts are interesting. Members who do not believe me may go to Shanghai Street to take a look.
With the passage of time, these crafts have gradually fallen into decline. During the process, honestly, craftsmen still wish to carry on, so that proprietors 5506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 have business to do and workers can keep their jobs. But the problem is, in the face of clearance and during the redevelopment process, these crafts are falling into decline. I think that the Government should launch a handicraft training scheme by providing the venue and training, so that interested young people can acquire the skills of traditional handicraft industries and the industries can be passed on. This project will be undertaken by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) for the sake of trades and industries wishing to pass on the crafts but have their premises demolished by the Government or are forced to relocate to high-rent places. Despite our desire to carry out this project, I do not know if we will succeed in the end because collaboration between many government departments is required.
I still wish to say a few more words. I think priority should be given to allocating places, whether under flyovers or in new developed areas, for the development of trades and industries other than the retail and catering sectors, such as agriculture, creative industries, artistic creation, and so on. Most importantly, low rents and sufficient space must be provided. Otherwise, exorbitant rents will impede people from joining these trades and industries, and limited space cannot achieve a clustering effect.
If Members still recall, Hong Kong was in the most difficult situation before and after the outbreak of SARS, and a Dragon Market was organized at that time to accommodate more than 300 stalls. So, we have already set an example for the Government and the Home Affairs Bureau. I have no idea what the Home Affairs Bureau did subsequently. I only know that the task was handed to a non-governmental organization, and only 60 stalls were set up. Compared with 300-odd stalls, however, 60 stalls could absolutely not achieve the desired effect. Which one of these can bear fruit: community culture economy, creative industries or temple fairs? The employment of young people remains a serious problem because the Government has always been "going round and round".
President, I so submit.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, today many Members said that more resources should be devoted to education, more training or employment opportunity should be provided to young people. But regarding LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5507 today's motion on assisting young people in their development, I have slightly different views. I will speak from the perspective of the sector to which I belong, that is, the textile and garment sector.
Nowadays, among young people who are engaged in fashion industry, many are young designers who possess good qualifications and have ideals. They are also aware of the future direction and do not have any difficulty in getting a job. Students studying fashion design in the university are almost 100% employed after graduation. However, they often tell us that they have the feeling that their talents are not being recognized and that they are unable to do as well as one would wish. Why do they have such a feeling?
For these people, they think that after studying for so many years ― some of them had graduated from prestigious colleges of fashion design in overseas countries, such as Central Saint Martins in London or Parsons School of Design in New York, and some of them had won prizes in overseas competitions ― it seems that their talents cannot be well developed after their return to Hong Kong. Therefore, they have the feeling that their talents are not being recognized, as I mentioned just now. Is there really a lack of opportunities for them to develop? The answer is definitely not. They often ask me whether the Government has implemented practical measures to help young designers develop their career. The answer is certainly in the affirmative. For example, in the Fashion Week for Spring organized by the Trade Development Council annually to be held next week, there will be large-scale fashion shows and competitions. Some students are certainly very excited after winning the competition, but they have no idea of the next step to be taken.
Now the problem is that Hong Kong should not rely solely on one or two industries, as pointed out by many Honourable colleagues. We all agree that Hong Kong should develop creative industries and these young designers are fully capable to play a leading role in creative industries. But why do they feel do dispirited?
In our view, if we wish to develop creative industries, we must first identify an industry. There are a lot of talents in fashion industry. As I said earlier, we have local graduates as well as talents who have returned to Hong Kong after graduation from prestigious overseas universities. It is now time for the textile and garment industry, which has a sound foundation, to transform. Furthermore, we do not have to worry about the market because Hong Kong, 5508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Southeast Asia and Mainland China alone will bring in plenty of businesses. In this regard, South Korea is definitely a successful example. Why is Hong Kong, given all the favourable factors, unable to attain the achievements that South Korea has attained in just 10 years?
Recently or about a month ago, Secretary Gregory SO and Secretary TSANG Tak-sing's assistant Under Secretary Florence HUI, participated in a fashion show and even performed as models. On this occasion, they met a lot of young designers, and considered that these young people were very enthusiastic in developing their career in this field. Both Secretary Gregory SO and Under Secretary Florence HUI are of the view that this industry has potentials for development. I submitted a proposal to Secretary Gregory SO one month ago. If the two Secretaries do not mind, I wish to give them a copy for reference in which there are tips on how to help these young designers.
Yesterday, I met with a local young designer in a large shopping mall in Tsim Sha Tsui. He is so capable that he has opened four or five shops on his own. As a graduate from the United Kingdom, he is now facing the problem of soaring rents. In fact, I think he is very capable because he can still survive and remain in business even though he has to pay a monthly rental of $150,000 for only one of his shops. This reflects that his business is flourishing. So, if Hong Kong has to develop an industry in future, I think creative fashion industry is definitely a starting point. This business mode, if successful, can be emulated by other industries.
In this regard, I hope the Government can do two things. Firstly, to set up a fund for creative and budding industries so that some young people with good ideas … Certainly, they do not have any difficulty in getting a job. However, the dream of many young designers is to have their own brands and own shops. So, if there is a fund which can offer them support, I believe the prospect for their development in future will be favourable.
Secondly, I hope the Government can provide a platform to nurture creativity. Certainly, this platform does not aim at teaching people how to do business, but an opportunity. This platform allows various parties in the industry to identify young people with potential, so that they can co-operate and even develop their own brands and ideas in design.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5509
I think Secretary Gregory SO should also be present at today's meeting because apart from assisting young people in developing creative industries, the Administration also needs to know how to help them. I think this is essential.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, the Chinese New Year is just round the corner. The biggest present the Government owes our young people is support and care to lead them out of their miseries, particularly their education, jobs, and housing woes. In fact, these are not disparate problems, but different facets of the inadequacies of government policies as a whole.
With few possibilities for social advancement, young people feel aggrieved as they neither see any light at the end of the tunnel, nor harbour any hope for their future. Their sufferings begin with education. While well-off families can arrange for their children to study in international schools or abroad ― as many government officials do ― casting a vote of no confidence in Hong Kong's education system, the majority of children from ordinary families have no option but to stay in a system that is teeming with capricious reforms, putting them at a marked disadvantage to other children right from the start.
Worse still, even if these children make it through the public examinations, many of them will be barred from entering university due to the lamentable university enrolment rate, which stands at around 18% each year ― making a mockery of the former Chief Executive Mr TUNG's ambitious plan, announced in his 2000 Policy Address, of achieving a 60% tertiary education popularization rate within 10 years to serve our knowledge-based economy. The Government has taken a false roundabout route to achieving that misconceived goal with a laissez-faire policy of self-financed sub-degree programmes that lack regulatory oversight and quality control. As a result, many of these sub-degree graduates end up finding themselves badly in debt, as well as failing to live up to the expectations of Hong Kong's demanding employers. They went into the system with hope and enthusiasm, but left the system with neither.
President, to rectify our education woes, the Government must ensure that every child, regardless of background or ethnicity, receives a quality education on an equal footing. Fifteen years of free education and small class teaching across 5510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 the board should be implemented as quickly as possible. A tailor-made Chinese curriculum for the non-Chinese speaking students ― which is long overdue ― must be provided to help ethnic minorities overcome the Chinese language barrier. They deserve better than just being security guards, construction workers, or practitioners of offensive trades. They, too, should have equal opportunities to develop their careers and further their studies with dignity for social advancement.
While I share the view that the number of publicly-funded undergraduate places needs to be increased to allow more people to receive a university education, the Government should provide a clear vision to young people about where a university education will lead them. Take the Postgraduate Certificate in Laws (PCLL) as an example. Only around 45% of the local students are admitted to the PCLL programme each year; a majority of local law graduates are denied access by the three great universities to the PCLL programme after three or four years of training. They encourage them to go into the system but deny them the chance of even entering a profession which they deserve. Even if they want to be lawyers, they will not be given a chance to sit for the examination to become qualified legal professionals. I strongly urge the Government to look into the present system of allowing these three universities to play God and decide who should enter the kingdom of the legal profession, and also to expedite the review being conducted by the Standing Committee on Legal Education and Training with a view to mapping out favourable changes in the present system of legal education and training in Hong Kong that would create a win-win situation to both the legal sector and local law graduates.
On the jobs front, it is clear that there is an education-occupation mismatch for the young people and almost non-existent income growth for young people. According to the Census, the median income of people aged between 15 and 24 was only $8,000 in 2011 ― the same figure as in 2001 ― despite rising educational attainment during the same period, with the percentage of those receiving post-secondary education surging from 19.5% in 2001 to 39.3% in 2011. Clearly, the unchanged income level of young people ― which has failed even to keep pace with inflation ― is a de facto penalty for over-education.
One of the very reasons for this deplorable situation could be the lack of progress in promoting Hong Kong's economic restructuring. The Chief Executive announced in his maiden policy address that he would set up an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5511
Economic Development Commission, but a year has passed and no notable achievements have been seen. In fact, the legacy of the Task Force on Economic Challenges ― to develop six industries where Hong Kong enjoys clear advantages to diversify our economy ― announced in 2009 still remains merely academic. The Government must refrain from bureaucratic indecisiveness and instead deal with this mismatch pragmatically via concrete action. Our young people are in dire need of support to explore the blue ocean of the market. We must create an environment conducive to nurturing our budding Steve JOBS and Bill GATES.(The buzzer sounded)
Thank you.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for proposing the motion on "Assisting young people in their development on all fronts".
Originally I have prepared a speech, but then I thought that I should not give people an impression that I always talk about information technology, as if it is a "universal key", as well as the theme of my speech on every occasion. Moreover, this debate is very special in that a number of Honourable colleagues have already mentioned how information technology can help young people and change their lives. Therefore, I need not speak further on information technology and can discuss some broader issues instead.
Regarding assisting young people on all fronts, the amendments proposed by a number of Honourable colleagues cover a very broad scope. Mr KWOK Wai-keung has proposed as many as 22 recommendations. Someone joked that if you played blackjack, you would go bust by having 22 points. I know that Mr Kenneth LEUNG is afraid of such a lengthy amendment. I sometimes wonder if this is the purpose of an amendment. However, such amendments do contain a lot of specific suggestions.
Regarding how assistance should be provided to young people, I would like to ask a question: Are young people really in need of assistance? If we provide assistance to young people on all fronts and lead them to a particular path, are we really helping them? If we spend all day talking about how to assist young people and they watch us, through television broadcast, discussing how to help 5512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 them, this may lead to the result that young people, especially those who have received university education, would think of waiting for public rental housing (PRH) all the time.
A few days ago, I saw a young person being interviewed on television who said that he followed the footsteps of others in applying for PRH, for fear that he would be at a disadvantage. What kind of mindset do this young people have? I like a song "If you love somebody set them free" by Sting. It means that if you love them, you should let them go, give them freedom and set them free. The next step is to let them make dream and pursue their dreams.
On seeing the title of the motion, I think all "monster parents" should be put into captivity in order to help young people. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che laughed at me last night on hearing what I said and advised me not to say something like that again, lest I would offend the parents and the middle-class voters. However, I believe that "monster parents" actually know that their approach is wrong, only that they do not care.
A few days ago, when I was having lunch with a friend who was working in an information technology company, we talked about the working attitude of young people. I asked him if there were cases in which young people were actually accompanied by their mothers when attending job interviews. His reply was in the negative. But there were cases in which many mothers tendered resignation on behalf of their children for reasons that their children worked too hard and their working hours were too long. Although they were earning $20,000 to $30,000 before resignation, their mothers said that their work was too tough.
On reading the last sentence of Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's original motion "to help young people to build a bright future with greater confidence and a pragmatic attitude", I think it is right to let young people have greater confidence because they will pursue their dreams and ideals if they are more confident. But I do not quite understand what is meant by "pragmatic". First of all, what is the meaning of unpragmatic? If young people do not try to be unpragmatic in their youth, should they contemplate to be unpragmatic at the age of 50 like we do? If one does not act in a frivolous when he is young, he has really wasted his youthful days.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5513
Although I do not oppose the over-detailed proposals in the amendments of a number of Members, as commented by Ms Cyd HO, I am afraid that to help young people with such a mindset, it is, as described by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen described, "parental". Such a mindset will not help young people. On the contrary, it will do harm to them.
President, earlier, I attended an event called "Girls Bark", organized by a multinational software company, in which dozens of female university students had participated. The event aimed at facilitating female university students to join industries which are dominated by men, such as information technology industry. Ms Starry LEE also attended the event and shared her experience with other participants. Some female students pointed out to me that support for creative industry was seriously inadequate in Hong Kong and lagging behind other countries. Certainly, I have often mentioned this problem but I have different views. I sometimes wonder whether young people should adopt such a viewpoint. I often mention this problem for the purpose of pushing the Government to exert more efforts. However, if young people have the same idea … In my reply, I told the female student, "Although there is room for improvement in Hong Kong, are you aware that people coming from different places, including Eastern European countries, the United States, Japan, and even African countries, consider that the environment in Hong Kong is conducive to starting their businesses? They also consider that the support provided by Hong Kong is even better than that provided in their own countries."
Today I do not intend to praise the Government for doing great in every aspect. However, if Members merely propose some minor patch-up measures without pushing the Government to formulate an overall policy, and then boast of their success in getting something done, I think it serves no purpose.
I cannot agree more with Mr Kenneth LEUNG's amendment, especially the proposal on "promoting diversified economic development". As many Members have pointed out, the so-called "diversified economic development" means that young people should not only confined themselves to the financial or real estate industries, and then wait for public rental housing. If that is the case, needless to say, the competitiveness of Hong Kong will certainly decline.
In the "Girls Bark" event, an award-winning female entrepreneur in her twenties said that all her peers who perform academically well join investment banks or consulting firms. Fortunately, she resigned after having worked in an 5514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 investment bank for three years and started her business to provide educational service because she likes teaching children. However, young people who perform less impressively or poorly in schools are all waiting for public rental housing and welfare. Under such circumstances, I wonder how Hong Kong society could be competitive.
Today, I do not intend to debate the aforesaid issues because each of these issues can become an independent motion. All in all, in order to bring progress to Hong Kong, bring hope to young people and Hong Kong, we have to give up such a mindset in dealing with this problem.
Through this motion debate, I would like to point out that the mindset of Hong Kong should be changed. The young people should be set free. They should be given a way out and freedom. They should be provided with a favourable environment so that our economy can really offer them opportunities for development.
Thank you, President.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, in our submission to the Chief Executive on the proposal for the policy address, the Civic Party requested that a comprehensive study on the difficulties faced by young people in society should be immediately conducted, and based on the findings of the study and the outcome of public engagement, a new youth policy should be formulated.
President, we made this proposal because we have observed that young people in Hong Kong fail to see any hope. Nowadays, young people in their twenties have a very low income and even if they have a degree, their starting salary is only $9,000 to $12,000. There are people who have been working for 10 years but they do not have any substantial increase in salary, they only get around $20,000.
Given the homogenous nature of our industry, young people can hardly have chances to give full play to their potentials and creativity. For many young people, their view of their prospect is that even when they are in their forties and fifties, their life may not be very much different. They thus feel frustrated for failing to see the future and hope. I can tell the Government why in the present constitutional reform exercise, so many young people are brave enough to come LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5515 forward and speak out to strive for a better world. It is because they are the victims of the system and they will suffer all through their lives.
President, on this topic today, I have heard many Honourable colleagues say that young people should be given a free hand. I cannot agree more. But since time is limited, I cannot touch on too many areas in my speech. However, there is a topic which I would like to put my comments on record, and that is our education system. The system makes us feel extremely depressing. The problem does not lie in the fact that the system itself is terribly fossilized, but that the contents of the curriculum fail to prepare young people to be an upright person and make the best judgment on their actions. When I raise this point, the scope of this debate may be extended too wide and too high. But I will not apologize for that because I think if we are to help in the development of young people, we must start from the basic.
President, what is meant by the basic? I greatly encourage young people to appreciate works of literature and arts. They should read more about philosophy and have a good understanding of history. According to the findings of a study, 30 years from now, 60% of the jobs at that time have yet to appear in today's world. So if the knowledge learnt by young people today is merely informative or technical in nature, such knowledge may not be useful in the future. But if young people can, through literature and arts, discern the essence of things and rationale behind the superficial phenomenon, and if they know how to appreciate the values behind the superficial phenomenon, I am sure it would be beneficial to them for the rest of their life.
While literature and arts can serve such functions, philosophy is likewise very important. This is because among the myriad of things we come across in this world, it is impossible for us to find a direction in the maze. But philosophers are like stars; we can gaze at them from the maze of life and they can help us find a way out of the maze. The case about history is obvious. It seems that we all understand the saying: past experience, if not forgotten, is a guide for the future, but in reality, we fail to reflect on history. The present conditions do not actually exist in isolation; they all have some causal relationship or links.
President, I really hope to make use of the seven-minute speaking time to point out to Secretary Eddie NG, who is present here, that academic subjects like literature, history and philosophy are increasingly being neglected. There are fewer and fewer courses in literature, history and philosophy in universities; and I 5516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 am greatly worried about this situation. I hope that Secretary Eddie NG can, after hearing my speech, give thought to our young people and consider how education in literature, history and philosophy can be reaffirmed in the process of nurturing young people.
I so submit.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, in November 2012 in the motion debate entitled "Caring about the education, employment, housing, home acquisition and business start-up problems faced by young people", I raised an argument in my speech. I used the quotation "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains" as the title and pointed out that in Hong Kong, the inequitable political and economic systems restricted the potentials of young people. Education is made to serve the capitalist, and students are heavily in debt the moment they step out of the university. They either have to repay the loans of the Student Finance Office or make credit card repayments for they have used up the credit limit. Hence, they have to make repayments up to the age of 30 but the salary they get is only some $10,000. Even if they can find a job, they will be hard pressed by life. Some young people show concern for social issues and get involved in social movements to defend justice. But they have been smeared by people from the pro-establishment camp, suppressed and even arrested by the police.
The motion last year was moved by Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and as the Chairman of the DAB has said earlier, young people are pillars of the country. Everyone can make this remark. When people say children are the future masters of society, what is the point? These are actually clichés. The present education system cannot solve the problems at all. The Secretary is now in attendance. Our education system should aim at acquiring knowledge and forming a character. However, in a capitalist society which prizes functional thinking, people study only examination; those who do well in examinations can find a good job and that is all. This is the legacy of the Chinese civil service examination system in the feudal past. Back in those days, people were poisoned by the idea that those who excelled in academic pursuits would become court officials. However, there was a sage who said that a scholar should "make a mind for Heaven and Earth, set up the Tao for human beings, restore the lost teachings of the past sages, and build a peaceful world for all future generations." I just want to ask, how many university students embrace this lofty ideal of ZHANG Hengqu who LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5517 made the above comments? None. This is because the education they receive will not mould their character and they are only taught not to lose at the starting line.
Recently, I learnt from the Internet that in Germany, under its education policy, children under the age of six do not have to learn anything, and in primary schools, children of different ages are put together in a mixed class for education. The Germans uphold a liberal education. As we know, half of the Nobel Prize laureates are Germans. There are really problems with our education system which advocates that the future of a person will be determined at a time when he is three years old. When our three-year-old kids have to learn two languages, play the piano and countless other things, how can such an education system help young people? The Secretary for Home Affairs who is in attendance may one day become the Secretary for Culture. But he is giggling now, what is so funny?
People talk about love for the country and Chinese culture all the time, but when young people take part in social movements, they are ruthlessly suppressed. The ancient Chinese poet-patriot WEN Tianxiang once said to this effect: "Confucius teaches about benevolence while Mencius teaches about righteousness. It is only when justice is done that humanity is fulfilled. What do we learn from the writings of the sages? From now on, I have no regrets." Can we do the same? If young people today can both acquire knowledge and form their character, there will certainly be progress and harmony in society. It is unfortunate that young people do not learn from what is right. When those at the top like to do this kind of thing, those below will love to do it all the more. Just think what kind of people are our officials? I dare say that all those in the SAR Government who work for "689" should all be ashamed to face their ancestors as well as descendants. They should be ashamed when they want to lecture young people.
Now this motion says that young people should be assisted "on all fronts". But Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, I really do not know what is meant by "on all fronts". Can you do that? What does "on all fronts" mean? What can you do to help young people? Now what the Government is doing will only set a bad example to young people such that their face will not turn red when they tell a lie and their ears do not feel hot. Now the work concerning constitutional reform is really a mess. This applies to what is being done by the pro-establishment camp, and the democrats who are no better. At first they talk about the "three track system and none can be left out". Now they are saying that "one can be left out". This kind of nonstop row will only set a bad example.
5518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
The question is simple. If support is to be given to form a nomination committee, then surrender and discuss the methods of forming the nomination committee. Or else lend your support to civil nomination. You talk about nomination by political parties, but are there really political parties in Hong Kong? Even your political party is only a limited company. Does Hong Kong have political parties and a law for political parties? Those who suggest nomination by political parties do not really know what they are talking about. This is only setting a bad example for the kids. It turns out that remarks like these can be said. Yesterday the Alliance for True Democracy held a press conference and Joseph CHENG said that even if the remark of "none can be left out" was not written down, the fact was none could be left out. But today the Democratic Party said in a press conference that it was not correct to say that none could be left out and the bundled approach would not be used. This is really confusing and so how can the young people know what to do?
President, political ethos and the economic system of Hong Kong society is driving young people to a path of no return. It is like a boat sailing in the sea with no harbour in sight and is stranded in shallow waterways. The cause of the trouble and turmoil is our political system and also our system for allocating the economic resources. People only know how to grab and snatch in greed and deceit. They only care about functions and nothing about principle. For them interest is above everything else. Now there are talks of setting up a bureau for science and technology. I will say definitely that I will start another round of filibustering if that is to happen. The Policy Bureaux we have are already duplicating and replicating themselves and they are to be bloated into administrative units under three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux. But the proposal fell flat because of our filibustering efforts two years ago. Now the proposal is put forward again and it is thought that Florence HUI would be made the Secretary for Culture. Is that right, Mr Charles Peter MOK? Why not create two more posts of Secretaries of Departments? It is really odd, since this Government is so bad, why should it be allowed to expand? When it is said that it is a "small government", why should new Policy Bureaux be created? This is again setting a bad example to kids.
So if young people are to be assisted on all fronts, the most important thing is to form their character and inculcate knowledge in them. Then there should be an open government and a fair market with free competition. There should be social justice as well. Or else young people will not know what they should do. What can they do now? How much can they earn in their work? All they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5519 know is that they do not have a future. This is the second time the DAB has proposed a motion like this. But what are they after?
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, if we want the Legislative Council to do better, we should invite young people to come here to listen to this debate. And before they come here, we should conduct a survey to understand what difficulties or challenges they are now facing and what their needs are. Then after they have listened to this debate and the speeches made by officials, another survey should be conducted to find out their satisfaction rate, and whether they think this debate is related to what they think, face and feel every day.
President, why am I making this suggestion? This is because I am worried that many Honourable colleagues, even the Members who have proposed the original motion and the amendments may not understood the situation. In fact, I believe that we have all received a copy of Youth Trends in Hong Kong 2013 published by the Hong Kong Federation of Youth Groups. The book contains some sets of remarkable figures, and I hope Members will listen to my examples. One of the questions is: Political figures care more about their personal interests than the overall interests of society. More than 70% of the young people interviewed agree or strongly agree. The second question is: Political parties can reflect public opinion. More than 50% of the interviewees disagree or strongly disagree. The third question is: The Hong Kong Government can be trusted. More than 50% of the interviewees disagree or strongly disagree. The fourth question is: Members of the Legislative Council performed well during the past year. About 60% to 70% of the young people interviewed disagree or strongly disagree.
So Honourable colleagues, we have to be humble and reflect on our deeds. Members might also consider why we discuss these issues. I am worried that after listening to Members' speeches, young people may wonder why Members have spoken such things and they hope Members can give them a break. Actually, it is natural that we talk about young people chasing their dreams, pursuing self-realization, aiming at self-actualization and wanting to have different kinds of life experience and having experiments at various stages of life. Then young people will ponder over the things they experience, feel, sense and take part in them, they will learn that they should not only exercise their own rights, but should also learn to bear the responsibility for each decision they make. All these are most natural. So I would say that planning is a very dangerous thing. It is because once planning is mentioned, people would have a 5520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 feeling that they are "being planned". If we want young people to aim at self-realization, self-actualization or chasing their dreams, we should really give them room to do so.
Mr CHAN Hak-kan pointed out that many young people do not know what they want to do, I think this is a serious problem. Back in those days when Honourable colleagues were in their teens or twenties, unless you were lucky and came from a well-off family, and you had your family members helping you or even planned a life for you, otherwise, you had to ask yourself what you would want to do. I had thought of becoming a policeman. Luckily, I did not make it, or else I might be accused of having excessive police powers. I had also thought of becoming an Administrative Officer, and luckily, I did not make it, or else I would be scolded heavily. Earlier, Mr WONG Yuk-man has made a scathing attack on government officials. I had also thought of becoming a primary school teacher. Luckily, I did not make it. Secretary for Education, I think you will know what is happening. It is because the work is too hard and there is no time to reach out to students, understand their needs and communicate with them. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che says in the back, "Hire one more social worker". It is really pathetic and it seems that no other choice is available. At that time, my academic performance was alright and I was lucky enough to get a scholarship. Then I left my family and friends and went abroad. In the middle or late 1990s, many of my classmates had already become rich, but I was still studying. And it was a weird subject that I was studying ― Eastern Europe. They all say that I was stupid. First, I should not have gone to study in the United Kingdom. It was because if I want to return to Hong Kong to teach, I should go to the United States. Second, why should I choose to study Eastern Europe? I would not be able to get a job later and I should study China studies instead and then things would be fine. My friends in the academic circle who are about my age studied China studies in the United States and they can find a job after returning to Hong Kong.
I did not think too much before I made this choice and my family did not make any plans for me. I walked my own path and I tried hard to experience life and pursue my dream. I always asked myself questions and I tried to find the answer. As a matter of fact, young people are honest and direct. When they say they do not have any plans, they really do not have. Why do we say that they have a problem when they do not have any planning? Young people hope that we can trust their judgment and we should allow them to experience and feel for themselves, exercise their rights and shoulder their responsibility. This is a policy which can meet the needs of young people of Hong Kong. People say, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5521 train up young people with vision, creativity, leadership and a willingness to make commitment, so that they can become leaders of Hong Kong tomorrow. But I think this is no more than a slogan. Does Hong Kong have the room to enable young people to experiment? Do we have the breadth of mind and resources such that when parents have to earn a living, they can also have the spare time to find a balance between work and family? Or can teachers engage less in unnecessary administrative work and can act like some of our teachers in the past who strolled in the playground leisurely, asking students how they were going? It is unfortunate that we could never see such scenarios again. People just come and go in haste.
Do we have the room to enable the media to flower and blossom, so that they can produce new and meaningful programmes, instead of the boring serial drama and soap opera? Can people be given the room for development, starting from kindergarten, all the way from primary school, secondary school and up to university? What we do not want to see is that before the delivery of the policy address, the Chief Executive will discuss certain topics in the Strategic Development Commission for a few months, get some ideas and then hold some small tea gatherings or meetings with young people, so as to provide stories for newspapers to report on the coming policy address.
Finally, if young people who have heard this debate want to express their thoughts to the Government, what number should they dial? Should it be 3509 8095, the number for the Secretary for Home Affairs or 2810 2657, the Secretary for Education? I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, I heard Dr Kenneth CHAN say that he had taken a subject related to Eastern Europe before. Of course, Eastern Europe is one of the parties playing a major role in the wave of change cascading through Eastern Europe that resulted in regime changes there. Since he had studied a subject about Eastern Europe, of course, he knows that it is possible for an authoritarian country to become otherwise, so young people should act accordingly. In fact, someone also offered us encouragement. I quote, "The world is yours as well as ours, but in the last analysis, it is yours. You young people, full of vigour and vitality, are in the bloom of life, like the sun at eight or nine o'clock in the morning. Our hope is placed on you.". Dr 5522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
CHIANG Lai-wan, do not censure this remark because this is a matter of life and death. I am not going to tell you yet, but you must not rebut this remark.
However, perhaps I had better tell you the answer, lest you step on a landmine. This is the encouragement given by "Old MAO", MAO Zedong, to a deputation of students studying in the Soviet Union whom he received in Moscow. As far as I remember, I also said on one occasion that he had once said, old people like him were like the setting sun and were no good. However, Members also know the special situation in our country, so this remark made by Chairman MAO was deleted. How do I know about such a remark? Because when I went to Sweden to give testimony in its Parliament on behalf of a political prisoner who escaped from Hunan and took refuge in Sweden, I met someone who witnessed MAO Zedong making this remark in Moscow on that day. He is surnamed CHEN and speaks Russian, English and Swedish. After having been branded a rightist and released from prison, he still could not change his ingrained nature, so he offended some representatives of the military and was branded … nowadays, one would not be called an anti-revolutionary anymore; rather, one would be dealt with privately. After the doorkeeper living downstairs in his building had been chopped to death, he knew there was no hope. Someone asked the doorkeeper if someone surnamed CHEN was living there and after the doorkeeper had replied, he was chopped to death. CHEN thus ran away to a faraway country. As he spoke both Russian and English, he was in great demand as a translator, so when he was working in Moscow, he seized the opportunity to seek political asylum, thus "jumping overboard" and escaped.
President, such a competent person … he is all the more competent because after going to Sweden, since he belongs to a leftist party, he has been elected a member from the Social Democratic Party to the council of the town in which he lives. May I ask if such a person is competent or not? He had gone through all sorts of hardship before reaching Sweden, learnt Swedish ― of course, Swedish is related to English ― and was elected a council member. However, he is no longer lucky because the political situation in Sweden has taken a rightist turn, so the Social Democratic Party has become the biggest loser and I think this year, he will not be a council member any more.
President, what does this story tell us? It tells us that the most important thing for young people is to have aspiration. The most important thing is the ability to tell right from wrong. Moreover, someone also said, "The world is ours, the state is ours, society is ours. If we do not speak, who will speak? If LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5523 we do not act, who will act?" It was also Chairman MAO who said this. Frankly speaking, listening to the words of Chairman MAO would really make one's blood boil but if you believe in him, it would be all the worse for you. Just look at the Red Guards. After being exploited by him, they were just discarded. Because of the authoritarianism of our country, our young people have wasted so much time. Moreover, President, as you know, because of the apotheosis under the authoritarian rule of a single party during the Cultural Revolution, even nowadays, our country still cannot reinvent itself in the spiritual realm and some people still regard MAO Zedong as the Buddha, hanging his portrait in their vehicle as a talisman against traffic accidents. Moreover, the seven members of the Central Politburo Standing Committee even went to the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall to bow to him, so the bad influence lingers on.
In saying all these, what point do I want to make? If we want to educate young people, we have to teach them several points: First, tell the truth. If a society does not tell the truth but teaches young people to do so, how possibly can we teach them, buddy? The adult world is replete with all sorts of vice, yet we tell young people to preserve their honour and integrity and practise all sorts of virtues. President, this really cannot solve the problem. Dr CHIANG, in fact, I know that you have expended a great deal of care and thought but you can simply lambaste LEUNG Chun-ying together with me. LEUNG Chun-ying lied openly but you still defended him, saying that you believed in him. However, what is the use of you believing in him? There is no use even if you believe in him, rather, you have to speak in a fair-minded manner, do you not? You said something in public in defense of a lying Chief Executive, someone who covered up one lie with another, carried out a black-box operation when granting licences and got things done by imposing the will of a single man. He said he could not tell the reasons because in the Executive Council, there were explicit provisions to ensure that its members could speak their minds freely, so he could not tell the reasons for not granting a licence. Buddy, it was just him and a small bunch of people, such as the likes of CHEUNG Chi-kong, who said that a licence should not be issued. He could only talk about his personal views but there was no need to disclose the views of other people on licensing. We asked him why the licence was not granted and told him that if he was a Chief Executive who would really uphold justice, he should come out and talk about this, saying that it was him who decided against granting the licence, that such was his view and that he was not afraid of other people making various comments. However, this is not what the Chief Executive has said.
5524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Let me tell you, Mr Martin LIAO, I will tell you, but you have to take this matter to Court. If you take this matter to Court, I will tell you. In fact, this is practically a waste of time. If the Government refuses to tell even if the matter is taken to Court, there is nothing we can do. At the most, the Government would just lose in the litigation. It would then just go back and make a decision again, would it not? If the Government refuses to talk, it would only lose in the litigation but there would not be any problem. The Government only said that the decision made this time around was not made in satisfactory manner, so what is the problem with this?
Therefore, President, this is a waste of time. A society has to rely on telling lies. On the issue of universal suffrage, lies are also being told. It is not the principles of universal suffrage that are important, rather, it is the age-old Basic Law that is important. It is not our rights that are important, rather, it is the wills of the officials that are important. Of course, they will kick the bucket and become the setting sun, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for proposing this motion on "Assisting young people in their development on all fronts".
On seeing such a motion, of course, Members proposed their amendments like hanging decorations on a Christmas tree. Nowadays, young people encounter difficulties in all areas. It is difficult to get married, it is difficult to buy a property and it is also difficult to find a job in the market. In fact, the unemployment rate for young people remains a double-digit figure. Overall, the difficulty encountered by them is really great and their future is uncertain. In these circumstances, it is really difficult to aspire for anything. If I had faced a similar situation several decades ago, I would also feel lost. Moreover, the difficulties facing young people who are relatively speaking disadvantaged are even greater.
In the Legislative Council, we come into contact with young people all the time and on Monday, we had a meeting in the Public Complaints Office with a group of young candidates for the last Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (HKALE). Had it been in the past, the results obtained by them in the HKALE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5525 would have qualified them for admission into universities, but they were not offered any place. Among them, someone had even obtained Grade A in mathematics. Even someone who had obtained three Grade As in Chinese, History and Chinese literature was not admitted into any university. We think that various universities should have scrambled to make them offers right from the beginning. One of the friends who came to lodge a complaint was formidable. He obtained either Grade A or Grade B in several subjects, so his academic results were quite good but still, he did not receive any offer. On that occasion, Mr IP Kin-yuen discussed school songs, then school uniforms, with him. It turned out that he had researched school songs and was also quite knowledgeable about school uniforms. When talking about such matters, he spoke eloquently and displayed a wealth of knowledge.
In fact, young people nowadays are formidable. I teach in a university and come into contact with young people all the time. I do not think young people nowadays are inferior to our older generation in any way. The problem facing them is: How can they survive and develop in a society that is unjust and full of constraints imposed by the system? In the past two decades, why has the Government been unwilling to earnestly increase university places? Why is it necessary to implement the privatization of education? Why make students so debt-ridden?
Last week, we discussed some problems related to young people. Today, I had a meeting with the Director of Social Welfare. What did we talk about? He said that in the near future, 3 000 programme workers would have to be laid off. I do not know if any officials of the Social Welfare Department or the Labour and Welfare Bureau are present here. The Panel on Welfare Services will discuss this matter on Monday. These 3 000 temporary posts have been established for a decade but now, they have to be deleted. What can these young people do? They must fend for themselves because the Government thinks that the unemployment rate has dropped somewhat, so the number of posts can be reduced.
Last Sunday, I visited a school for the mildly mentally handicapped and had a chat with members of its alumni association. I asked them if they wanted to pursue further studies after graduation from secondary school if they had the opportunity to do so. The great majority of these former students said they hoped to pursue further studies if they had the opportunity. However, what kind of prospects do these friends with disabilities or mental handicap have? Our society does not give them any chance at all. People with mental handicap or 5526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 disabilities can apply for adult services starting from 15 years old. However, the emphasis of these adult services does not lie in learning but care. In contrast, we think that ordinary able-bodied young people should pursue further studies. What kind of logic is this? Why does society treat these young people in need in such a way? In the case of people with mental handicap, we tell them to receive career-oriented and vocational training early and if they cannot find employment in the open market, we tell them to go to sheltered workshops. What kind of work is undertaken in sheltered workshops? Just simple tasks like putting letters into envelopes. How much is the daily wage? $21. The wage amounts to just $21.
Moreover, after accepting this kind of services … these are considered services, so they are not employees and the amount of $21 is not the wage but a subsidy. For this reason, they have to pay an air-conditioning fee in summer. Just image: If you work in a factory and the boss asks you to pay an air-conditioning fee, you would also find this rather peculiar. However, our friends with disabilities have to face such a situation. Once they have accepted these services, it is for life. Dr CHIANG, how can they develop on all fronts? This is what our existing system is like. There is no way out and once one enters it, one stays there till one dies. It turns out this society does not belong to these friends with disabilities but of course, society still takes care of them by providing adult services to them. However, once they enter it, they have to stay there till they die.
LAI Hoi-wing suffers from Pompe Disease. After having obtained a postgraduate degree, he looked for work for several years. Now, he has found a job in the Government. What did he study in his postgraduate studies? It was Chinese literature. Two years ago, he published a book entitled《輕舟․ 重 山》 (Skiff ․onM ountaingraduation Ranges) to relate many of his ideas. Last year, the Hong Kong Economic Journal let him write for a column once a month. The number of words per article is 2 000 and the pay is about $1,000. He applied for over 100 jobs and even in respect of government posts, he also sent dozens of applications. Now, what kind of job has he finally succeeded in finding? It is that of a clerical assistant but at present, he has still not been appointed and is still waiting. However, his story is just the tip of the iceberg (The buzzer sounded) … we have too many stories like this.
Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5527
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): I heard the speech delivered by Mr Charles Peter MOK just now. Of course, some Members adopted a macro perspective, whereas other Members delved into very specific issues. I do not plan to discuss the macro principles, so perhaps let me talk about individual cases instead. Unfortunately, neither the Secretary for Labour and Welfare nor his representatives are present. In view of this, let me talk about education first.
Many Members said that there was an excess of associate degree programmes but judging from the cases that I encountered when working at the front line, not only is there an excess of associate degree programmes, this is also the case with regard to purported associate degree programmes. What are "purported associate degree programmes"? It means those so-called pre-associate degree programmes as well as higher diploma programmes that are equated with associate degree programmes. They are not associate degree programmes at all and perhaps in terms of the Qualifications Framework (QF), they have reached only QF Level 3 or 4 and the descriptions on them are equivocal and evasive. In sum, on the one hand, these programmes are marketed to parents and students and on the other, some kind of QF Level was obtained from the QF for them, then applications were made to the Student Financial Assistance Agency (SFAA) to turn them into programmes covered by grants and loans.
There are many pitfalls like this in society and over the past few years, I have also received several cases of complaint. For example, some young people took some so-called pre-associate degree programmes related to social work and the organizer of such programmes claimed that after students had studied one year in a pre-associate degree programme, with outstanding academic results, they could enrol in an associate degree programme training registered social worker and that after completing the programme, they could become registered social workers. However, the requirements for enrolling on programmes training registered social workers are actually getting ever more stringent. After completing a degree programme, my assistant planned to pursue further studies with a view to becoming a social worker, so like a fisherman casting his net far and wide, he applied for both postgraduate and higher diploma programmes but in the end, he could only enrol in a higher diploma programme despite being a degree holder.
However, the young person in the case mentioned just now had only completed a Yi Jin Diploma Programme but an education institution immediately 5528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 offered him a place in a pre-associate degree programme, so he accepted it. In the end, after studying for a year in the pre-associate degree programme, he did not succeed in getting a place and after two years, he still did not succeed. However, he had already paid $20,000 in tuition fee for the pre-associate degree programme. He did not succeed in being enrolled in an associate degree programme in the first year or the second year. Do you think he should wait further? Of course, he has to start his working life. However, the problem is: If he starts working, the grant received by him would become a loan and the Government would recover the loan from him, saying that he has not completed his associate degree programme, so the loan has to be recovered. However, if he completes the programme, the grant will not be recovered because he will have discharged his undertaking.
However, my question is: Programmes training professional registered social workers should actually be monitored and followed up by an independent registration board and of course, the SFAA and Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications also have to play their respective roles. However, it turns out that through packaging, this kind of so-called pre-associate degree programmes can easily attract students with unremarkable academic qualifications to enrol in them and they are told that they will have the opportunity to be enrolled in programmes training registered social workers, which require very high academic thresholds. As a result, after students have borrowed money, they cannot turn back. Therefore, apart from the glut of students with various types of academic qualifications, the many pitfalls of this type are also a cause for concern. How can the bomb be defused? At present, each family has to bear tens of thousands of dollars and even more than $100,000 in debts for education. Therefore, one major direction in providing support or assistance to young people should be to remove their debt burden, and I also hope the Government would pay attention to the situation described by me.
Just now, Dr Fernando CHEUNG talked about PWs, that is, programme workers, and in fact, we are also very concerned about this. In the past, in times of economic downturn, for example, during the financial tsunami in 2008, about 3 000 temporary posts were created to enable young people who had relatively low education attainment and difficulty in finding jobs in the labour market to join the social welfare sector and assist the social welfare sector in providing social welfare services. Five years have passed but the wage has remained at $8,000 or $9,000 and at present, only 2 100 posts remain. They will all be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5529 deleted on 31 March. These 2 100 young people will lose their livelihood all of a sudden and of course, labour unions are concerned about this. In fact, there are many types of jobs offering a wage of $9,000. One can make more than $10,000 by selling electrical appliances or mobile phones in an electrical appliance shop. I asked these young people why they had stayed in their jobs. They said that they liked this kind of work. They like this kind of work but if they do not work as programme workers, can they join the social welfare sector? In fact, this is very difficult and by no means easy because under the existing one-line vote system, all organizations would only create posts for social workers. However, they are not social workers, just people interested in this sector.
In view of this, since what is called "working one's way up from a basic rank" can be found in many trades and one can even start off as a clerk in the accountancy profession, why is this not possible in social work? However, it is regrettable that for the past year, the attitude of the Government or the Labour and Welfare Bureau in this issue has been very tough and they suggested that young people could switch to services for the elderly instead, since anyway, the demand for manpower in services for the elderly is also very great. In that way, it would not be necessary to import workers. Of course, jobs in services for the elderly or rehabilitation services are nothing to be ashamed of and they absolutely deserve our respect because they also provide services to the public. However, if these people have to switch from youth or community services to services for the elderly all of a sudden and they do not have any choice, such a change is indeed very great. Since we all hope that each young person can develop according to their strengths and interests, should we not reserve some opportunities for this group of programme workers, so that they can continue to serve in the social welfare sector? However, it is regrettable that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare is not present today.
Therefore, we hope very much that the Government, when dealing with the youth problem, can look at the services and programmes being implemented at present. If there are already many young people involved in the work related to them, we have to see if this kind of changes would make them lose their livelihood all of a sudden. This is an area that our trade union is very concerned about, so I hope the Government can care more about it.
Thank you.
5530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, you may now speak on the amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I thank colleagues in this Council for speaking on this motion today, especially those who have proposed amendments, though we do not agree to some of the contents of the amendments. However, some Members have included certain positive and concrete proposals on the development of young people which have enriched the contents of my original motion. President, with regard to various amendments, I mainly adopt the principle that so long as they are in line with the long-term interests of our young people and are conducive to their development, I will support them.
Let me first talk about the amendment of Mr Kenneth LEUNG. Sometimes, I think Mr Kenneth LEUNG did not catch what I said when I spoke on the original motion. Is that right? I also think that some Members speak on irrelevant issues, but as I am the one who propose this motion, these Members have arbitrarily criticized my motion without even reading it clearly. Right, why do I say so? Because Mr Kenneth LEUNG said that he deleted the proposals on "career and life planning" and "encouraging new generations to draw up savings and financial management plans" in my original motion, for he considered that the career and life of young people and everything about them in the future should be the responsibility of their parents and the Government can pay no attention, is that right? Some other Members also said that we must not make plans for other people's life and career and as Dr Kenneth CHAN said, we should allow more latitude for young people, such as allowing them to make decisions on their own, and so on and so forth. Right, you are all quality talents. Why do I say that they have not listened to what I said on the original motion? I said clearly that some young people in society may need our assistance and therefore, we put forward a proposal, asking the Government to formulate more comprehensive, diversified policies for these young people to help them move upward, so that they can have better prospects. I am not suggesting that the Government must provide assistance to Honourable Members like you, okay? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5531
Rather, assistance should be provided to those whom we meet when we carry out district work. My heart really aches when I see these young people. So I hope that the Government can lend a helping hand and provide assistance to these young people.
As for Mr KWOK Wai-keung's amendment, I think his amendment is very detailed, setting out a host of proposals in four aspects, including education, employment, business start-up and personal growth. I think the principles of many of these proposals are close to ours and at least I personally support them and believe that these principles are conducive to the holistic development of our young people. Therefore, we in the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) will support his amendment. As for the amendments of Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por, as they have also included a number of proposals on promoting the development of young people and the principles are also close to ours, we will, therefore, vote in support of them.
With regard to Dr Helena WONG's amendment, we do not quite agree to one main point, that is, she proposed to "review the scholarship schemes for students enrolling in research postgraduate programmes offered by funded-institutions, so as to ensure that higher education resources are spent on local young people". She considers that scholarships can be provided only to local young people, which is very dangerous. It is because a major objective of universities is to facilitate academic exchanges among different places. For this reason, insofar as this amendment is concerned, I will abstain from voting. As for Mr Michael TIEN's amendment, we in the DAB will support it. President, I so submit. Thank you.
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, once again, I thank Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for her original motion and the six Members as well as other Members who have spoken. As I said in my opening remarks, promoting lifelong learning, assisting students in understanding their interests and ability, providing diversified study pathways with multiple entry and exit points, and enabling students to plan their studies and career development effectively are among the major objectives of education development. On this premise, we share the same vision with Members.
5532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
I wish to particularly point out that I very much support Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's proposals on "career and life planning" and "informed choices". I agree that the Government and society should promptly provide assistance to young people in their development, and I am not going to make repetitions in this respect. In fact, in order to assist teachers in providing and promoting guidance on further studies and career development for students, apart from organizing the Certificate Course in Career Education for Secondary School Teachers, seminars and workshops annually, the Education Bureau has, through various measures, provided schools with a series of diversified teaching and learning resources, which include many good initiatives and measures, such as "Finding Your Colours of Life", "NAS@Career Mapping", "e-Navigator" smartphone application, and so on. The objective is to assist teachers in promoting career education for students by various means.
The Hong Kong Association of Careers Masters and Guidance Masters has provided a lot of professional and effective activities, which include the Summer Work Experience Scheme, under which arrangements are made for students to obtain work experience for two to eight weeks, and there is also the partnership scheme provided in collaboration with the business sector, and so on. The objective is to encourage students to think about their future career directions. I agree that there is still plenty of room for improvement and enhancement, and we will further make consideration seriously in this respect.
Several Members mentioned associate degree programmes yesterday and in today's debate earlier on. I would like to add a few points, especially on the acceptability of these programmes. Of the about 405 full-time associate degree programmes provided in 2013-2014 academic year, 259 are higher diploma programmes. The entire self-financing education sector has made a lot of initiatives for self-improvement. For instance, the results of a survey on employers' acceptability of associate degree programmes have been published recently and attracted our attention. With regard to this survey published recently, let me repeat here that according to the findings, 93% of the employers considered that the performance of graduates was above the average standard, and over 64% of employers considered their performance "quite satisfied" to "very satisfied". Certainly, there is still a lot of room for improvement in other aspects but as a first step, they are heading the right direction, and more efforts will be made in respect of their quality and acceptability.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5533
Mr Andrew LEUNG and several Members mentioned how extra efforts can be made to promote vocational education, with a view to providing a solid foundation for young people seeking employment in various industries and training the required talents to support the development of Hong Kong and help realize the dreams and potentials of individuals. An example is that the Hong Kong Vocational Training Council now offers over 250 000 vocational education and training places, which certainly include degree courses, higher diploma programmes, in-service short training programmes, and so on. These courses and programmes cover a wide spectrum of disciplines, including applied science, design, engineering, hospitality, child education and community services, business management, and information technology. These programmes provide students with professional knowledge as well as general education and training, with emphasis on both theory and practice. On completion of the programmes, students may choose to seek employment or pursue further studies.
Several Members have mentioned ways to provide subsidies for students to pursue further education. Under the principle of enhancing subsidies to alleviate the burden on students, I would like to recapitulate on the subsidy schemes and various measures, which are subject to review from time to time. Starting from the 2011-2012 academic year, many improvements have been made to, among other things, the means test mechanism. With regard to the total number of tertiary students receiving subsidies, their percentage has substantially increased from the past 38% to 60%. This is an indication that the measures are welcome by many students who can, in turn, benefit from the policy.
In respect of the Financial Assistance Scheme for Post-secondary Students, while many loans are provided under the Scheme, including interest free loans, the amount of the grant alone is around $40,000 per academic year.
In her amendment, Dr Helena WONG urged the Government to implement a university education voucher scheme. I wish to point out that the Government has, in fact, introduced a number of schemes. Apart from the grant and loans that I have just mentioned, at the policy level there is also the $3.52 billion Self-financing Post-secondary Education Fund for upgrading the quality of teaching and learning in the sector and for granting scholarships for students in the self-financing tertiary education sector. A series of measures is in place to support the healthy development and growth of tertiary education. Therefore, the Government does not consider it necessary to give further consideration to the provision of subsidies by way of education vouchers at this stage.
5534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
President, young people are the pillars of society. I have listened to many views in this regard over this period of time and I very much support this important direction. The Government will endeavour to offer support to enable young people to be well prepared and provide diversified opportunities for them to give play to their potentials and meet future challenges and opportunities. Thank you, President.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, the motion debate in these two days once again shows that various sectors of the community attach importance to the development and growth of our young generation. As a number of Members have said, young people are the future masters of Hong Kong. If we care about the future of Hong Kong, we must assist young people on various fronts, so that they can achieve all round development and be prepared for taking over in the future. I am glad to hear Members expressing views on the development of young people. Many of their proposals are consistent with the thinking of the Government.
As I said in the beginning of the debate, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has all along been committed to the work of youth development. Our objective is to nurture young people as future leaders with vision, creativity, leadership and commitment, so that they can lead Hong Kong to continuously move forward. As also stressed by several Members, it is most important to nurture in young people the capacity for self-reliance as well as the ability to think independently and stand on their own feet.
"Career and life planning" is a point highlighted in this debate, and this foreign term, which has long been introduced in Hong Kong, is not entirely uncontroversial. In order for planning to be successfully realized in life, it is necessary to effectively control various complicated factors that can compromise the planning because there are always ups and downs in life. There are sunny days, and there are also days of rain and thunderstorms, and life is often full of surprises, just as Mr Ronny TONG has failed in his planning on his son's interests in playing golf. I have listened to Members' speeches and to sum up, I would say that in order for plans to be realized, the pre-requisite is to have clear goals and ideals. If the goal is to learn cycling but if one turns out to be learning golf instead, it would be difficult for the plan to come to fruition. Members have also pointed out that "opportunity comes to those who are prepared". It is also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5535 necessary for goals and ideals to have flexibility while paying regard to the reality. Therefore, if we can enable the young generation to be better prepared and trained on all fronts, they can be provided with more opportunities and room for development.
It is exactly in this direction that the Commission on Youth is committed to promoting a culture of multi-faceted excellence, hoping that assistance can be provided for young people with different aptitudes, so that they can give play to their talents and pave their own paths. The Home Affairs Bureau has all along worked with various organizations in order to provide more support for young people in their development on all fronts.
The objective of our youth work is to enable young people to be prepared. "Be prepared" is a motto of scouts. It was often mentioned before, but I heard that it has been replaced by a new substitute in recent years. The Home Affairs Bureau provides subsidies for various uniformed groups annually to enable young people to have training outside the classroom to the benefit of their health and mind. The Scout Association of Hong Kong is one of those with the longest history, providing diversified and progressive training activities. There are now scout groups all over the territory with more than 40 000 youth members, and there are also scout groups made up of ethnic minorities. Scouts in Hong Kong have often participated in worldwide gatherings and conducted exchanges in the Mainland, while having substantial involvement in voluntary services and activities in Hong Kong. Other uniformed groups also provide training activities with their own characteristics, with the objective of assisting young people in developing their vision and talents and nurturing a good character and discipline in them.
Some Members mentioned that literacy in humanities, such as literature, history, philosophy and art, is important to young people. When we promote work in the cultural and art aspects, it is also our wish to further enrich these qualities in young people, just like some of the work that the Secretary introduced to Members in his opening remarks yesterday.
To facilitate participation from young people in public affairs, various departments in the Government as well as various advisory and statutory bodies are making an effort to absorb suitable people by considering, among other things, their competence, expertise, experience, integrity and commitment to 5536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 serving the community, in order to meet the needs of the relevant bodies. Under the principle of meritocracy, more importance will be attached to the appointment of young people to be members of advisory and statutory bodies. Membership of the Commission on Youth includes youth representatives, experienced persons in charge of youth organizations, academics, members of local communities, and so on. A few members are the "post 80s" and members aged 39 or below account for close to 60% of its composition. The Government has also collected the views of young people through various channels, including the Internet which is frequently used by young people.
Members mentioned the housing problem now faced by young people. The SAR Government deeply understands this point. To address the housing problem in Hong Kong, the Government has adopted a series of measures to increase and expedite the supply of subsidized housing while reviewing the long-term housing strategy comprehensively and increasing land supply.
The Home Affairs Bureau has announced the Youth Hostel Scheme, the purpose of which is to unleash the potential of under-utilized sites in the hands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) by developing rented youth hostels on these sites. The Scheme can satisfy the desire of some working youths for having their own living space for a period of time. While the youth hostels do not serve to resolve the housing needs of young people in the long term, they can provide the opportunity for young people to accumulate savings for their future development.
Under the Scheme, the Government will fully subsidize the construction costs of the NGOs in developing the youth hostels. The target beneficiaries of the Scheme are the working youths. The first tenancy agreement should be at least two years and is subject to renewal, but the total tenancy period should not exceed five years, so that other working youths in need can have the opportunity to benefit from the Scheme.
The two pilot projects under the Scheme in Sheung Wan and Tai Po have made good progress and are expected to be completed in 2016-2017 the earliest. As our discussions with other NGOs gradually become mature, more new projects will be included and more hostel places will be provided to help alleviate the housing problem of young people.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5537
As for the Youth Square in Chai Wan under the management of the Home Affairs Bureau, the number of activities carried out in the Youth Square has increased continuously since its official opening in March 2010. The performance targets of various facilities have been met, including a usage rate of over 80% for major facilities such as the Y-Theatre, Y-Studio and Y-Loft of the Youth Square which has gradually become an integrated base for youth development.
Insofar as the Youth Square is concerned, while we need to look at its economic benefits, it is all the more necessary to look at its social benefits. Youth development is a long-term and continuing commitment for which the injection of government resources is necessary and reasonable, and in order to take forward the work of youth development, it is also necessary for us to consider the affordability of young people in renting the facilities. In the future, we will provide these venues and facilities for use by young people and youth organizations at a rent which is affordable to them, and we will continue to offer other concessions in the hope that more youth-related organizations and groups can launch their service in the Youth Square.
The all round and balanced development of young people will indeed rely on the concerted efforts of the Government, NGOs, community organizations, families, schools, as well as members of the community. The Government will continue to work with all sides, listen to the views of young people and keep in view the challenges faced by them. The Home Affairs Bureau will continuously endeavour to take forward the work of youth development in collaboration with the Commission on Youth and community organizations in all districts.
President, I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please move your amendment to the motion.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion be amended.
5538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Mr Kenneth LEUNG moved the following motion: (Translation)
"To add ", as" after "That"; to delete "society, and the Government and society should promptly provide suitable guidance and assistance for their future to allow young people to make early preparations for their 'career and life planning'" after "future masters of" and substitute with "Hong Kong society, the Government should provide young people with room for development and upward mobility opportunities"; to delete "assist young people in their development on all fronts, including increasing" after "urges the Government to" and substitute with "allocate resources to increase"; to add "local" after "places for"; to delete ", expanding" after "higher education programmes" and substitute with "and expand"; to delete ", introducing measures to encourage new generations to draw up savings and financial management plans, and providing information on all fronts at the stage of secondary education to assist young people in understanding their interests, aspirations and ability, as well as the occupational manpower demand in the future, and thereby choosing" after "employment support services" and substitute with "targeted at young people; at the same time, the Government should adopt concrete policies and assistance measures to promote diversified economic development for supporting young people in starting up businesses, thereby enabling young people to freely choose"; and to delete "young people" after "so as to help" and substitute with "them"."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Kenneth LEUNG to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5539
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Stephen HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Christopher CHEUNG and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Emily LAU, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr WONG 5540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment and eight abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment and five abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Assisting young people in their development on all fronts" or any amendment thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Ronny TONG be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5541
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.
I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Assisting young people in their development on all fronts" or any amendment thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, as Mr Kenneth LEUNG's amendment has been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr KWOK Wai-keung moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG: (Translation)
"To add "; specific proposals are as follows: Education ― (1) to increase the number of subsidized places in post-secondary and tertiary institutions, and strengthen vocational education for students, so that young people can identify as early as possible their objectives of career prospects, and lay a good foundation for upward mobility; (2) to 5542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
comprehensively review the assistance as well as loans and repayment arrangements under the various existing student finance schemes, including providing indigent students with more tuition fee remission and additional support, and alleviate the tuition fee burden of university students by ways such as allowing tax deduction on repayment amounts of university education loans, studying the feasibility of allowing local students to apply for student loans for further studies overseas, and increasing the amount of grant for tertiary students, etc.; (3) to comprehensively review the Continuing Education Fund Scheme, including raising the cap on the amount of subsidy receivable by each applicant to $40,000, extending the period of four years within which applicants must submit all claims as required by the scheme to 10 years, and abolishing the restriction on applicants to make a maximum of four claims, etc., so as to encourage young people to pursue continuous education; Employment ― (4) to formulate a comprehensive employment policy for young people with the objectives of developing young people's potentials and strengthening the productivity of society; (5) to review and consolidate the various existing training programmes for young people, and enhance the practicability and effectiveness of the training and employment support structure for young people, so as to encourage young people to join industries which need new blood, such as the construction industry, transport industry and shipping industry, etc.; (6) to proactively approach long-term unemployed young people and hidden youths, and provide career counselling and support to them; (7) to extend and consolidate the various similar apprenticeship schemes, such as the Technician Apprenticeship (Traineeship) Training Scheme, Modern Apprenticeship Scheme as well as Beauty Care and Hairdressing Traineeship Scheme; (8) to subsidize young people from low-income families, particularly ethnic minority young people, so as to support them to attend self-enrichment courses and enhance their competitiveness in choosing career; (9) to support the development of small and medium enterprises by ways such as offering appropriate subsidies and tax concessions, so as to actively encourage them to employ young workers and trainees; (10) to review and improve the existing Employment Ordinance to strengthen the protection for young people who take up part-time and short-term jobs or are employed on a contractual basis; (11) to conduct a study on enacting legislation to require an annual three-day paid training leave for employees, so as to encourage young LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5543 employees to pursue continuing education; (12) to adopt diversified measures to attract overseas enterprises to come to Hong Kong for investment, and establishing new and emerging enterprises or industrial/commercial businesses, so as to create more positions for Hong Kong and increase the employment and promotion opportunities for young people; (13) to encourage and support young people to develop their career in the Mainland, and enrich their understanding of the Mainland; (14) to set up a handicraft apprenticeship training scheme to train young people for engaging in work on creativity or with traditional characteristics, such as arts fairs, music performances, dragon boat training and fireworks production etc.; (15) to increase the Government's budget and funding for culture and arts, so that arts groups can increase placement opportunities for young art workers; Business start-up ― (16) to establish business start-up funds and provide relevant education and information for offering concrete support to young people to start up businesses; (17) to set up creative industry parks in various districts for providing studios with stable rents and long-term tenancy agreements to young people who aspire to a career in creativity, culture and arts; Personal growth ― (18) to increase the number of hostel places in various tertiary institutions, so that young people can experience communal living during university studies and cultivate their skills of interpersonal communication and companionship as well as co-operative abilities; (19) to increase the number of internship places in Hong Kong and overseas for students of various tertiary institutions, and continue to increase the number of countries and places under the Working Holiday Scheme to enable young people to gain experiences and have exchanges in various places in the world, so as to broaden their international vision; (20) to strengthen local sports development as well as training and support for athletes to enable young people to follow the direction of sports in developing their personal goals and career; (21) to strengthen the manning ratio of guidance personnel for young people in schools and non-profit-making organizations, so as to assist them in facing problems of education, family, making friends and career prospects, etc.; and (22) to promote young people's participation in community services and devotion to voluntary services, so as to instil proper values in young people" immediately before the full stop."
5544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr KWOK Wai-keung's amendment to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Tommy CHEUNG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr James TO, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Steven HO, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5545
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr NG Leung-sing and Mr Martin LIAO abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Ms Emily LAU, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Ronny TONG, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr James TIEN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen voted against the amendment.
Ms Cyd HO, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Gary FAN and Dr Fernando CHEUNG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, nine against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment, three against it and four abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
5546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, as the amendments of Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung: (Translation)
"To add "; this Council also urges the Government to extensively collect views from young people when formulating development policies for young people by ways such as increasing their participation in the Government's advisory framework, and increase the number of school social workers in secondary schools to provide young people with services related to 'career and life planning'" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che's amendment to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5547
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kin-por, as the amendments of Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr CHAN Kin-por moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che: (Translation)
"To add "; at the same time, the Government should actively enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness and promote economic development, including driving the development of headquarters economy, so as to provide young people with more high-quality positions and let them have more upward mobility opportunities; the Government should also attach importance to the balanced development of young people's physical and mental well-being, encourage them to occupy themselves with wholesome activities or hobbies and avoid over-indulging in the virtual network, and teach them to stay away from drugs" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr CHAN Kin-por's amendment to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che be passed.
5548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr SIN Chung-kai rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Frankie YICK and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr James TO, Mr YIU Si-wing and Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5549
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Ronny TONG, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Dr Kenneth CHAN and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Ms Cyd HO, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted against the amendment.
Ms Emily LAU, Mr Gary FAN, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment, five against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, four against it and four abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, as the amendments of Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por be further amended by my revised amendment.
5550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Dr Helena WONG moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por: (Translation)
"To add "; this Council also urges the Government to: (23) increase the progression pathways for associate degree graduates; (24) set up scholarships for subsidizing associate degree graduates for further studies overseas so as to broaden their horizons; (25) implement a university education voucher scheme for offering senior secondary graduates with outstanding academic results more opportunities to pursue studies in local universities and overseas universities recognized by the Government; and (26) review the scholarship schemes for students enrolling in research postgraduate programmes offered by funded-institutions, so as to ensure that higher education resources are spent on local young people" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Dr Helena WONG's amendment to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5551
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr James TO, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Martin LIAO and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin and Mr James TIEN voted against the amendment.
5552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, seven were in favour of the amendment, eight against it and 11 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 10 were in favour of the amendment, four against it and nine abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, as the amendments of Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por be further amended by my revised amendment.
Mr Michael TIEN moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por: (Translation)
"To add "; this Council also urges the Government to: (23) substantially upgrade the level of the CreateHK agency, and set up an advisory committee on creative industry under the direct leadership of the Financial Secretary for co-ordinating the work of relevant government departments, and invite members of the industry to join the committee, so as to support the development of the creative industry, and provide upward mobility opportunities for young people who are highly creative but not good at conventional academic subjects; and (24) introduce a local talent scheme LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5553
for funding local talents to enrol in the programmes of the best academic institutions all over the world which are not offered locally or are markedly different from local programmes in quality, so as to encourage Hong Kong young people to pursue excellence in different academic disciplines, nurture top-class talents in various fields in Hong Kong and assist in the diversification of Hong Kong's industries in the long run" immediately before the full stop."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Michael TIEN's amendment to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's motion as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Mr CHAN Kin-por be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr SIN Chung-kai rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SIN Chung-kai has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the results will be displayed.
5554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Frankie YICK and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted against the amendment.
Mr James TO and Mr YIU Si-wing abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Ronny TONG, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Dr Kenneth CHAN and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan voted for the amendment.
Ms Cyd HO, Mr James TIEN and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted against the amendment.
Ms Emily LAU, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 26 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment, five against LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5555 it and two abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, three against it and six abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, you may now reply and you have 56 seconds.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, Honourable colleagues, with regard to the motion I propose today, it does not matter if Members agree with all the contents or part of the contents, I hope that for the sake of the development of the young people, Members will support this motion. Thank you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, as amended by Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Michael TIEN, be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion as amended passed.
5556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The sixth Member's motion is an adjournment motion.
In accordance with Rule 16(6) and (7) of the Rules of Procedure, the total speaking time for this debate is one and a half hours, of which 75 minutes are for speeches by Members, and in accordance with rule 18(b) of the House Rules, each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to five minutes. The speaking time limit for the reply by the public officer is 15 minutes. I wish to remind Members that if the total speaking time of Members reaches 75 minutes, even if there is a Member speaking, I am obliged to direct the Member to discontinue immediately.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now 5.12 pm. The debate will now begin.
Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Mr Vincent FANG to speak and move the motion.
MOTION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNCIL UNDER RULE 16(4) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): President, I move "That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: the impact of the Court of Final Appeal's ruling that applicants for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance are not required to have resided in Hong Kong for seven years."
I move this adjournment motion today because Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) applicants are no longer required to reside in Hong Kong for seven years before they can apply for CSSA as a result of a ruling made last month by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA). Given the far-reaching implications of this ruling, the number of CSSA applicants has soared immediately. In a matter of three weeks or so after the ruling, more than 1 400 applications were received from new arrivals. Although a few Directors of Bureaux have said that the ruling applied to CSSA only and would have no impact on other benefits, I would like to ask: Has it ever occurred to the Government that it will lose this lawsuit? Actually, it has not. Should there be any applications to the CFA for a judicial review of other benefits, what will the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5557
Government do? The public are very worried that this ruling will result in incalculable expenditure on welfare, thereby leading us to a bottomless plunge. In the end, we taxpayers have to foot the bill for everything.
A couple of days ago, a colleague in my office received a telephone call from someone, claiming to be a new arrival, who intended to express views on our objection against people not meeting the seven-year residence requirement to apply for CSSA. Initially, I thought that the caller would definitely condemn us, but it turned out not to be the case. The new immigrant, who arrived in Hong Kong in 1973, strongly agreed with our view that "taxpayers will have to foot the bill if benefits are handed out indiscriminately". Hence, he made the special call to express support for us. He even cited himself as an example that new arrivals should be self-reliant in the first place.
While I am very thankful to him for his support, I wish to make it clear that I have no intention to stop any needy persons from applying for welfare. I only hope that the Government can expeditiously perfect the social welfare net to enable our limited resources to be put to good use to help the most needy people. However, it is a great pity that the Government has all along been reluctant to make this clear. In the light of this ruling, what is the amount of money to be paid by taxpayers in the end? The number of "doubly non-permanent resident babies" has exceeded 200 000 since the CHONG Fung-yuen case. Should their parents or even grandparents apply to come to Hong Kong, the number of applicants may easily reach several hundred thousand. What demands do they have on our welfare? Can our public finance meet with the demand? What contingency plans does the Government have?
Furthermore, in the wake of this ruling, I think the conflict between Hong Kong people and new arrivals will become even more acute and their confrontations will intensify. It is also imperative for the Government to work out ways to ease and resolve the conflict expeditiously.
In addition, the ruling has given rise to the problem concerning the authority to vet and approve One-way Permits (OWPs). Quite a number of people have expressed the hope that the Hong Kong Government can have the authority to vet and approve OWPs for new arrivals. Despite the fact that the Central Government has such authority under Article 22 of the Basic Law, this does not mean that Hong Kong needs not do anything. Can we appeal to the Central Government to be more stringent in vetting and approving applications made by new immigrants? In this connection, we in the Liberal Party will call 5558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 on the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Deputies to the National People's Congress and the Legislative Council to issue a joint submission for the Mainland Government to follow up the matter.
I consider it a matter of urgency for this motion to be proposed today, in the hope that Legislative Council Members can hold discussion at an early stage and express views to the Government. I also hope that the Government can expeditiously give a detailed account of the latest situation and the impacts after the ruling is made. Thank you, President.
Mr Vincent FANG moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: the impact of the Court of Final Appeal's ruling that applicants for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance are not required to have resided in Hong Kong for seven years."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That this Council do now adjourn.
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions as well as other colleagues and I have already responded to this ruling made by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA). We reiterate that we respect the CFA's ruling and that Hong Kong, where the rule of law is upheld, should also respect court rulings. Therefore, we should discuss in a rational manner. Given this ruling, what can we do?
In my opinion, Members need not worry too much. When I was small, I often heard people talk about the so-called "new immigrants". When I was a teenager, I noted that many Mainland-Hong Kong families were made up of old husbands and young wives. In 2005, I started to engage in community work in Yat Tung Estate, Tung Chung ― I was later elected as a District Council member ― and, over the past decade, I noted that the age gap between Mainland-Hong Kong couples had become increasingly narrow to under 10 years in most cases. Why? Because people who were probably new immigrants in the previous generation could not find someone to marry in Hong Kong. Since they believed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5559 they could find a partner speaking the same language back in their hometown, they returned to the Mainland to marry someone of the same age group. When their spouses came to live in Hong Kong later, they worked hard to support their children. Basically, the enterprising spirit and the spirit to work with stamina and diligence had continued to be manifested in these Mainland-Hong Kong families. Hence, I think that there is no need to worry too much. Neither is there a need to describe this type of families as old husbands and young wives. It is absolutely not the case that the newly arrived spouses are without financial capacity. Judging from the trend, I reiterate that the age gap between couples in Mainland-Hong Kong families has become increasingly narrow.
Second, who would like to receive Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA)? Are the rates of CSSA really very high? While a three-person CSSA household will receive $6,000 to $7,000, the minimum wage of a job is now over $7,000. Since the implementation of minimum wage, which has been vigourously promoted by us, on 1 May 2011, I have said on many occasions that there have been improvements in wages. As workers can at least earn a minimum income, many grass-roots people have gone out to work and stopped relying on CSSA. What is the result? Since the implementation of minimum wage, more than 20% to 25% of CSSA recipients (in the single-parent, low-income and unemployed categories) have stopped receiving CSSA altogether, because they have already joined the job market.
Therefore, both the working environment and wages are crucially important. On the contrary, we should ask: Is it necessary for the Government to step up its efforts in the light of the ruling by offering employment assistance to help new arrivals better integrate into Hong Kong society?
I have recently assisted a group of hospital nurses from different parts of the Mainland, including Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing, to come to Hong Kong to obtain nursing qualifications. Although they have downgraded themselves from registered nurses to enrolled nurses, some of them are still unable to pass the examinations despite attempts over the past couple of years. The reason for their failure is not because they are not professional enough, but because the arrangements made by the examination authorities in Hong Kong are extremely poor. However, I will not go into the details here. Despite the fact that many highly competent Mainland people have come to Hong Kong, we have wasted a lot of talents because the systems and qualifications frameworks in the 5560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 two places are different. I hope Secretary Matthew CHEUNG as the facilitator of labour policies can look into this issue.
Lastly, I call on the SAR Government not to be afraid because of this lawsuit and withdraw the welfare measures scheduled to be launched originally and set different eligibility criteria for permanent and non-permanent residents. For instance, a low-income family allowance is expected to be introduced shortly. I hope new arrivals will also be allowed to apply for it. Just as the existing Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme, there is no requirement that only permanent residents in Hong Kong can apply. The authorities should encourage new arrivals to work by offering an allowance as a subsidy to low-income people. Even if their skills cannot meet the requirements of Hong Kong society and they are unfamiliar with Hong Kong and local people, they can still find a job. The Government will safeguard the standard of their basic living, so that they need not rely on CSSA.
I hope Secretary Matthew CHEUNG can relay my views to the entire governing team of the SAR that they should not be afraid because of the lawsuit and thus compress and withdraw all welfare items. On the contrary, the authorities should give active consideration to enabling new arrivals not to rely on CSSA and join the employment market instead.
I so submit.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, the ruling made by the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) earlier that the policy of requiring Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) applicants to meet the seven-year residency is unconstitutional has aroused great repercussions in the community. Many people are worried that this ruling will have major impacts on areas covered by social welfare in Hong Kong, including not only CSSA, but also the waiting period for public housing by Hong Kong residents, and even elderly services. President, I think such discussions are quite superficial and have not touched on the three core issues. This ruling has exposed the fact that Hong Kong's existing welfare policy lacks a reasonable basis, our immigration policy is unreasonable, and there are loopholes in Article 36 of the Basic Law. The Neo Democrats is of the view that a three-pronged approach must be adopted before the problems can be resolved effectively.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5561
First, we think that the Government should take this opportunity to review its welfare policies. While we attach great importance to judicial independence, it does not mean that the SAR Government cannot revise its policies in the light of court rulings. The Government should promptly enact legislation afresh and define, on a reasonable basis, what benefits can be enjoyed by permanent residents and non-permanent residents. Meanwhile, the Government must also follow up and explain how to vet, approve and review the applicants' assets outside Hong Kong. Now, another legal challenge to the seven-year restriction on public housing allocation is poised to be launched. We are very worried that judicial reviews will be submitted one after another, which means that the authorities have to face even more challenges.
Second, President, Article 36 of the Basic Law provides that "Hong Kong residents shall have the right to social welfare in accordance with law". As "Hong Kong residents" are defined to include both permanent residents and non-permanent residents, Hong Kong's welfare policies are implemented across the board. As a result, a large number of Hong Kong residents, particularly, permanent residents, consider this system unfair. Therefore, the Neo Democrats calls on the Government to tackle the source of the problem by adopting the most formal approach. The Administration must revise Article 36 of the Basic Law by deleting "Hong Kong residents" and substituting with "permanent Hong Kong residents shall have the right to social welfare in accordance with law", so as to prevent Hong Kong's welfare system from being abused and give due regard to Hong Kong people's aspiration for a fair and reasonable welfare system.
Third, insofar as immigration policies are concerned, the current arrangement adopted in Hong Kong for new arrivals from the Mainland is far more lax than that for new arrivals from other places. It can even be said that there is a double standard. If Ms KONG, the appellant to the CFA in this case, were not a Chinese national, she would not have been permitted to continue to reside in Hong Kong after the death of her spouse, and she might have been repatriated to her place of origin. The Neo Democrats advocates that the Government should consider allowing only people with financial means or those with financial guarantee that they need not apply for CSSA to come to Hong Kong for residence, because places accepting immigrants for family reunion do not have the inherent obligation to provide social welfare to new immigrants within a short period of time. Furthermore, the fact that the Social Welfare Department can now exercise discretion to approve CSSA can already help new arrivals with genuine financial hardship.
5562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
The Neo Democrats would also like to urge the Government to examine the introduction of a points system and set the scoring standards in accordance with the local community's needs in respect of age, academic qualification, occupations, and so on. Certainly, family reunion should be given the highest points, so as to complement with the hope of the SAR Government and Hong Kong people, and achieve the policy objective of alleviating the problem of ageing population in Hong Kong and replenishing the labour force. The points system can also effectively stamp out backdoor dealings, bogus marriages, and so on, while bringing talents to Hong Kong to ensure its competitiveness.
Before the introduction of a points system, however, the Neo Democrats considers that it is most important for the Government to take back the authority of vetting and approving One-way Permits (OWPs), so that Hong Kong to play an active rather than a passive role in immigration policies. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has often said that the authority to vet and approve OWPs has nothing to do with the immigration policy. This is not true. To take back such authority can enable the SAR Government to ensure the quality and quantity of new immigrants. It is right and justified for Hong Kong people to exercise decision power over its own communities. This is also the core of localism and, what is more, the key to solve the conflicts between China and Hong Kong.
Hence, President, a three-pronged approach, namely enacting legislation to formulate new welfare policies, amending Article 36 of the Basic Law and getting back the authority to vet and approve OWPs, should be adopted to enable Hong Kong, which is now in dire straits, to turn its crisis into opportunity.
President, I so submit.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has ruled that the seven-year residence requirement for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) applicants is in violation of the Basic Law and therefore, the arrangements before 2004 shall resume for the CSSA system, which means that new arrivals are eligible to apply for CSSA after having resided in Hong Kong for one year only. This ruling has aroused widespread controversies in society.
In its ruling, the CFA pointed out that the Government has claimed that the purpose of the residence requirement is to curb the expenditure on CSSA, but the level of savings achieved as a result of adopting the seven-year rule is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5563 insignificant, and there is no evidence showing that the savings can help ensure the sustainability of the social security system. This view held by the CFA is obviously greatly different from that of ordinary members of the public.
There are at present 12 000 new arrivals receiving CSSA payment in Hong Kong, accounting for 3.3% of the total number of CSSA recipients. In 2004 before the seven-year residence rule came into effect, the percentage of new arrivals in CSSA recipients was 13%. In other words, following this ruling of the CFA, the percentage of new arrivals receiving CSSA will swing back to 13%, representing a four-fold increase and involving an additional expenditure of about $2 billion annually. As we can see from the actual operation of the CSSA, from 2004 to October last year, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) received a total of about 36 000 applications from new arrivals with less than seven years of residence in Hong Kong. This shows that there is indeed pressure on the Government's financial expenditure. The CFA ruling on the CHONG Fung-yuen case in 2001 has triggered a wave of Mainland women giving birth in Hong Kong and the 200 000-odd children whose parents are both not permanent Hong Kong residents have dealt an extremely heavy blow to healthcare, education and other systems in Hong Kong. All these have made a deep impression on members of the public. Therefore, this ruling of the CFA on the eligibility for CSSA applications has once again aroused grave worries among the public.
In 2004 when the residence requirement was tightened for CSSA applications, the Government also extended the seven-year rule to the "fruit grant" for the elderly and the disability allowance. So, the next step is that this CFA ruling will be dealing a blow to these welfare policies, and we believe a new wave of litigations and social welfare applications will follow, which will definitely put long-term pressure on the Government's financial expenditure.
What we wish to ask is: Has the Government studied in detail the impact of this ruling on various social welfare measures and even other public policies? Is the Government already prepared for the additional increase in the welfare expenditure in the future?
Another point which gives cause for concern is whether this ruling will sharpen the already intensifying conflict between the Mainland and Hong Kong to the detriment of the efforts made by Hong Kong in helping new arrivals integrate into society over the years.
5564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
In view of these concerns, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) should give vent to public grievances as early as possible and expeditiously put forward various measures to relieve the public of their plights. On the other hand, it is necessary for the Government to step up efforts to help new arrivals improve their work skills, actively seek employment and become self-reliant, thereby reducing their reliance on social welfare. In the meantime, the Government should take effective measures against abuse of CSSA to ensure that the valuable social resources are allocated and utilized reasonably.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the KONG Yunming case has brought about huge reverberations in society. Recently, some social workers even told me that they were shocked and did not understand why the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) had made such a ruling. In my opinion, people are worried and concerned about the case not because they think that KONG Yunming does not deserve sympathy. On the contrary, they possibly think that the Social Welfare Department should have made better arrangement for this case and granted her assistance under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme, thereby avoiding the lawsuit. Nevertheless, this should not be a long-term policy.
The 2002 CHONG Fung-yuen case had led to legal disputes. In fact, at that time, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress was not satisfied with some views of the CFA. However, as it was then considered that the impact of the case was insignificant, the disagreement had been put aside. Eventually, problems have finally surfaced 10 years later, leading to huge reverberations in society, as well as serious conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong. As far as the KONG Yunming case is concerned, I personally believe that no immediate problems will arise in respect of financial or related areas. Rather, another round of judicial review may be initiated in other areas, including an application for judicial review on the eligibility for public rental housing, thereby arousing another concern.
Like the CHONG Fung-yuen case, the KONG Yunming case will at least provide a great incentive for Mainland people who are eligible for such benefits to come to Hong Kong, as they think they are entitled to these benefits. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5565
Meanwhile, the judgment of this case has also highlighted the relationship between the executive, legislature and judiciary. Why are there such huge reverberations in society? Frankly speaking, the problems mentioned by Mr Gary FAN, Mr Vincent FANG and other Members just now should have been discussed or even debated in the Legislative Council. I believe Members also wish to make sure whether the seven-year restriction should be reduced to one-year insofar as the KONG Yunming case is concerned. In fact, we should have been able to hold a healthy, rational and detailed discussion. But now, the CFA has made the ruling, and prior to the ruling, members of the public and Legislative Council Members do not have a chance to get involved in the discussion. As a result, when the ruling was announced, there are strong reaction and reverberations in society.
Article 145 of the Basic Law provides that "On the basis of the previous social welfare system, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its own, formulate policies on the development and improvement of this system in the light of the economic conditions and social needs." In fact, the phrase "formulate policies on its own" means that the Hong Kong Government and Hong Kong society can exercise discretion on such policies. Of course, the Government should exercise discretion in a wise and reasonable manner. In my view, the Court ruling of the KONG Yunming case has in fact taken away from the Government its discretion power.
In fact, why was the residence requirement for CSSA extended from one year to seven years in 2004? This had to do with the then social environment. Back then, owing to the outbreak of SARS and the economic downturn, even universities had to freeze the salaries of their staff. The Government might, for fear that the CHONG Fung-yuen case would lead to an increase in "doubly non-permanent residents", make such a decision. Back then, the decision did not arouse strong reaction, but the situation of today is different. Why is the reaction so strong now? The reason is that the environment in our society has changed and the impact of the CHONG Fung-yuen case has surfaced 10 years later.
On the other hand, the cycle of the economy is hard to predict. It is even more worrying that the Government will lose the discretion power to make flexible arrange when our economy suffers a downturn again. Hence, I think we should not discuss whether Hong Kong can bear the financial burden; on the contrary, the fact that the Legislative Council does not have a part to play and that 5566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 the Government cannot exercise its discretion to change the policy should draw our greater concern. More importantly, I do not agree with the viewpoint mentioned by the CFA in paragraph 140. In that paragraph, the CFA considers that the seven-year restriction conflicts with the population policy aimed at rejuvenating our ageing population and the family reunion policy. In fact, the provision of benefits is not an essential factor in rejuvenating our ageing population. We can provide support to our young people in Hong Kong. The Government can launch more policies to encourage fertility and child rearing by our high-quality young people. But now, these policies will no longer be feasible as we have to adopt such an approach. So, I think this make us feel worried.
Today, we have this discussion in advance. I hope in the future whatever it may be, can we (The buzzer sounded) …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): … yes.
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, when the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruled that it was unconstitutional for the Government to revise in January 2004 the residency requirement from one year to seven years for CSSA applications by Hong Kong people's spouses admitted to Hong Kong for residence under the OWP scheme, I had conflicting feelings. On the one hand, as the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal quoted the remarks made by a former Legislative Council Member, Ms LI Fung-ying, of the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions, changing the eligibility criteria for the application of CSSA by spouses coming to Hong Kong for family reunion is not in line with the policy objective of family reunion. On the other hand, however, like many members of the public, I am worried that the CFA's ruling will impose a heavy burden on public coffers.
The focus of this ruling made by the CFA is the eligibility criteria for the application of CSSA by spouses coming to Hong Kong for residence by virtue of OWPs. If a line can be drawn here regarding the impact of the ruling, I believe the blow to public finances will not be very big. According to the information LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5567 submitted by the Government yesterday to this Council, since the CFA has made the ruling, the Social Welfare Department has received 1 400-odd applications for CSSA by people living in Hong Kong for less than seven years. I hope the Government can expeditiously assess the eventual impact of the CFA's ruling to allay public concern.
It is perfectly natural and normal for the public to worry that the CFA's ruling will lead to abuses of the CSSA system, thereby constituting a heavy financial burden. I am not at all surprised. I believe abuses of CSSA can be reduced so long as the relevant government departments can perform their gate-keeping roles properly. However, the Government must address squarely the sentiment of rejecting new immigrants in some of the discussions conducted in the community on the CFA's ruling. In fact, the contributions made by new immigrants to Hong Kong have far exceeded the social security they have applied for. Generally speaking, new immigrants are hardworking and serve to complement Hong Kong's labour force. In particular, they must be thanked for performing in silence physically strenuous or even obnoxious jobs. They have contributed to the continued development of Hong Kong too.
President, whether or not we approve the CFA's ruling, the ruling has been made and the Government must revise the relevant policy, having regard to the CFA's decision. I hope the debate held in this Council today on the ruling will not intensify division in the community, but will clarify the community's misunderstanding of the ruling and allay public concern for the benefit of society as a whole.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is very special in the sense that whenever the Government loses a court case, many people will immediately raise all sorts of concerns about whether the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has overlooked something. The worry extends to whether the CFA is confronting with the SAR Government and does not dovetail with the governance of the SAR Government, or whether the CFA has completely failed to take into account certain evidence. There are also concerns about what society will become after 10 years. President, there are many such worries. I find it odd, because the judiciary of any place is supposed to do justice and should be supported by the society as a whole. Why do these concerns emerge whenever 5568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 the Government loses a court case? When the Government wins a lawsuit, there are no such worries. However, President, unfortunately, the Government seems to have a slim chance of winning. Therefore, there are some people who query whether the CFA is specifically standing out against the SAR Government. President, I would like to state clearly some basic facts.
Firstly, the CFA cannot initiate a lawsuit. Someone must bring an action before the Court for a decision. The cornerstone of the rule of law is that the Government rules according to the law and refrains from taking illegal and unconstitutional acts. President, if the SAR Government has not breached the law, it will not lose in a lawsuit. If the Government has not breached the constitutional, it will not lose in a lawsuit. If the Government is open and aboveboard, it will not lose in a lawsuit. How come the SAR Government has often lost in lawsuits? Sometimes I wonder why one does not blame the kid for being mischievous but accuse the mother for not teaching him well.
Secondly, President, the CFA makes a judgment in accordance with the law, and the law is not promulgated by the CFA. The words "Hong Kong residents" in Articles 25 and 36 of the Basic Law, which is the subject of our concern, are not written by the CFA. Instead, it was the terminology adopted by the National People's Congress (NPC) when it passed the Basic Law. This term is distinguishable from "permanent residents".
President, thirdly, the CFA is required to make a judgment based on evidence. Such evidence is neither created nor taken out from a drawer by the CFA. It is submitted by the SAR Government. The SAR Government stated that lifting the seven-year restriction will subject the finances of the SAR Government to severe constraints. However, the evidence presented by the SAR Government before the Court had contradicted its statement. Therefore, the SAR Government will definitely lose the lawsuit. President, I do not understand why the Government insisted on engaging in a lawsuit despite knowing that it would lose. Did the Government Counsel or the Department of Justice (DoJ) insist on engaging in the lawsuit? I wonder why the DoJ does not deploy a representative to the meeting today. This may be unfair to the Secretary for Justice since this mess might be left behind by his predecessor. However, during the legal proceedings, the incumbent Secretary for Justice could, upon considering all the evidence, conclude that the Government could not win the lawsuit. What is the point of proceeding knowing that it has no hope of winning?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5569
President, some people worry that owing to the ruling, more new arrivals would apply for public rental housing. President, if you take a closer look at the judgment, you will understand that the case in question is concerned with money while public rental housing involves land. Therefore, the points to be taken into account are different. However, if the arguments presented by the SAR Government before the Court fail to prove that the seven-year restriction is reasonable, President, the Government will also lose. Maybe some people will think that the Government is resorted to the trick of inflicting injury on itself by losing the lawsuit deliberately. After a few failures, it may overturn the CFA's decision by an interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPC. However, I dare not assume that the SAR Government will employ this despicable measure.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, in 1983, a Japanese director, Shohei IMAMURA, produced a film called The Ballad of Narayama, which was adapted from a Japanese novel. This film relates how a village in Japan was so impoverished that when elderly people reached the age of 70, they had to be carried deep into the mountains by their eldest sons to await their death. In this way, food would not be wasted. The families in the village were so impoverished that only the eldest sons had the right to get married, whereas other children could not, so as to prevent any population increase. The most saddening episode of all in the film is that when a household was suspected of stealing other people's food, other villagers barged into this household together to ransack and loot it, taking the opportunity to take away all the stored food, regardless of whether the food had been stolen or not. Of course, all the people in this family had to starve and they harboured a grudge against all other villagers. Subsequently, the villagers were seized by panic and fearing that having driven others to desperation, retaliation would be carried out against them, so one night, some villagers banded together and killed all the people in that family.
President, poverty, suspicion and fear eventually evolved into extermination, and no society can afford to pay such a price. Nowadays, Hong Kong is indeed also an impoverished place. What I mean is material poverty because given the monopolization in the business environment, the cost of living is very high. The cause lies in the collusion between Government and businesses that resulted in wealth disparity. However, our spiritual life is even more impoverished and as a result, in the face of the difficulties created by the Government, we want to find a scapegoat among members of the public and are 5570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 willing to be fooled by the Government. We are willing to believe in the Government, which takes the lead in bad-mouthing poor people, saying that Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) makes people indolent. We are willing to believe in the Government, which takes the lead in generating the opinion that new arrivals were a burden for Hong Kong society, saying that if 1.67 million people come to Hong Kong, Hong Kong would go under.
Of course, we also have our fears, including the political pressure exerted by the Central Authorities to assimilate Hong Kong culturally. All these fears and concerns can easily result in the social group of new arrivals taking the blame for all the wrongs. However, if society is fractured and if new arrivals and the children in impoverished families feel this current of resentment, the conflicts and contradictions between two social groups will intensify due to this kind of interactions. Our society cannot afford to pay such a price.
Of course, the Legislative Council has to exercise careful oversight to ensure that public expenditure will not be used improperly. However, we also have to provide sufficient services to support needy people. We support lobbying for the power to approve and issue One-way Permits, so that people with the genuine need of family reunion can come to Hong Kong. We must not disregard the genuine needs of the law-abiding majority because of a small number of rule breakers.
However, I am also very concerned that the comments targeting new arrivals will expand in scope to marginalize poor people as well, instead of being merely confined to new arrivals. For example, some people hold that men at the grass-roots level have the duty to get married in Hong Kong before they are 35 years old. Just now, Dr Priscilla LEUNG also talked about high-quality young people bearing children, so does she want to keep tabs on when they should get married and bear children? Is it necessary to sit an examination for a licence? I am also concerned that this kind of comments may evolve into discrimination against single mothers.
As legislators, we have the responsibility to refine and discuss policies, including the policies on family reunion, population and immigration. However, I hope that when various parties discuss these policies, they must bear in mind the need to avoid reinforcing the prejudices against specific social groups, as well as our duty to prevent prejudices from spreading.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5571
Some people hold that new arrivals are eager to apply for CSSA but in fact, many new arrivals whom we know work very hard. They take unpleasant elementary jobs that are essential to Hong Kong, for example, waste separation. Therefore, instead of complaining about the need to increase the expenditure for CSSA, the Labour Party calls on the Government to establish a recycling fund instead. The annual recurrent expenditure for it will be $2 billion and 10 000 posts can be created, mainly to carry out the recovery, separation and cleaning of household waste in local communities. This fund can enable single mothers who have family responsibilities to choose their working hours with flexibility. Instead of providing CSSA, it is more preferable for us to create employment opportunities, so that they can find work. It is only through such a proposal that an all-win situation can be achieved.
President, if society is affluent, it is easy for us to support one another. However, the litmus test of human nature is how to co-exist in the face of difficulties. I hope all of us can look at the present situation clearly. Due to the shortcomings of the Government in its population policy and social services, all kinds of problems have arisen. In view of this, I hope that the enmity of various social groups against one another would not spread because of the shortcomings of the Government in governance.
Thank you, President.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): One issue highlighted by the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal in the case related to KONG Yunming, and to which the attention of the public was drawn, is the system for approving and issuing One-way Permits (OWPs). It shows all of us how absurd the system for approving and issuing OWPs is. Take Ms KONG Yunming as an example, can she come and settle in Hong Kong, how many people like KONG Yunming can come and settle here, and what implications will their arrival have on Hong Kong? In fact, the Hong Kong Government has no way of foreseeing the backgrounds of new arrivals like Ms KONG Yunming, whether or not they would apply for CSSA after coming here, whether or not they can take care of themselves, and so on. We are absolutely in a passive position in these issues. Therefore, at that time, Donald TSANG drew a line arbitrarily but subsequently, it could not pass the legal and constitutional tests.
5572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
President, it is obvious that this situation is actually directly related to whether or not the SAR Government has the power to approve and issue OWPs. I know that whenever this issue is discussed, we have some no-go areas, that is, the pro-establishment camp would reiterate that Article 22(4) of the Basic Law is a no-go area that should be dealt with by the Central People's Government and that the SAR Government is not in a position to say anything. However, is the actual situation really like this? President, concerning the power to approve and issue OWPs, if we examine the drafting process of the entire Basic Law, it is pointed out in some articles that in the British-Hong Kong era, due to the issue of unequal treaties, the Central People's Government did not recognize the colonial Government at that time, so it would not allow the British-Hong Kong Government to have any power of approval and issuance. However, after the reunification, are the considerations no longer the same and has the Hong Kong Government ever tried to seize back the power of approval and issuance? The Central People's Government can approve the departure of its nationals for the SAR, but the power to approve the right of entry should rest in the hands of the SAR Government. Only such an arrangement can be considered reasonable and justified. I wish to raise one question: Why do the provinces on the Mainland have the power to approve and accept the change of household registration? For example, if someone with household registration in Shanghai wants to move to Guangzhou or Shenzhen, the People's Government of Guangdong Province or the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government has the power of approval, but why is Hong Kong the only place without such a power of approval, and it is not even on a par with Shenzhen or the People's Government of Guangdong Province? What kind of reasoning or rationale is this?
President, in the final analysis, trying to lobby for the power to approve and issue OWPs may be regarded as a challenge to the exercise of power by the Central Authorities, so this is a no-go area. Therefore, when Mr Vincent FANG proposed this motion in the House Committee, he also stressed that he did not differentiate between the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp, hoping that Members could deal with the matter on its merits. However, I wish to throw down a challenge here. Are Members of the pro-establishment camp going to continue to regard this matter as a no-go area and refuse to discuss how Article 22(4) of the Basic Law should operate? This is because so long as we remain in a totally passive situation, I am afraid it would be all in vain for us to discuss how great the impact and burden these people coming here on OWPs would be to Hong Kong society, be it in respect of healthcare, education or welfare. I also hope that through the debate today, Members can see how absurd LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5573 and ridiculous this arrangement on the power to approve and issue OWPs is, so as to exert pressure on the SAR Government and call on it to study again how Article 22(4) of the Basic Law should operate.
I so submit.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): The One-way Permit (OWP) Scheme has been in operation for many years, so to date, why do some barristers say all of a sudden that it is ridiculous and absurd? This is because history changes according to the news and the situation has changed with the passing of time. For matters that did not have problems in the past, why do we have problems now? Therefore, I wish to remind Members that someone would say that Hong Kong has all along been a society of immigrants and our previous generations were all immigrants. How come no problems had arisen in the past, but now, they are subject to criticisms? Are we discriminating against new arrivals and the poor? What kind of nonsense is this? Times have changed. From 1997 to the present, and it is now 2014 … I call on Members to keep their eyes open to look at what is happening in Hong Kong now.
Indeed, I have spent many years, or at least four years, on resolving this doubt. We have the mentality of living together in the same society. Once, I even wrote an article in which I used the term "gone ashore" to query if Hong Kong people have the mentality of "sharing the same table". Although there are still two seats left at a table for 12, new arrivals are not allowed to join because we do not have the time or the resources to entertain them. Do Hong Kong people have such a mentality and are they really as callous as that? My answer is in the negative.
Once new arrivals have come here and gone through all the required formalities, they are Hong Kong people, so there is no such question as discrimination. However, in the final analysis, in respect of the power to approve and issue OWPs, why does Hong Kong have no say whatsoever? Canada is a large country with abundant resources but when it comes to family reunion, it has simply shut the gate, citing the excuse that there are too many people and it cannot cope with them. Canada has shut the gate and requested this category of immigrants not to make applications for the time being. Of course, Members would say that our new arrivals are different from the type of 5574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 family reunion in Canada because in their case, it is about migration between countries, whereas we are talking about migration within a country.
In that case, I will talk to you about the matters within a country. What has been repeated many times and pointed out by countless people is: If this is considered migration within a country, why is it necessary to sort out the household registration in all instances, be it moving from Hubei to Hunan or from Tianjin to Guangzhou, whereas there is no such need just in the case of Hong Kong? Conversely, since we uphold the "one country, two systems" principle, where has the spirit of "two systems" gone now? Such a power can surely be found on the Mainland and it enables the relevant authority in Tianjin to grant emigration rights to residents of Tianjin who need to reunite with their family members in Hong Kong. However, since their destination is Hong Kong, how come Hong Kong does not have the power to approve entry?
The Security Bureau said yesterday that it did not see the need or justification for Hong Kong to reclaim the power to approve and issue OWPs at all. The phrase used by Mr Alan LEONG just now was to "seize back". Why is it necessary to retake such power? Because the Mainland is really reluctant to let go of it. I once had an idea that I described as "daft", that is, to let Hong Kong play a part in exercising the power to approve and issue OWPs. What part can Hong Kong play? It is nothing more than having meetings together, so that it is informed of the relevant arrangements, then it will be asked to step aside.
I have a report in my hand and it is related to a case now being dealt with by the Court. Someone applied for as many as seven grown-up children to come to Hong Kong but subsequently, it was exposed that four of them were actually the nieces and nephews of the applicant, yet the Immigration Department did not take any action. It was only six years later that those four people were contacted and it was pointed out that their applications were apparently unlawful. Subsequently, it was only in 2010 that the authorities decided they had come to Hong Kong illegally. However, they claimed they had already been in Hong Kong for a decade and that it was not humane to ask them to leave. I also find this apparently inhumane but can this be considered a justification? The Government does not care at all. May I ask how many similar cases there are? Can anyone say that this cannot be considered a justification?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5575
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the latest ruling of the Court of Final Appeal may be the most controversial in recent years. It has also driven Hong Kong as a whole to ponder on and discuss its welfare policy, migration policy, as well as some issues concerning principals. I notice that some people consider that the CFA's ruling has fallen short of their expectation, paying no heed to public sentiments and the existing situation in society.
President, the Court cannot make any defence on the accusation resulted from its ruling. As a Member from the legal sector, I am obliged to defend the Court and the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong.
Under the principle of separation of powers, the Court, in general, will respect the power, role and expertise of the executive authorities in formulating and implementing policies, and hence the Court will avoid as far as possible intervening in or overturning the administration and policies of the Government. The Court will also, in general, avoid intervening in controversies involving social and economic policies as far as possible. However, it does not mean that the Court will remain uninvolved in all circumstances. It is particularly so when the executive authorities are apparently lacking a sound foundation for implementing certain policy. The Court has no alternative but to announce that the policy is unconstitutional or ineffective.
In the present case, the Government has raised the residence requirement for applying Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) on the grounds of the economic conditions stipulated in Article 145 of the Basic Law. However, we all know that the Government is holding a reserve of trillion dollars and has recorded fiscal surpluses of tens of billions of dollars every year for a prolonged period. Besides, according to the figures provided by the Government, the policy concerned will only save $700-odd million. The ruling of the Court points out that the justification of the Government in this aspect is inadequate to form a reasonable foundation, and the Court thus decides to overturn the policy. I also believe that even for those who disagree with the ruling of the Court, they will agree that it is utterly unjustified for the wealthy SAR Government to defend its case on the ground of saving money.
In fact, the Judges, like the general public in Hong Kong, will watch television and read newspapers, so they can definitely grasp the public sentiment and predict the reactions of the public in response to their ruling. Yet how should the Court decide eventually?
5576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
Last year, at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Mr Geoffrey MA had made the following explanation, and I quote "The core-activity of the courts is to administer justice in accordance with the law. I am often asked whether the courts take into account the public interest when deciding cases, particularly those cases which involve public law or constitutional principles. Of course they do but this does not mean that in the determination of cases, the courts will look to what sectors of the public or the majority of the public or even the Government may desire as the outcome in any given case. That is not what is meant by the public interest. The public interest that is served by the courts is in the adherence to fundamental concepts of fairness, dignity and justice in the application of the law. I refer to these fundamental concepts because the courts are mandated to apply not just the content of the law but, sometimes more importantly, its spirit. But it is always the law and its spirit that dominate. No one, no institution is above the law." This is the public interest which the Court has to defend and is of utmost importance.
President, it is natural that the ruling of judges will not satisfy everyone. However, I hope that people with different views will respect and try to understand the ruling of the Court. This is also the best way for Hong Kong people to defend the rule of law together. I hope we can work together in this regard. Thank you, President.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is most proud of its rule of law, even though the rule of law may hinder social development, as in the case that a member of the public applied for judicial review, thus slowing down the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Sometimes, the rule of law will affect social atmosphere, for example, in the CHONG Fung-yuen case, it was decided that children born of Chinese nationals in Hong Kong were entitled to the right of abode in Hong Kong, thus leading to strong reactions in society.
However, the law is the law. It is said that "without rules, nothing can be done" and that "without law, a country cannot be governed; without law, people have nothing to count on". Law is the cornerstone of social order. This time around, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruled that the seven-year residence requirement for eligibility for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) imposed on new arrivals is unconstitutional. This ruling has caused unease and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5577 concern among the public and even social divisions and conflicts between China and Hong Kong. However, the most direct impact is surely the onerous burden on public finance. However, we definitely cannot behave like a sore loser unwilling to accept defeat. We must respect the rule of law. Otherwise, we are not following the rules and Hong Kong would no longer be Hong Kong, nor would it be the Hong Kong that I know.
However, I have great reservation about the legal requirement that one is eligible for CSSA after having settled in Hong Kong for one year. I believe that in the final analysis, if one can apply for CSSA only after having settled in Hong Kong for seven years, this will give new arrivals a greater impetus in looking for work and becoming self-reliant. I have personally visited many families of new arrivals. No matter how great their difficulties are and even though they live in "sub-divided units" or "cage homes", they all work very hard and with dedication, particularly for the sake of the living of their children in Hong Kong, thus keeping the spirit of "Under the Lion Rock" in Hong Kong alive. However, if they are allowed to apply for CSSA after having resided in Hong Kong for one year, it is inevitable that they would show weakness in the face of difficulties. Here, I must make it clear that we certainly have to help people who are incapable of becoming self-reliant. What we are focusing on is a group of people who are capable of doing so. We do not want them to depend on CSSA. I totally understand that quite a number of members of the public are very dissatisfied with the ruling that dispensed with the seven-year residence requirement for being eligible to apply for CSSA, and it is those new arrivals who are capable but have not done their best that they are against. Hong Kong people have a heart and a sense of justice. They would not hesitate in the slightest in helping members of the grassroots who are genuinely in need.
In fact, all along, apart from the law, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) has also taken into account various compassionate grounds. In 2004, when the residence requirement for CSSA applicants was changed from one year to seven years, the Director of Social Welfare has all along exercised his power of discretion to provide assistance to CSSA applicants who could not meet the residence requirement, so new arrivals in plight also have the opportunity to receive CSSA. In the past nine years, 14 000 applications were approved at discretion and Hong Kong people have never levelled the slightest criticism at this. There are quite a lot of voices in society expressing the hope that the Hong Kong Government would seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from the National People's Congress to overturn the ruling of the CFA. However, if we 5578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 weigh the pros and cons, Hong Kong should not make inroads into the judgment of the Court lightly, thus eroding the rule of law and saving a little only to lose a lot.
I am worried that this incident will aggravate the conflicts and fracture between China and Hong Kong. The reactions of some members of the public to this incident were quite emotional. If the Government does not handle this matter carefully, it is a bomb that will explode at any time. Moreover, it will get out of control. On the public concerns that the ruling will have far-reaching implications and the applications for CSSA by new arrivals will create a bottomless pit, I absolutely understand them. Many friends and members of the public reflect to me that some people even believe it is necessary to block the entry of Mainland people for family reunion at all costs.
Here, I wish to stately clearly that the quota for One-way Permits for Mainland people coming to Hong Kong for family reunion is 150 per day and in the third quarter of 2013, an average of 136 permits were issued daily. Even if the quota of 150 permits is exhausted in the future, the increase would only be about 20 compared to the figure at present. Even if all new arrivals apply for CSSA after living here for one year, the increase in expenditure would only be a limited figure. We estimate that if the number of new arrivals eligible to apply for CSSA returns to the pre-2004 level, the effect on the annual expenditure for CSSA will amount to less than $2 billion. We would surely feel the pinch but I do not think the money will be exhausted all at once.
A core value of Hong Kong has all along been our compliance with the law and making sacrifices for the sake of respecting the rule of law, and even to defend it staunchly at all costs. To me, there is no choice but to compromise but it is also worthwhile to do so.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I fully understand the worries of society towards the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal. Upon the announcement of the ruling, there are many voices in the community, as well as in the legislature, pointing out that a large number of new arrivals from the Mainland will apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) after the residence requirement is lifted, thus reducing Hong Kong people's entitlement in resources. Such comments will naturally make the general public in Hong Kong extremely worried.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5579
For the past many years, the Government has emphasized from time to time the need to combat CSSA abuse cases, but it has not responded to the labelling and allegation that "CSSA makes people lazy". As a result, some Hong Kong people would regard welfare recipient as "lazy bones", causing a labelling effect on the applicants of CSSA. President, I agree that the Government should combat CSSA abuse cases, for able-bodied adults should be self-reliant and should not apply for CSSA unless when necessary. However, as a responsible Government, it is obliged to clarify the comments in the community and prevent any labelling effects of CSSA recipients.
Over an extended period in the past, many academics and colleagues in this Chamber have pointed out that most of the CSSA recipients were the elderly; able-bodied people with working capacity did not take up a large number among CSSA applicants. Regrettably, the Government only focuses on urging the public not to abuse CSSA, but has seldom mentioned the importance of CSSA in serving as the safety net of society.
Regarding the current situation, the attitude of the Government is also disappointing. Why do so many people feel scared and worried? It is rightly because of the lack of information. We cannot deny the remark made by many people that some CSSA recipients have withheld information about their properties outside Hong Kong. If the Social Welfare Department (SWD) can tell the public that the Mainland Government will provide the SWD bank deposit records of suspected cases, I believe most Hong Kong people will feel at ease. I believe the SWD is capable of preventing new arrivals from withholding information about their assets in the Mainland in order to apply for CSSA.
If the Secretary indicates that the SWD is incapable of conducting certain investigation in the Mainland due to its restricted power, the Government should sign an agreement or a memorandum with the Mainland as soon as possible to ensure that an open and transparent investigation system will be put in place. This is the only way to allay the worries of the public and put their mind at ease. But regrettably, the Secretary has not clearly informed us how the SWD will play its gate-keeping role.
President, I believe most people of Hong Kong are rational and sympathetic. The elderly, the new arrivals or any able-bodied adults who need emergency assistance can, at any time, apply for the CSSA if they have genuine needs. Society will undoubtedly support them. However, the public will 5580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 definitely consider it unacceptable if certain CSSA applicants have withhold information concerning their overseas assets due to the incapability of the Government in fulfilling its gate-keeping role. Such practice will give taxpayers the impression that the CSSA Scheme for providing assistance to the needy has been turned into a cash withdrawal machine for those who concealed the facts. How unfortunate it is. Besides, Hong Kong people with genuine needs will be labelled and implicated.
Hence, the problem arising from the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal is not about whether Hong Kong can afford the expenses arising from applications of new arrivals for CSSA. As colleagues have analysed, we may have some problems but they are definitely not insurmountable. Indeed, the ruling has prompted the Government to explain how the SWD will carry out proper investigation, how it will ensure that the CSSA Scheme will not be abused and how it will ensure that applicants will be prevented from withholding information concerning their assets outside Hong Kong, so that taxpayers are assured that the resources they pay are really used for helping Hong Kong people in need. The investigation work of the SWD must be transparent and open in order to convince Hong Kong people. Such investigations can also provide a buffer to solve problems that may arise, including social conflicts, conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland and social division.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, it is stipulated in Article 36 of the Basic Law that Hong Kong residents shall have the right to social welfare. If restriction is to be imposed on certain residents, such as new arrivals, the practice must be reasonable and in proportion. The Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme now under discussion is a safety net under the welfare policy, which aims at helping people in need to meet their basic needs, so that they will not suffer from hunger, cold and difficulties threatening their survival. The provision of fundamental protection to the needy is also one of the obligations Hong Kong upon signing the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
As for the CSSA Scheme now under examination, Members should know clearly that before 2004, this system which had been implemented since the 1970s only restricted new arrivals from applying CSSA during their first year of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5581 residence in Hong Kong, and applications were allowed after one year residence. However, after 2004, the Government changed this policy on residence requirement, requiring new arrivals to reside in Hong Kong for seven years in order to be eligible for applying CSSA. The ruling of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) required the authorities to reinstate the requirement to one year residence. Actually, when the Government changed the residence requirement for new arrivals from one year to seven years back then, it had indeed taken the lead to discriminate against new arrivals, which had also caused social division.
Upon the implementation of this policy, many unfair cases have arisen in society. We often receive complaints from many newly arrived women, who have not met the seven-year residence requirement, about their hardship and the need to live on "Pot Rice", not the tasty "Pot Rice with Chinese preserved sausages". President, I believe Members should have come across this term. The saying of living on "Pot Rice" refers to the situation in which newly arrived women from single parent families have to live on the CSSA payment of their children since they have not met the seven-year residence requirement and are not eligible for CSSA and cannot go out to work. Under this situation, they can only "live on" CSSA payment of their children. In other words, the "Pot Rice" has to be shared by the parents and their children.
Members can imagine the situation. The CSSA payment for children only takes into account the basic needs of the children, but not the daily expense of his or her mother or carer. If the mother or carer is not eligible for CSSA, how can they take care of the children? Therefore, in the case of parents having to live on CSSA payment of the children, many grass-roots newly arrived women have complained about their woes and plights. This policy has forced these families, both parents and children, to lead a poverty-stricken life.
President, does our society have the means to restore their lives to a relatively humane condition? Just consider, given the advancement and prosperity of our society, should we allow certain Hong Kong residents who suffer from hunger and cold to remain helpless and with no assistance provided? If that is the case, can we convince ourselves and have peace of mind about this situation? For this reason, the Democratic Party supports the ruling of the CFA.
Certainly, we understand that this ruling does not imply Hong Kong will have to open all of its social welfare (including housing) to all. This is not the spirit of the ruling. However, we must face squarely that the seven-year 5582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 residence requirement adopted in the past has caused certain people to live in hardship.
Recently, there are many comments accusing the new arrivals for snatching what we have and our welfare benefits, yet I believe this is only a wrong impression. We hope that the ruling will bring forth a more humane situation. All of us should remove the negative tags we put on newly arrived women. Not all of them intend to compete for welfare with Hong Kong people, as we may think. In fact, many newly arrived women come to Hong Kong to play the role as uncompensated carers, who may have to take care of their elderly family members, husbands and children. They have contributed great labour to Hong Kong, should we turn a blind eye to their plight and let them suffer from hunger and cold?
With these remarks, President, I urge Members to discuss the subject in a rational manner.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I absolutely respect the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), and we do not discriminate against new arrivals. However, this ruling made by the CFA has indeed aroused strong reactions in various sectors of the community as people are afraid that a domino effect would be resulted once this precedent is set. Since this ruling was made, some 1 400 applications have been received and there have been people seeking a judicial review on the eligibility for applying for public rental housing.
An opinion poll conducted by the Liberal Party recently has found that over 80% of the respondents are worried about the CFA ruling triggering a wave of applications for social welfare. I have read an article recently in which it is said that if the welfare system of a place is too lax, it will attract an influx of immigrants from nearby places. This phenomenon is known as "welfare magnet". This article cited a case that happened between the 1980s and 1990s when the welfare handout in Wisconsin of the United States was more generous than that in the adjacent Illinois (the two states are actually not far apart from each other) and hence attracted many people to move to Wisconsin pretending to be living there. Many academics had subsequently conducted studies to look into how this phenomenon could be prevented.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5583
Indeed, most Hong Kong people are very concerned about the door of the Government's Treasury being thrown wide open as a result. Recently there have been reports in the media that there are advertisements in the Mainland enticing business by claiming that "one-stop" services are provided for emigration to Hong Kong with guarantees for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) payment. We all know that there are cases of abuse of CSSA and CSSA recipients obtaining CSSA through deception from time and time. The most typical example is a couple who went to Thailand for holiday with their CSSA payment obtained by deception in 2004 and was caught in the South Asian tsunami during the trip. The amount involved was as much as over $100,000.
Certainly, we understand that the Hong Kong Government does not have the power to vet and approve applications for One-way Permit. But the former Head of the Central Policy Unit, Prof LAU Siu-kai, said some time ago in an interview on television that the policy on One-way Permit is not a hard and fast rule as adjustments had been made to it before. He added that the One-way Permit quota has kept on changing over the years and therefore, it is not necessarily the case that negotiation with the Central Authorities is out of the question. As Mr Vincent FANG has mentioned earlier, we will initiate a signature campaign among Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress and Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, in order to convey the concerns of Hong Kong people to the Central Authorities. The Liberal Party is of the view that the SAR Government should proactively request the Central Authorities to revise the existing vetting and approval criteria.
President, I so submit.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) has been met with strong reactions. However, I think the ruling has done justice and upheld righteousness, and it is fair, reasonable and lawful. As pointed out by WONG Hung, an academic from The Chinese University of Hong Kong, the ruling is absolutely fair and reasonable, for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) is a safety net providing assistance to the needy to meet their basic needs. The official definition is that: "The CSSA Scheme provides a safety net for those who cannot support themselves financially, and it is designed to bring their income up to a prescribed level to meet their basic needs."
5584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
President, though CSSA is a safety net, there may be holes in the net, leaving people, who should have been protected by this safety net, outside the net and thus can hardly survive. If CSSA is to serve as a safety net in society, it will be illogical to say that "since you fail to meet with the residence requirement, you will not be protected by this safety net and you will be left to fall".
The welfare safety net should provide protection according to needs but not the residence period of applicants. If the applicants are lawful residents of Hong Kong, they are one of us and they should be protected with our resources and under our system. Once they have needs, we have to provide assistance.
What kind of people cannot support themselves financially? President, among the CSSA recipients, over half of them are elderly persons, about 10% are persons with disabilities, the chronically ill and single parents. The sum of these two figures is already close to 70%. The authorities presume that these people are not independent financially. The recipients also include the working poor and about 10% of the recipients are those who are capable of working but are unemployed. Why do we require applicants to meet the residence requirement in order to be protected by the safety net? This concept is utterly wrong and inconsistent with the objective of CSSA being a safety net. As such, the CFA has actually righted the wrong this time.
Some people worry that the ruling will result in a big disaster, forcing the Government to spend all its money. This situation cannot happen. The CSSA Scheme has been implemented for many years. The residence requirement had all along been set at one year since 1970, and it was only changed to seven years on 1 January 2014. Nothing had ever happened to Hong Kong over the years. Had the treasury spent all the money on CSSA payments before 2004? No. Though Mr TAM Yiu-chung said earlier that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong estimated there would be an increase in expenditure of $2 billion every year, the amount only accounts for about 10% of the overall expenditure of CSSA. Will Hong Kong fall because of this? It is simply impossible. The CSSA Scheme should provide protection according to needs of applicants but not their residence period.
This present change will help a lot of families. Come to think about this, who will be coming to Hong Kong under the existing quota of 150 for One-way Permits? A vast majority of them will be women and children. In the past, I have seen many women and children silently tolerating domestic violence LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5585 because of the seven-year residence requirement. These women and children dared not leave despite suffering from family violence, for even if they leave, they will not be able to get any help they need. Many family tragedies had taken place for this reason. The residence requirement has caused dreadful hardship to many new arrival families. The residence requirement is actually a kind of system-wise discrimination. For the sake of saving resources … In my view, the ruling of the CFA is worthy of in-depth reading by Hong Kong people, so that they will understand clearly the spirit of the CSSA Scheme.
It is stipulated in Article 36 of the Basic Law that Hong Kong residents shall have the right to social welfare. This right should not be deprived and the Government is empowered to formulate welfare policies in the light of the economic conditions and social needs. However, the policies should be found on strong societal aim and the Government cannot reduce the welfare we have been enjoying.
The objective of CSSA is to help the people most in need. If the Government does not help people most in need (The buzzer sounded) … we will lose our people's right.
Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is now 6.27 pm. According to the Rules of Procedure, the speaking time for Members is up, and Members waiting to speak cannot speak.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to reply.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Vincent FANG for tonight's motion and 16 Members for their valuable and insightful views on the ruling of the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) concerning the residence requirement of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) and related matters. According to the CFA's ruling, the seven-year residence requirement is unconstitutional and the one-year residence requirement before 1 January 2004 should be restored.
5586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014
As I pointed out in my reply to the oral question by Mr James TIEN yesterday morning, the Social Welfare Department (SWD) will tie in with the CFA's ruling and process the applications according to the applicable procedures in an expeditious manner. The Government will not request for an interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in relation to the ruling on this case.
I would like to point out that in November last year, there were approximately 261 000 CSSA cases with the total number of recipients falling below 400 000 or around 397 000. The number of cases is the lowest since September 2002 and has been falling for 32 months.
Apart from providing the final safety net for people who are in financial difficulties, the Government has all along ensured that the social security system will enable the recipients to look to the future. To achieve this goal, the Government's approach is to encourage and assist able-bodied CSSA recipients to secure employment in order to move towards self-reliance.
In addition to the existing employment assistance services, the SWD will launch a pilot scheme in April this year for exploring the feasibility of providing financial incentives to further encourage the unemployed CSSA recipients to exert their utmost and leave the CSSA net, that is, to get employed. It is expected that 2 000 recipients will join the scheme.
The figures and measures I mentioned just now, to a certain extent, can reflect that the majority of Hong Kong people wish to improve their livelihood with their own efforts. In recent years, the Government has introduced a series of poverty alleviation measures and employment incentives, including the Statutory Minimum Wage, Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme and various projects under the Community Care Fund. Coupled with the flourishing economy and strong demand for labour, employment opportunity has increased. Meanwhile, the Government has vigorously enhanced the training and employment support for new immigrants. All these initiatives will help prevent new immigrants and the general public from falling into the CSSA net.
To ensure the effective use of public funds, the SWD has performed its gate-keeping role strictly. It endeavors to combat fraud and abuse of CSSA, including setting up a mechanism for the public to report fraud, conducting in-depth investigation into suspected fraud cases and regular case reviews, as well LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5587 as arranging data matching with other government departments and relevant organizations, including organizations outside Hong Kong, so as to verify the authenticity of data.
The SWD has also set up the Special Investigation Section, specialized in detecting fraud and abuse of social security benefits. In addition, eight retired officers from the discipline forces have been appointed as fraud investigation advisors. In 2012-2013, for instance, a total of 184 CSSA recipients were sentenced to imprisonment after being found guilty.
We are very concerned about the CFA's ruling on the judicial review case relating to the residence requirement for CSSA. I would like to point out that people under 18 years old have been exempted from the seven-year residence requirement since its implementation by the SWD in January 2004. The CFA has also indicated that the Government may continue to waive the residence requirement for the persons concerned. In addition, regarding the new arrivals who are 18 years old and above and are really facing difficulties, the SWD may exercise discretion and grant CSSA payment to them. In fact, from January 2004 to the end of October last year, the SWD has grant approval by discretion to 14 000-odd CSSA applications involving persons not fulfilling the seven-year residence requirement. The mechanism of the Government is always flexible.
To relax the residence requirement for CSSA from seven years to one year will increase the public spending on the CSSA Scheme. As I said yesterday, we have received a total of 1 407 applications in the first three weeks. The actual impact of the Court's ruling on the relevant public spending largely depends on the financial situation of the new arrivals and new immigrants who have come to Hong Kong for some time and their desire to apply for CSSA. The Government will be able to make more accurate projection of the impact by the judgment on public finances after the new requirement has been implemented for a certain period of time.
However, there are several points which are worth noting. In the past 10-odd years, the education level and family income of new arrivals have been on the rise. For example, the proportion of new arrivals who are 15 years old or above and have been resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years having attained secondary education or above rose from 68% in 2001 to 85% in 2011. Moreover, new arrivals who possess tertiary education background increased from 6% in 2001 to 16%. As regards the monthly median household income, 5588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 the figure increased from $12,050 in 2001 to $14,070 in 2011, representing a 20% growth.
I must state that the CFA's decision is actually only directed at the CSSA Scheme. Everyone is clear that different welfare measures and public service programmes, such as public rental housing, are running under separate policy objectives, focuses and backgrounds. The CFA did not conflate every governmental assistance programmes, and in fact, the CFA had explicitly stated that the decision should not be widely applicable to the application arrangements of other schemes.
Furthermore, there are suggestions that the applicants' financial means should be made one of the criteria of assessing the eligibility for One-way Permit (OWP) and even the right to vet and approve OWP applications should be taken back. Under the Basic Law, the application, approval and issue of OWP fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities. Under the policy objective of family reunion, the Mainland authorities have set out open and transparent approval criteria.
Hong Kong and the Mainland have frequent economic and cultural exchanges and are closely related. In fact, in recent years, amongst the marriages registered in Hong Kong, about 35% are between Mainlanders and Hong Kong residents. Since the reunification, amongst the people who arrived in Hong Kong through the OWP system, 98%, which are the vast majority of cases, involved reunion with their spouses or parents. The minority of cases are reunion with children or unsupported children coming to Hong Kong to join their relatives. Therefore, the Hong Kong SAR Government considers that there is no need to change the existing OWP system.
President, as I have pointed out earlier, the Government will closely monitor the impact of the CFA's decision on public finances and will conduct a comprehensive assessment in order to make a comprehensive account. On the other hand, the Government will continue by various measures to encourage able-bodied CSSA recipients to become self-reliant, contribute to society and eventually leave the safety net.
President, I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 9 January 2014 5589
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question and that is: That this Council do now adjourn. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday, 15 January 2014.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Seven o'clock.